THE INCLOSURE OF COMMONS.
-A (R. CROSS'S Bill to amend the law relating to the Inclo- 1.11 sure of Commons has at least this merit, that it will draw attention to a very important question, which it is well should be fully considered on all sides. The Home Secretary was right in saying that until recently the materials necessary for such a consideration of the case were not at hand. Before the year 1869, it was the custom of Parliament to pass annually, as a matter of form, a Bill confirming a series of Orders made by the Inclosure Commissioners for the inclosure of particular Commons. In the Inclosure Office a certain routine prevailed. It was assumed, and not, perhaps, un- naturally, that the object of the office was to facilitate inclo- sures. Though the Act of 1845 contains some strong expres- sions respecting the benefit of those who are not legally interested in Commons—to use a somewhat hackneyed phrase, the publio--in practice these interests were thought to be amply provided for by the reservation of a few acres of Re- creation Ground or Garden Allotment, and the idea of their materially affecting the question whether an inclosure should be sanctioned at all was not seriously entertained. It is, we suppose, inevitable that an Office created to perform a certain work, under certain conditions, will lean to doing the work and minimising the conditions. No one will wish to blame the Inclosure Commissioners for what they did, but the effect was that the hold possessed by the nation over thousands of acres was every year relaxed in the in- terest of private persons without any adequate check. The first blow which this system received was the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866. By this measure all Com- mons within the Metropolitan Police area—roughly speaking, some fifteen miles round Charing Cross—were withdrawn from the scope of the Commissioners' powers. In closures outside this area continued apace as before for another three years, when an unusually sweeping measure attracted attention. By the Annual Inclosure Bill of 1869, it was proposed to inclose 6,900 acres of open commonable land, reserving for recrea- tion three acres, and for allotment gardens six. So little- were such things accustomed to be noticed, that the Bill had passed through all its stages save the third reading before
it excited any opposition. It was then, on the motion of Professor Fawcett, referred to a Select Committee, who not only stopped some of the particular inclosures comprised in it, but entered into a minute examination of the machinery in work for effecting inclosures, and recommended many im- provements necessitating an amendment of the law. Subse- quently the Government of the day gave a pledge that Parlia- ment should not be asked to sanction further inclosures, until effect had been given to the recommendations of this Com- mittee. One or two Bills have been from time to time introduced with this object, but have failed to pass, and the consequence is that no inclosures have taken place during the last seven years.
In the discussions which took place in 1869 and the follow- ing years, it was felt that too little was known of the state of facts to which legislation was to be applied. When once the expediency of inclosure in every case and under all circum- stances was challenged, it became obvious that information was required, both as to the extent to which inclosures had taken place, and the acreage and character of the land remaining un- inclosed. This information has now been supplied by means of Parliamentary returns, and something like a complete view of the subject may be had. It is worth while briefly to sketch the history of inclosures.
The first Act for the inclosure of waste or common- able lands was passed in 1710, and related to the parish of Ropley, Hants. From that date Inclosure Acts gradually increased in number. In Queen Anne's reign only two such Acts became law, in that of George L 16, in that of George H. 226, and in George La.'s reign, down to 1797, 1,532. All these Acts were strictly private Acts, and subject to all the rules of the House as to notice and consent of persons interested, and evidence of the expediency of the measure. In 1795, 1797, and 1800, Committees of the House of Commons, presided over by Sir John Sinclair, considered the possibility of further facilitating inclosures by diminishing the expense attendant upon them. Sir John Sinclair seems to have initiated this inquiry as President of the Board of Agri- culture, and everything that can be said in favour of inclosing will be found in his address to that body, printed as an appendix to the Report of 1795. Valuable statistics relating to past inclosures and to waste land are to be found in these Re- ports. The land inclosed since the Act of 1709-10 is stated to amount to nearly 3,000,000 acres, while the extent uncul- tivated and presumably subject to community of ownership of some kind is put at over 7,800,000 acres. The result of the labours of these Committees was- the first general Inclosure Act, a measure containing a series of provisions usually inserted in private Acts, and capable of being incorporated with and made applicable to any particular measure. The pass- ing of this Act seems at first to have given a great impetus to inclosure, for between 1800 and 1810
no less than 905 Inclosure Acts were passed. In the succeeding ten years the number dropped to 741, and from 1820 to 1840 only 317 inclosures were sanctioned. Other causes may have been at work, but it seems difficult to account for this sudden decline, except upon the supposition that during the first twenty years of the new system most of the land best suited for cultivation was reduced to ownership in .severalty, and subsequently insufficient inducement was found to incur even the modified expenses of obtaining an Act and converting the land. The great size of the common- able lands to which •the Acts passed during this period mostly relate is remarkable, and points to the conversion of common field-lands into the inclosed, severally-owned fields of the present day, rather than to the cultivation of wastes. It is difficult to state the total acreage inclosed, from the numerous instances in which no extent is stated in the Act of Parliament, but allowing a fair proportion in these cases, it cannot have been less than 1,300,000 acres. Macaulay, writing a little later, estimates that more than ten thousand square miles had been the subject of legislation.
