The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-01 00:00:00

( He hoped that the Right Hon. Gentleman would in
future pay some regard to the Constitution, such as it
was, in Ireland, and not again step beyond its limits.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided. The numbers were—
For the resolution 62
Against it
Majority against the resolution
COMMONS AND LAND INCLOSURE.
Lord WORSLEYrose for the purpose of asking leave
to bring in a Bill to inclose commons and land held in
common, and in so doing it was not his intention to do
any thing which would interfere with the 'rights of the
poor. It was his intention that sufficient ground should
be left for the recreation of the poor. An erroneous
impression had gone abroad with respect to the subject,
but his opinion was, that if the management of waste
lands were put into the hands of a board properly con-
stituted, the result would be that the poor would find
employment for eight or ten years in break-
ing up the land and inclosing it, and after
this was done, that they would be employed in
cultivating it. If this Bill passed, many persons who
were out of employment at present, might obtain work.
This was not only his opinion, but it was also the opinion
of many persons possessed of much experience on the
subject. But it might be said, if those lands were ca-
pable of improvement, why had not parties come to Par-
liament for power to inclose them? But the fact was
that the expenses of obtaining an Act of Parliament
for the purpose were so great that no person would be
found willing to incur the expense. That was the rea-
son w'hy they did not apply to Parliament on the sub-
ject. He had received a letter from a gentleman in Nor-
folk, stating that 1,713/. 17s. were expended in pro-
curing an Act to inclose certain waste lands in that
county. If there had been a Commission, this might
have been done for less than 5001. He had a return
showing the amount of waste lands in England and
Wales, but it only referred to those places to which the
Tithe Commutation extended. The summary of the
return showed that out of 6,718,523 acres in England
there were 1,358,419 acres common or waste land.
In Wales, out of 1,897,502 acres, there were 501,815
acres common or waste land, a great portion of which
might, under proper management, be brought under
cultivation. He was yesterday in the county of
Surrey, where he was told that there were 6,000 acres
of waste land. , He did not inean,to say that the whole
of this was capable of cultivation, but a great portion of
it was. He would not only give fair portions of the
waste land to the poor for the purposes of recreati,
but also he would give them a right of pasturage.
appeared by the evidence given by Mr. Mott before the
Committee which sat last session, on theallotments to
labourers, that not only was there a vast extent of un-
inclosed land, but that it also might to some extent be
properly cultivated. The Noble Lord then referred to
the evidence of Mr. Hibbert, of Yorkshire, on the same
point. His opinion was, that great advantage would be
derived by the poor from the employment given to them
in bringing waste lands under cultivation. If the first
expenses were got over persons would be ready to invest
capital in cultivating the land. Mr. Mott stated in his
evidence that in Lancashire there were 2,000,000 acres of
uncultivated land, and he gave an instance of land sup-
posed to be incapable of producing any crop, which was
so cultivated that it was surprising how much it pro-
duced. He said that if 301. were spent upon bringing
an acre into cultivation it would, when improved, be
worth 50/. What he proposed was, that there should
be Commissioners appointed as Inclosure Commissioners,
and that those persons should be the Tithe Commission-
ers ; but he would have no objection to leave with the
Government the appointment of the Commission. He
also proposed that if two-thirds of the parties who had
an interest in the common land, or the land held in
common, should wish to have it inclosed, an Assistant
Commissioner should be sent down to inquire into the
expediency of it who would take into consideration not
only the interests of the landholders, but of the local in-
terests and the advantages to the neighbours of the land
for recreation and other purposes. If he were of opi-
nion that it would be advantageous to have the land in-
closed, he should so report to the Commissioners, and
the day would then be appointed for holding a meeting,
when the claims of the parties would be heard;
and after the different claims were heard, a cer-
tain time and notice would be given to enable
the parties to object. He then proposed that if one-
fourth of those interested objected to the inclosure
they should petition the House, and give notice of their
intention to the Commissioners, and no proceeding
should be taken till six weeks after the House sat. He
proposed that the Commissioners should report twice a
year, as to the progress they made with regard to en-
closures ; and the Reports should be laid before Par-
liament within six weeks after the sitting. of Parliament.
He thought that would prevent any hardship being done
to the poor. This would give the House the power of
taking steps to have the land inclosed, and it would
prevent parties from making objections merely for the
purposes of delay. He had endeavoured to shape the
Bill in such a way, that its provisions would not inter •
fere with the rights of the poor; and he endeavoured
to have their rights respected, at the same time that it
would be for their advantage to have the lands in-
closed, and also for the advantage of the proprietors.
He also proposed, that they should have a certain
number of acres left them for recreation. The Bill was
nearly like the one which he had introduced last session,
but he thought it right to extend it more, because much
inconvenience had risen in consequence of power being
given by certain general and local Acts, which in some
instances were not carried out at all, and
in some instances were unfairly carried out.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring
in a Bill to facilitate the inclosure and improvement of
commons and lands helds in common ; the exchange of
lands, and the division of intermixed lands ; to provide
remedies for the defective or incomplete execution, and
for the non-execution of the powers of general and local
inclosure Acts, and to provide for the revival of such
powers in certain cases.
