The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-07-04 00:00:00

THE ENCLOSURE OF WASTE LANDS.

The following communication has been sent to The
Timai

Sir,--On reading ne Times of yesterday it struck me
a, .:urprising and as no small mistake that some one
or °Mar acquainted with the real facts of the en-
closure of coimuon land does not flatly contradict the
extraordinary statements of Mr. Arch at Manchester
and elsewhere on the subject. lam little able to do
so with precise accuracy, but I can recollect the ch..
cunistances of the enclosure of a common in a manor
in Warwickshire, belonging to my family, many years
ago. They were these :—So far from the landlord
" putting 4 fence round common land," he got only
his share of it- nrst, as lord of the manor. Ins rights
being considerable, no one else having the right to
cut a sod of turf or raise a spadaul of gravel on the
common. Secondly, as a freeholder, azy father pos-
sessing half the parish. But every other freeio:der
got his proportion 4 the common, and there were
many freeholders, the right of my family to quit rents
from tenants of the manor having tu a great extent
been lost, owing to my family residing for rnaziy years
in Ireland, freeholds being thus established. 'I
every man who had a right to put an animal to graze
on the common was compensated. Of °curse those
who had no such right, and who only trespassed on the
property of thaw who had (those who used their rights
being invariably poor men), got nothing.
On the enclosure of the waste, many of these smell
shares were sold, but the general result was the estab-
lishment of a number of small freehold cottages, with
gardens attached, and a considerable quantity of land
being brought into cultivation which had hitherto lain
waste—the main intention and object of the Act of
Parliament.

The most mischievous and delusive of all Mr. Arch's
statements is the following
"lie remembered that ten or twelve years ago SO labourers
were walking about with their hands in their pockets, lu
dreary winter, with nothing to do, and they said to them-
selves, 'The farmer says he cannot employ us, let us go to
the landlord and ask him to let us stick our spades into
that waste land we will pay a good rent for IS " No,'
the landlord replies, ' landless you are, and landless you
del be.'

--
SOW, I should like to know what earthly right the
landlord had to "stick spider!" into, and 'et' a good
rent" from, land which he owned only m common

with other and poorer men, and which Mr. Arch had
just described as the " beautiful commons where they
(the farm labourer.) used to turn out their pigs and
keep their cows." It is by debt-dye statetuents such
as these, addressed to persons who has e little oppor
tunity ,f testing their truth, that the cheers of those
ignorant of such matters &regained, and, temporarily,
is created between the different dames of
Englishmen. I can honestly say that I fear injury to
the interests of the w aking classes as much as any
other result from such speeches, for I own that
should be far from looking with 7islike on the trades'
and labourers' Unions but for three things—picketing.
rattening, and misstatements.—l am, Sir, your
obedient servant, LIFFORD.
Moen Was, Stranorlar, June 23.

The above has elicited the following letter in The Tim?

Sir,--- Will you permit use to say, in reply to Lord
Lifford'sletter, which appeared in the Times of Thurs-
day, that he seems to me—innocently enough--entirely
to corroborate Mr. Arch's statement about the En-
closure of C'omnmnis. He says that in his case, the
landlord, so far from "putting a fence round common
land, only got his share of it ;" but ho goes on to say
his share (which it may be presumed he placed a fence
around) was the largest portion in virtue of manorial
rights, and because, as a freeholder, his father 'pos-
sessed half the parish." But who authorized the en-
closure which apportioned this large share? Probably
the landlord in question, wijbh the assistance of other land-
lords, passed the very law which gave the authority to
enclose, and they did this knowing that they were the
largest claimants, ani would most profit by it. It
matters little whether other small freeholders or land-
owners received shares likewise; this was necessary in
order to give a semblance of justice to the appropri-
ation. It ill certain the commoners received but little.
Since 1710 over 7,000,00 acres of common land have
been appropriated to private owners, and "in very
many cases without any compensation to the smaller
commoners." These words I quote from the Royal
Commissioners' Report upon the Enclosure of Com-
mons._ . . .

As for the spades which Mr. Arch suggested might
be "stuck into' waste land, with the permission of
owners, it is obvious that he referred to waste land
which had been made private. As Lord Litford says.
the object of Acts of Enclosure was to bring the land
into cultivation ; but much of this enclosed land,
although fertile, remains in its primitive condition.
There is a quantity of such waste land near me
(originally a portion f Titeldield ('ommon) that has
now been fenced in for twelve years, and yet I have
brought the same common land adjoining it into culti-
vation at a moderate cost, and am now in the receipt
of £2 an acre for it from small cultivators.— Your
obedient servant, FREDK. A. Masse.
Holl)-kill, Southampton