In 1843 inquiry again took place, with the view of still further diminishing the expense of inclosures, and the result was the General Inolosure Act of 1845. By this mea- sure the Inclosure Commissioners were appointed, and to them was relegated all that supervision of inclosures which had before been undertaken in part by Parliament and in part by Commissioners specially appointed in each case, the Legisla- ture retaining merely the ultimate power of confirming or vetoing any proposal. Under this regime about 900 inclosures, containing in all about 670,000 acres, were effected, before Parliament held its-hand-in 1860. Thus in all, since the commencement of the system in 1710 till the present time, nearly 5,000,000 acres of land, either en- tirely open and waste, or lying in Common fields, and mostly open during several months in the year, have been converted into in- closures held as strictly private property. It was estimated in 1845 that 8,000,000 acres of waste land and 1,000,000 acres of Common-field land then still existed. This estimate, however, has been found to be greatly in excess of the truth, the reason being that it was based upon the Tithe Commutation Awards, in which land is often entered as waste from its physical state, although not subject to any community of interests. Accord- ing to the Return presented two years since, there now remain in England 250,868 acres of Common-field lands, and about 1,700,000 acres of Common, of which considerably more than half is, to use the words of the Return, "apparently mountain, or otherwise unsuitable for cultivation," while in Wales there are 13,139 acres of Common fields, over 500,000 acres of mountain waste, and about 150,000 acres of cultivable Com- mon. In thus dividing the land-, the officer making the Return observes—and the observation is as true as it is important—that "though from situation and moderate alti- tude this land (that which is not mountain) may appear capable of cultivation, much of it is probably either of inferior quality to the surrounding land, or more remote from the population, or would be more costly to bring into a. productive state, inasmuch as land which in former times was left out of cultivation had generally one or more of these drawbacks to account for it." To complete the picture, it should be added that although no inclosures have been sanctioned since 1869, the Commissioners have not been altogether idle. They have reported to Parliament in favour of thirty-four inclosures, comprising nearly 18,000 acres. Amongst these may be mentioned the waste land round the Lizard, in Cornwall—the only place, we believe, where the white heath or ling grows wild,—the approach to Kynance Cove, and the picturesque coast scenery round the Lizard Point. Another case in which inclosure would seem to be peculiarly inopportune is that of Wolstanton Marsh, a small space of thirty-one acres, situated in the Potteries, in the midst of large towns.
