The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-05 00:00:00

Or H E SUN, LONDON,

Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move that the consideration
of the Bill be postponed for three months. He did not mean
to throw any imputation on the Noble Lord who had introduced
the measure; but this he would say, that the effort of the
mover was to afford nbandant.pritectien to the loris of the soil,
while the ri4lit to common would be taken away from the poor
of the country, without giving them any compensation what-
ever. in fact, the effect of the measure would be to give to
a few a rower which they never could exercise, namely, a
right to sell the property of fut Are generations. It appeared
that the Bill madeample privision for the protection of the
rights of the lords of the soil, but it contained no clause by
which to secure the rights of the people.—( Hear, hear.)
If the population of a place amounted to 33,000 or to 5°,000,
the who,e of the land reserved for recreation, and fit the use

of the poor, was to be but ten acres. Now, he thought that
the quantity of land reserved should be proportioned to the
number of the poor.—( Hear, hear.) Yet the Bill proposed
to leave it to the Commissioners to determine whether there
should be any allotment whatever for the poor. He did not
object to inclosures if they were made on equitable principles,
with a due regard to the rights of the labouring classes, and
the poorer ter ants. It was not just to deprive the poor of their
rights and enjoyments, and to give them nothing in exchange.
He was aware that the Bill provided that in certain cases the
Commissioners should not take commons fir inclosure without
application to Parliament. But that was not for the protection
of the poor, for he had found that, in the passing of inclosure
Bills through Parliament. their rights were disregarded. But
it was said that the poor would benefited by the increased
employment which the inclosures would afford to them.
However, he did not find that the condition of the poor
had been at all improved by the inchlsure of the 6,01f0 000
of arres, which had been brought into euitivati n since the
peace. The fact was undeniable, that the labourers were in
a worse condition than before the ine'osures. It appeared to
him that all common land over which the State could exer-
cise control should be cultivated, under proper regulations,
for the aftvatvage of the poor, so far as not to interfere with
the just right of the lord• of manors. Ile knew that when he
went into the question of small occupancy he would be told
that the principle failed in Ireland. Now, be would admit
that there were in Ireland both great dest•tu! ion and sm,ll
farms. But he found that, in the north of Ireland, where
he people vv.:re better off than IMany other part of the country,
there were small occupants.' In Armagh the average number of
acres to the majority of farms was eleven acres. In Down it
was 17. but in Meath it was 37 acres; and as you went
southward, to the worst-conditioned part of the country,
the extent of the farms was increased. In Cork the average
was 132 acres, in Mayo 19.0, and in Galway 130.
The labouring classes of Ireland, like the industry of every
other nation, would apply their wages to the cultivation of the
soil, if the amount of those wages enabled them to procure any
land, or to expend the smallest sum upon it. He would again
repeat, that this Act was substat,tially a landlord's Act, and re-
cognised ill the rights of the lord ot. the soil, without [Ming jut-
Cee to the poor; and it this Act should he pas3ed, he had no
doubt but that the immense quantity of land proposed to be in-
closed would eventually become the private property of the
lords of the soil. This Bill contained a vast number of clauses,
no fewer than 161 ; and lie did thick that a Bill of such mag-
nitude could not, at this late period of the session, receive the
consideration it was entitled to. On those grounds, he had
thought it necessary to move the postponement. of the measure
for three months, and he thought the reasor.s he had stated
were sufficient to warrant the Mouse in agreeing with him.
Colonel Si 13T1-101113 said he would second the motion, ell
in doing so. begged to say he fully concurred in the views of
t' e Hon. Member opposite. These commissioners of poor-
law and tithe were very expensive to the country, and, com-
paratively speaking. had very little labour to perform. The
Bill gave too much power to the lord of the manor, and not
sufficient security to the poor. When the Bill came into com-
mittee he would endeavour to modify it by every legitimate op-
po 'pion in his power ; but he would much prefer its postpone-
ment

The question having been put,
Lord WORSLEY rose and said that he hoped the House
would excuse him for entering into a history of this Bill,
as he had been so much interested in it. In 1837, at the
request of his constituents, he brought forward a Bill for
legitimatising inclesures. The Bill met with great oppo-
sition, but in 1841),:in censequenceof renewed and numerous
applications, he fee it his duty to bring forward another mea-
sure on the subject. He believed that such a Bill was neces-
sary, in order to improve the condition of the people. In 1842.
