第6章

inthepetitionfromvariousownersandproprietorsatArmley，who’atthe

instanceofseveralotherownersofland，’signedapetitionforenclosure

andwishtobeheardagainstit，andalsointheunavailingpetitionofsome

oftheproprietorsandfreeholdersofWinfrithNewburghinDorsetshire，in

1768，(21*)whodeclaredthatiftheBillpassedintolaw，their’Estates

mustbetotallyruinedthereby，andthatsomeofthePetitionersbyThreats

andMenaceswereprevailedupontosignthePetitionforthesaidBill：but

uponRecollection，andconsideringtheimpendingRuin，’theyprayedto’have

LibertytoretractfromtheirseemingAcquiescence。’Fromthesamecasewe

learnthatitwasthepracticesometimestograntcopyholdsonthecondition

thatthetenantwouldundertakenottoopposeenclosure。Sometimes，asin

thecaseoftheSedgmoorEnclosure，whichweshalldiscusslater，actual

fraudwasemployed。Butevenifthepromotersemployednounfairmethods

theyhadoneargumentpowerfulenoughtobeadeterrentinmanyminds。For

anopposedEnclosureBillwasmuchmoreexpensivethananunopposedBill，

andasthesmallmenfelttheburdenofthecostsmuchmorethanthelarge

proprietors，theywouldnaturallybeshyofaddingtotheveryheavyexpenses

unlesstheystoodaverygoodchanceofdefeatingthescheme。

Itisofcapitalimportancetorememberinthisconnectionthattheenumeration

of’consents’tookaccountonlyofproprietors。Itignoredentirelytwolarge

classestowhomenclosuremeant，notagreaterorlessdegreeofwealth，

butactualruin。Theseweresuchcottagersasenjoyedtheirrightsofcommon

invirtueofrentingcottagestowhichsuchrightswereattached，andthose

cottagersandsquatterswhoeitherhadnostrictlegalright，orwhoserights

weredifficultofproof。Neitheroftheseclasseswastreatedevenoutwardly

andformallyashavinganyclaimtobeconsultedbeforeanenclosurewas

sanctioned。

Itisclear，then，thatitwasonlythepressureofthepowerfulinterests

thatdecidedwhetheracommitteeshouldapproveordisapproveofanEnclosure

Bill。ItwasthesamepressurethatdeterminedtheforminwhichaBillbecame

law。Foraprocedurethatenabledrichmentofightouttheirrivalclaims

atWestminsterlefttheclassesthatcouldnotsendcounseltoParliament

withoutaweaponoravoice。Andiftherewasnolawyertheretoputhis

case，whatprospectwastherethattheobscurecottager，whowastobeturned

adriftwithhisfamilybyanEnclosureBillpromotedbyaMemberorgroup

ofMembers，wouldevertroubletheconscienceofacommitteeoflandowners？

Wehaveseenalreadyhowthisclasswasregardedbythelandownersandthe

championsofenclosure。Nocottagershadvotesorthemeansofinfluencing

asinglevoteatasingleelection。ToParliament，iftheyhadanyexistence

atall，theyweremerelydimshadowsintheverybackgroundoftheenclosure

scheme。Itwouldrequireaconsiderableeffortoftheimaginationtosuppose

thattheParliamentaryCommitteespentverymuchtimeorenergyontheattempt

togivebodyandformtothishazyandremotesociety，andtotreatthese

shadowsaslivingmenandwomen，abouttobetossedbythisrevolutionfrom

theirancestralhomes。Asithappens，weneednotputourselvestothetrouble

ofsuchspeculation，forwehavetheevidenceofawitnesswhowillnotbe

suspectedofinjusticetohisclass。’ThisIknow，’saidLordLincoln(22*)

introducingtheGeneralEnclosureBillof1845，’thatinnineteencasesout

oftwenty，CommitteesofthisHousesittingonprivateBillsneglectedthe

rightsofthepoor。Idonotsaythattheywilfullyneglectedthoserights——

farfromit：butthisIaffirm，thattheywereneglectedinconsequence

oftheCommitteesbeingpermittedtoremaininignoranceoftheclaimsof

thepoorman，becausebyreasonofhisverypovertyheisunabletocome

uptoLondonforcounsel，toproducewitnesses，andtourgehisclaimsbefore

aCommitteeofthisHouse。’AnotherMember(23*)haddescribedayearearlier

thecharacterofthisprivateBillprocedure。’InclosureBillshadbeenintroduced

heretoforeandpassedwithoutdiscussion，andnoonecouldtellhowmany

personshadsufferedintheirinterestsandrightsbytheinterferenceof

theseBills。CertainlytheseBillshadbeenreferredtoCommitteesupstairs，

buteveryoneknewhowtheseCommitteesweregenerallyconducted。Theywere

attendedonlybyhonourableMemberswhowereinterestedinthem，beingLords

ofManor，andtherightsofthepoor，thoughtheymightbetalkedabout，

hadfrequentlybeentakenawayunderthatsystem。’