Mr. AGLIONBY seconded the motion.
Colonel SIBTHORP regretted that he should con-
sider it his duty to oppose this Bill from the outset. He
had great respect for the Noble Lord's desire to support
the agricultural interest of the county of Lincoln,
and of the country generally, but when he looked
at this Bill, containing 140 clauses, which would affect
the country in a spirit of innovation, he must offer it his
most strenuous opposition. At the present day there
was a dangerous tendency to adopt innovations, such
as railroads—(A laugh)—and there was the Reform
Bill, which was an innovation that nearly revolution-
ised the country. One of his main objections to this Bill
was, that it was of too general a nature, in his opinion,
however highly .he might think of the character and
motives of the Noble Lord, to be brought in by any in-
dividual Member of that House. He (Colonel Sibthorp)
was as willing as any one to make sacrifices for the good
of the country, and even if he thought railroads advan-
tageous to its welfare he would support their construc-
tion. But this was not a measure that would benefit the
country. Why not, he asked, let her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with all their liberality for the people introduce a
measure of this kind ? He, as well as other Honourable
Gentlemen, felt for the poor, and therefore it was he
opposed this Bill. For why should they deprive
them of those .commons where they enjoyed inno•
cent pastimes and open air ? He also objected
to the measure on the score of its calling
into existence a host of Commissioners and clerks, and
thus furnishing grounds for a system of jobbing. The
Noble Lord might say, why not allow the Bill to be in-
troduced and read a first and second time, and that then,
in Committee, its provisions might be well and fully
considered? But he (Colonel Sibthorp) had sufficient
experience to know the evil of introducing an injurious
measure of that sort. Vires acquirit eundo. Many a
wicked man, if hanged in time, would have been saved
the commission of many crimes.—(Laughter.) He should
certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. TRELAWNY supported the motion. He
stated, however, that he did so in the hope that a pro-
vision might be introduced in a future stage of its pro-
gress, which would secure to the poor all the rights
which they possessed, and leave them sufficient land to
enjoy themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS also supported the motion, re-
serving to himself the right of opposing the Bill in its
future progress, if the equitable rights of the poor should
not be secured to them.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said he felt himself called upon
to oppose the introduction of the Bill. From the ex-
planation of the Noble Lord it appeared that the Bill did
not essentially differ from the Bill of last year.—(Hear.)
He (Mr. S. Crawford) was of opinion that no lands
should be inclosed without provision being made for
affording allotments for the labouring classes. He
thought that was a most essential element in their pros-
perity.—(Hear.) The recommendation of the Allotment
Committee was not to be disregarded. It was contained
in these words :=" The Committee recommend that in
any general, or even private Inclosure Bill, which may
hereafter pass into a law, facilities should be given for
guarding allotments." The Committee also stated that
the allotment system had proved a powerful means of
improving the condition of the agricultural and manu-
facturing population; while in many cases it had been
the means . of reclaiming criminals and reforming the
dissolute. They ought not to consent to the inclosure
osianufntffidarn:yidtehunlocatuelnygdhkawithout considering whether this object was
viewforLboyrt
Lord
this
said
pdframersurpurpose
swe o
uolfd
rathert
agreeh e
thantßill;o
et
PhteNoble
clausein
lose his Bill, it was sufficiently evident that he was not
favourable to the insertion of such provisions. With
regard to play-grounds for the working-classes, he (Mr.
S. Crawford) despised the idea. If they gave the
working classes - allotments of land, they would care
little about play-grounds. They would then be provided
with pleasing occupation when discharged from the
labours of the day, and at the same time they would be
relieved from the necessity of applying to the parish for
relief when deprived of employment. Considering,
therefore, that the great object which ought to be kept
in view was not contemplated by the Noble Lord ; and,
considering that every Inclosure Bill which had passed
that House had given a monopoly of the rights of the
poor to the rich, he should oppose the Bill until he
•should be convinced that full provision had been made in
it for securing to the poor generally those advantages to
which they were justly entitled.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir CHARLES BURRELLL said it appeared to him
that, according to the laws of England, no one had a
right to take from one man the rights which he pos-
sessed, and give them to another. But he thought that
the present Bill would be beneficial to the poor them-
selves. The cultivation of waste lands would afford em-

ployment to numbers and be beneficial to the coii;itry at
large. He thought that in times when they were called
upon to repeal the corn-law, on the ground that the sup-
ply of wheat was at present insufficient, every facility
should be given for carrying out the objects of. the
Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) He should certainly vote
for the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he looked upon this Bill with
considerable suspicion, which was not diminished by the
circumstance that it extended to 144 clauses ; but on the
ground that Hon. Members should have an opportunity