The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-13 00:00:00

INCLOSURES-SURREY.

SI a,—ln your valuable paper of yesterday appeared
a ietter advocating a general inclosure bill, giving as a reason
the inoperative part of the present enactment, particularly
in the county of Surrey. Being a resident in the county, I
may be permitted to make • few observations upon the
'letter, in reference to the capability of the soil ter giving em.
ployment to the poor. It is true that on an inclosure taking
place employment would be given for a short period until
the necessary works required in forming incloeures were
completed, after which it would be doubtful whether
any benctit would be derived by the poor. In the division
the large copyholders would necessarily absorb the greater
part, and men is the general nature of the soil on the com-
mons of this county, that there is no doubt it would be planted
with trees for the protection of game, instead of being appro-
priated to the growing of corn, as suggested by your corre-
spondent. lam the more justified in coming to this condo.
sten by the following facts and remarks, which were drawn
up for the consideration of the thinking pert of this neigh-
bourhood, by some gentlemen who had the welfare of the
poor at heart, but who could not conscientiously agree with
the principles of the proposed ineloeures :
1. " That the health, comfort, and enivenience of the in-
habitants of the neighbourhood are directed by the recent
acts to be considered, as well so the interests of the proprie-
tors; and the main object in eaemining inte the necessity of
an inclesuro is (in the language of one of the inclosure
commissioners), to prevent any mischief being done to the
interests of the public, and more especially to the poorer
class. . .

2. " The present population on and around the common
amounts to upwards of 600 persons, the principal portion of
which are kept from the pariah by the benefits which they
derive from the common.
3. "The quantity of land on the common amounts to 600
acres, and the estimate of the permanent labour is stated by
one of the inclosure commissioners to be one man and his
family for every 50 acres. It follows from thi., then, the
interests of 161 families to place in one scale, and 12 in the
other.
4. " In estimating the increase of goad to be produced
by the inclosure of a common, it mutt be borne in mind
the soil in many parts is not worth the expense of in-
closing and cultivating. The cattle now led upon the
waste land form • material item in the advantages of its
present state.
5. " An erroneous opinion prevails with regard to the re-
duction which an inclosure would occasion in the poor rates,
the reduction being now calculated to amount to only one
penny in the pound.
6. " The numberless allotments into which the common
would be divided would necessarily intro :uce the erection of
labourers' cottages, and the effect of the recent Poor-law Re-
moval Bill is to entitle all persons to parish relief after a re-
Mdence of five years. The commissioners are of opinion,
whenever an inclosure has driven the poor to a distance
from their dwellings, it has been found an evil."
For the reasons here stated (and others I could mention) I
think any enactment, having the effect of compulsory taking
away the homes and bread of the present inhabitants of the
commons, would inflict a serious injury, and sacrifice the in-
terests of the many to the benefit of the few. Your corre-
spondent says, " sauce fur the goose is not sauce for the
gander," but he should recollect—
" The crime Is great, in man or woman,
Who steals a goose from off s common;
Hut surely %la a worse abase,
To steal the common from the goose."
Jar. 12. WILLIAM SUBAIIMUIIN, forking, Surrey.