Thesestatementsweremadebypoliticianswhorememberedwellthesystem

theyweredescribing。Thereisanotherwitnesswhoseauthorityisevengreater。

In1781LordThurlow，thenatthebeginningofhislonglifeofofficeas

LordChancellor，(24*)spokeforanhourandthreequartersinfavourofrecommitting

theBillforenclosingIlmingtoninWarwickshire。Ifthespeechhadbeen

fullyreporteditwouldbeacontributionofinfinitevaluetostudentsof

thesocialhistoryofeighteenth-centuryEngland，forwearetoldthathe

proceededtoexamine，paragraphbyparagraph，everyprovisionoftheBill，

animadvertingandpointingoutsomeactsofinjustice，partiality，obscurity

orcauseofconfusionineach。’(25*)Unfortunatelythispartofhisspeech

wasomittedinthereportasbeing’irrelativetothedebate，’whichwas

concernedwiththequestionoftheproprietyofcommutingtithes。Butthe

report，incompleteasitis，containsanilluminatingpassageontheconduct

ofPrivateBillCommittees。’HisLordship……nextturnedhisattentionto

themodeinwhichprivatebillswerepermittedtomaketheirwaythrough

bothHouses，andthatinmattersinwhichpropertywasconcerned，tothe

greatinjuryofmany，ifnotthetotalruinofsomeprivatefamilies：many

proofsofthisevilhadcometohisknowledgeasamemberoftheotherHouse，

notafewinhisprofessionalcharacter，beforehehadthehonourofaseat

inthatHouse，norhadhebeenatotalstrangertosuchevilssincehewas

calledupontopresideinanotherplace。’Goingontospeakofthecommittees

oftheHouseofCommonsand’therapiditywithwhichprivateBillswerehurried

through，’hedeclaredthat’itwasnotunfrequenttodecideuponthemerits

ofaBillwhichwouldaffectthepropertyandinterestsofpersonsinhabiting

adistrictofseveralmilesinextent，inlesstimethanittookhimtodetermine

upontheproprietyofissuinganorderforafewpounds，bywhichnoman’s

propertycouldbeinjured。’HeconcludedbytellingtheHouseofLordsa

storyofhowSirGeorgeSavileoncenoticedaman’rathermeanlyhabited’

watchingtheproceedingsofacommitteewithanxiousinterest。Whenthecommittee

hadagreedonitsreport，theagitatedspectatorwasseentobeingreat

distress。SirGeorgeSavileaskedhimwhatwasthematter，andhefoundthat

themanwouldberuinedbyaclausethathadbeenpassedbythecommittee，

andthat，havingheardthattheBillwastobeintroduced，hehadmadehis

waytoLondononfoot，toopoortocomeinanyotherwayortofeecounsel。

Savilethenmadeinquiriesandlearntthatthesestatementswerecorrect，

whereuponhesecuredtheamendmentoftheBill，’bywhichmeansaninnocent，

indigentmanandhisfamilywererescuedfromdestruction。’Itwouldnot

havebeenveryeasyfora’meanlyhabitedman’tomakethejourneytoLondon

fromWakefieldorKnaresboroughorHauteHuntre，evenifheknewwhenaBill

wascomingon，andtostayinLondonuntilitwentintocommittee；andif

hedid，hewouldnotalwaysbesoluckyastofindaSirGeorgeSavileon

thecommittee——thepublicmanwhowasregardedbyhiscontemporaries，to

whateverpartytheybelonged，astheBayardofpolitics。(26*)

Wegetveryfewglimpsesintotheunderworldofthecommonandobscure

people，whosehomesandfortunestrembledonthechancethataquarrelover

tithesandtheconflictingclaimsofsquireandparsonmightdisturbthe

unanimityofascoreofgentlemensittingroundatable。Londonwasfaraway，

andtheOlympianpeaceofParliamentwasrarelybrokenbytheprotestsof

itsvictims。ButwegetonesuchglimpseinapassageintheAnnualRegister

for1767。

’OnTuesdayeveningagreatnumberoffarmerswereobservedgoingalong

PallMallwithcockadesintheirhats。Onenquiringthereason，itappeared

theyalllivedinorneartheparishofStanwellinthecountyofMiddlesex，

andtheywerereturningtotheirwivesandfamiliestocarrythemtheagreeable

newsofaBillbeingrejectedforinclosingthesaidcommon，whichifcarried

intoexecution，mighthavebeentheruinofagreatnumberoffamilies。’(27*)