when he introduced a Bill, there were no petitions presented
against it. At that time, he suggested that there should be
five Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Bill. He
was not successful that year. The next year he again intro-
duced a Bill which was not carried, on account of the time at
which it was introduced. The Government said the House
could not pay sufficient attention to it, and suggested a Com-
mittee up stairs to investigate the matter. That Committee
was appointed, and he was one of them. Considerable time
etas spent in the investigation, and much evidence was taken.
Witnesses were. examined from a great number of counties, and
the result was a decision of the Committee in favour of a general
Inch eure Bill. A Bill, in consequence of this decision of the
Committee, was introduced this year by the Noble Lord the
Member for Nottingham (the Earl of Lincoln.) It had been
considered by some Hon. Members that he had been ill-treated
by the course taken by the Noble Lord, the Commissioner of
Woods and Forests. In answer to that, he could inform the
House that before that Bill was introduced, the Noble Lord
wrote to him (Lord Worsley), intimating his intention
of introducing the Bill, and submitting the Bill to his
consideration. lie perused it, and intimated to the
N.,ble Lord that he ( Lord Worsley) thought the
Bill was an improvement on his Bill of the previous year, but
suggested it might be considerably improved in Committee.
So far from complaining that the subject was taken oat of his
hands, he rejoiced that the Government had taken it up.
Looking over the measure, though agreeing with it in the '
main, there were some parts so vague that it would require im-
proving in Committee ; but, nevertheless, he should he ex-
ceedingly sorry if the Bill was rekcted through the course ad-
vised by the Hon. Member for kl,,chrlale. He hoped Hon.
Members, lief. re rejecting the Bill, would read the evidence of
Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Graham, and other gentlemen,
who had been examined before the Committee. That evi-
dence. given by men the most competent to judge, showed
that such a Bill was necessary. he thought the present Bill
gave too much power to the Commissioners, and that great
difficulty would be experienced in working the commission.
By this measure parties, who had been living on commons
merely by sufferanceee ould obtain possession of property, while
those who had really a right to it would be kept out. He
trusted that the Bill would be &lowed to go into Committee,
arid that in Commetee these defects would be remer'ied, and he
h-ped that Hon. Members would pay that attention to the
measure which its importance deserved.
OJr H UME felt it to be his duty to oppose the Bill, and to
support the amendment. He was even more opposed to this
measure than he had been to the measure which had been
brought forward by the Noble Lord on this subject last year.
The Noble Lord had certainly last year exhibited great coo -
tesy towards those who were opposed to his measure, but stilt
he felt bound to oppose the Noble Lord. Considering the
magnitude and the importance of the public interests which
would be affected by this Bill, he was surprised that it shophi
have excited so little attention. He believed that all the lands
worth inclosing had been already inclosed, and if they had
not, let wheal ion be made to Parlisment in each case, so that
each particular case might be consittered on .ts own merits.
flys was a landed proprietor's 13i1i, taking from the labourers
the advantage which they possessed of taking air and
exercise upen the commons of this country. He was sorry to
hear his Learned Friend say that commons were private pro-
perty. He believed that all commons were held by the Crown
for the benefit of the people. He was told that in this in-
closure scheme the commoners would have their share. True,
the man who possessed a house might have a small piece of
land given him, but the great bulk of the population would be
shut out from the advantages of air and exercise in these com-
mons. He objected to the Bill when it was in the hands of the
Noble Lord, and he objected to the Bill mole now,
when it war in the hands of a Minister of the
Crown. It did appear to him that they were trans-
ferring power which ought to rest in that House. The
N'.ble Lord stated that there were certain Commissioners ex-
amined in favour of these inclosures ; but they had no evidence
from any labourers who were entitled to roam in those in-
closures. They depended alone upon the evidence of landed
proprieto.s, who were going to take away the rights and privi-
leges or the people at large. He believed that village greens
were an exception ; but he was of opinion that these, too,
would yet come wnhin the grasp of the landed proprietors. He
objected to the Bill as socially injurious, aed he thought the
House ought to consider before they gave this power, which
would sweep away the interest which the people at large
had in the soil of this country. They should identify the people
more with the land. He ohjected, also, to the board, on the
same grounds feat he objected to the Tithe Commission. They
had been paid out of the Consolidated Fund, 60,0001. a year
had been expended en the Tithe Commission for the last ten
years, and none benefited by it but the advowsons. The la-
beurieg man had no right to pay tithes for the benefit of the
tithe proprietors. He objected to that clause, and shouldin
Committer give it every opposition possible. He objected to
the whole principle of the Bill. The motion was to postpone
the Bill till another session. It had already been postponed
for two years, and it would be so much the better if it were
postponed for another year. For these reasons he would give
his support to his am,. Friend's amendment, and he hoped
that he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. TRUAWNEY said that his principal objection was
to the Commissioners. He thought, however, that great good
was to be derived by this Bill. Any objection that might be
thought necessary might be made in Committee.