WhentheCommitteeontheEnclosureBillhadreportedtotheHouseof

Commons，therestoftheproceedingsweregenerallyformal。TheBillwas

readathirdtime，engrossed，sentuptotheLords，wherepetitionsmight

bepresentedasintheCommons，andreceivedtheRoyalAssent。

AstudyofthepagesofHansardandDebretttellsuslittleabouttransactions

thatfilltheJournalsoftheHousesofParliament。Threedebatesinthe

HouseofLordsarefullyreported，(28*)andtheyillustratetheplayofforces

atWestminster。TheBishopofSt。Davids(29*)movedtorecommitanEnclosure

Billin1781onthegroundthat，likemanyotherEnclosureBills，itprovided

forthecommutationoftithes——anarrangementwhichhethoughtopento

manyobjections。Herewasanissuethatwasvital，foritconcernedtheinterests

oftheclassesrepresentedinParliament。DidtheChurchstandtogainor

tolosebytakinglandinsteadoftithe？Wasitabadthingoragoodthing

thattheparsonshouldbeputintothepositionofafarmer，thatheshould

beunderthetemptationtoenterintoanarrangementwiththelandlordwhich

mightprejudicehissuccessor，thatheshouldberelievedfromasystemwhich

oftencausedbadbloodbetweenhimandhisparishioners？Wouldit’makehim

neglectthesacredfunctionsofhisministry’astheBishopofSt。Davids

feared，orwoulditimprovehisusefulnessbyrescuinghimfromasituation

inwhich’thepastorwastotallysunkinthetithecollector’astheBishop

ofPeterborough(30*)hoped，andwasamanabetterparsonontheSundayfor

beingafarmertherestoftheweekasLordCoventrybelieved？Thebishops

andthepeershadinthisdiscussionasubjectthattouchedverynearlythe

livesandinterestsofthemselvesandtheirfriends，andtherewasaconsiderable

andanimateddebate，(31*)attheendofwhichtheHouseofLordsapproved

theprincipleofcommutingtithesinEnclosureBills。Thisdebatewasfollowed

byanotheron6thApril，whenLordBathurst(PresidentoftheCouncil)as

acounterblasttohiscolleagueontheWoolsack，moved，butafterwardswithdrew，

aseriesofresolutionsonthesamesubject。Inthecourseofthisdebate

Thurlow，whothoughtperhapsthathiszealfortheChurchhadsurprisedand

irritatedhisfellowpeers，amongwhomhewasnotconspicuousinlifeasa

practisingChristian，explainedthatthoughhewaszealousfortheChurch，

’hiszealwasnotpartialorconfinedtotheChurch，furtherthanitwas

connectedwiththeothergreatnationalestablishments，ofwhichitformed

apart，andnoinconsiderableone。’TheBishopofSt。Davidsreturnedto

thesubjectonthe14thJune，movingtorecommittheBillforenclosingKington

inWorcestershire。Hereadastringofresolutionswhichhewishedtosee

appliedtoallfutureEnclosureBills，inordertodefendtheinterestsof

theclergyfrom’theoppressionsoftheLordoftheManor，landowners，etc。’

Thurlowspokeforhim，buthewasdefeatedby24votesto4，hisonlyother

supportersbeingLordGallowayandtheBishopofLincoln。

Thurlow’sstoryofSirGeorgeSavile’s’meanlyhabitedman’didnotdisturb

theconfidenceoftheHouseofLordsinthejusticeoftheexistingprocedure

towardsthepoor：theenclosuredebatesrevolvesolelyroundthequestion

oftherelativeclaimsofthelordofthemanorandthetithe-owner。The

HouseofCommonswasequallyfreefromscrupleormisgiving。Onepetitioner

in1800commentedontheextraordinaryhastewithwhichaNewForestBill

waspushedthroughParliament，andsuggestedthatifit，werepassedinto

lawinthisrapidmannerattheendofasession，someinjusticemightunconsciously

bedone。TheSpeakerrepliedwithagraveanddignifiedrebuke：’TheHouse

wasalwayscompetenttogiveeverysubjecttheconsiderationduetoitsimportance，

andcouldnotthereforebetrulysaidtobeincapableatanytimeofdiscussing

anyquestiongravely，dispassionately，andwithstrictregardtojustice。’(32*)

Herecommendedthatthepetitionshouldbepassedoverasifithadnever

beenpresented。Thememberwhohadpresentedthepetitionpleadedthathe

hadnotreadit。SuchweretheplausibilitiesanddecoruminwhichtheHouse

ofCommonsmappedupitsabuses。Wecanimaginethatsomeofthemembers

musthavesmiledtoeachotherliketheRomanaugurs，whentheyexchanged

thesesolemnhypocrisies。