Mr. HENLEY expressed his desire that they should go into
Committee.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he should rather call this
a 13111 for improving the circumstances of the labouring classes
of the community, end expressly adapted to prt.mote the in-
terests of that class. There were in England and Wales about
37,000,000 of acres of land, of which it was calculated that at
least ten millions were in the position to be affected by the
provisions of this Bill. If the calculation was correct, that by
the inclosure of these lands employment would be largely
increased for the labouring classes—if, by the inclosing, tilling,
and fencing of the land, and the erection of the buildings ne-
cessary in consequence of the inclosure, employment was given
to one let-sourer and his family for every fifty atres inclosed,
then the provisions of this Bill would, by bringing these ten
nelli n of acres into cultivation, give employment to at least
2 oeoo labourers and their families. If further, as appeared,
it was to the interest of the labourer that the land should sup-
port its population in such a way that wages should be made
permanent, the. was the whole principle of the Bill one of ad•
mirable utility for the whole country, for it would tend not
only to make wages permanent, but to give emp'oyment for
ever on that portion of the soil which was at the present too
ment entirely unproductive, and therefore prove of the largest
benefit to the whole country. It was a mistake to suppose that
this Bill was intended in any way to interfere with the enjoy-
ment of the lower classes. There was no intention whatever
to restrict them from places of recreation, or to appropriate
those places which were devoted for the purposes of air
and exercise. Its principles did not apply to such
smal places as Clapham Common and Turnham Green, but
to those wide and extensive wastes and commons which in
many places exteuded in sterile inutility in different parts of
the country. There was nothing in this Nil to affect the
tights of that pipe whole intereete the Him. Gentleman
seemed so anxious to protect, for it was expressly stated that
no lands were to be inclosed within ten miles of London. Nor
was it intended to take any places within certain distances of
towns, and it was particularly stated that no village green or
other place used for air or exercise was to be taken. The
object of the Bill was to take those large spaces of ground over
whiph it qv as preenmed the poor had a eight of ceinniOn:bui
which were occupied only as a sort of savage hunting grounds,
on which the richer farmer, who employed the labourers in his
neighlegerhoed, was able to drive the property of those
lag ewers `l sr hie teen pereps-iel pojoyw.ent, and this, bi the
assistance of fierce dogs, trained for the purpose. to disturb
and harrass the cattle or sh, ep of his poorer neighbours—so
that he who could best afford to employ the greatest number
of labourers could do the greatest injury. This was the right
of repitoosir lethip'e this pill proposed to take away. It was
ell knovinehaethe persons who lived on these coth Mons, ittiong
the class of lab ,urers, were far inferior in character to those who
if, other parts of the country were supposed to depend upon their
induetry'tOr 4 If Hon. Gentlemen had seen as much
of this class of people as 'had, in eonsaserence pi
near one of these open spaces or forests in Hampshire, (hey
old 'snow that nothing was more detiimental to the lower
classes th4n tkoat oppertenity of wild and irregular life which
these commons gave. There was another part of this Bill
to which attention had been directed. fn many cases it op,
mitred, that where this right of common existed, and was
vested in the lordtf of the manor, that they offered an ipur-