In this state of things, it is proposed to legislate with respect to Commons. The question which is to be answered at the outset is,—should the object of legislation be again to set in motion that process of inclosure which has been arrested for seven years, or to initiate some different mode of dealing with the remaining open spaces of the country? Now, it was ad- mitted most frankly by the Home Secretary, in introducing his Bill, that the motive which had led to the provision of special machinery to effect incloeures had ceased to exist. The object of dividing Common fields and indosing wastes was to increase the food of the people. It will be difficult to gather from the Reports of Sir John Sinclair's Committees, strongly as they advocate the, improvement of wastes, any expressions indicating that they had in view the private benefit of the persons interested in Common lands. The scarcity of food, the necessity of making England independent of foreign supplies, and the rich resources she possessed in her unlined waste lands, are the topics enlarged' upon. But we have changed all that. We make no endeavour now to supply our- selves with food, and do not fear that importing corn will weaken our national position. The foreign supply, which was of the most trifling nature at the commencement of the century, now far exceeds the home-production ; and indeed, as Mr. Cross said, the amount of food that could be supplied by the Commons if put under cultivation would be butes " a drop in the ocean," compared with the imported grain. On the other hand, wants have arisen which were not only unknown, but which could not be appreciated in 1800. The population of the country has increased by two-thirds, and has become packed together round certain centres of activity, in such a way that to thousands of persons the sight of the. natural earth is a luxury Most difficult of attainment. And in rural districts there is a constant tendency to the aggregation of land in a few hands, and to the increase of a class of day-labourers who have no interest in the soil they cultivate or the place they inhabit. From a public point of view, it is highly expedient to preserve to the dwellers in towns open spaces where they may get fresh air and a glimpse of nature, and to preserve for the agricultural poor any links which still bind them to the scene of their labours. If Commons can be used for these purposes, it is to such use that public policy points. Inelosure prevents once and for ever any such use. For it -means their sub-division amongst persons already owning land, who are entitled to cer- tain legal interests in the adjoining waste ; and of these in-. practice the wealthier alone obtain any substantial benefit, the smaller allotments being very speedily absorbed in the larger. If then, the public benefit was formerly the reason for in- closure, and if—and this was practically admitted by Mr. Cross —no such benefit, but rather harm, will now accrue from the same course, why should Parliament continue to facilitate inclosure ? The only answer is, in effect, that Commons are really the joint property of a number of private per- sons, and that it is an interference with the rights of property not to assist such persons to make the most of- their own. This view is curiously intermixed with the- broader considerations of public policy in Mr. Cross's introductory statement. After the candid and far-reach- ing admissions we have referred to, we read that these con- clusions follow,—first, that "it is absolutely necessary that a Bill should not be brought in having the effect. of preventing the further inclosure of Commons ; and in the next pima, that any Bill brought in should secure to landowners and those in- terested in Commons, the same facilities that they have hitherto possessed to make indosures by a comparatively inexpensive process." In other words, although public policy demands that Commons should not be absorbed into private ownership, and although such absorption cannot take place without the assist- ance of Parliament, Parliament is bound to offer -such assist- ance, from a consideration for certain individual landowners. It seems only necessary to state the proposition to show its monstrosity ; and the history of Inclosure legislation is, as we have attempted to show, equally fatal to its reception. If, as we fear, despite the apparent fairness of the Government pro- posals, this object—to aid landowners in improving their posi- tion by dividing Commons—has really actuated the Ministry in framing their measure, it deserves no eupport from those interested in the question. Such a motive will be denied, but the Bill must be judged by its probable effect. Now,.allite. provisions which make against inclosure have that permissive. character which distinguishes the legislation of the present Government. Persons interested in a Common may, after the passing of this Act, apply for a provisional order for its regu- lation, instead of its inclosure ; and Mr. Cross expressed a hope that in future there would be many more applications for the first purpose than for the second. But this is not likely. No provisional order can be made for regulating a Common-with- out the consent of persons representing two-thirds in value of the legal interests affected, and in the case of waste, without that of the Lord of the Manor. The large landowners of any district are therefore masters of the situation. Now they. wish to inclose either with a view to profit, or to the acquisition- of land. Regulation of a Common will assist them but slightly in the first object, and will tend to prevent the attainment of the second. Is it probable that they will incur the expense attendant upon proceedings under the Act which do not give a result they wish, when another course more in harmony with their inclinations is open to them ? Again, certain powers are conferred upon the urban Sanitary Authority in-reference-to proposals for the inclosure or regulation of Suburban Oommons. But they are hampered in taking the initiative by the necessity of carrying with them in their wishes the persons legally interested, and there is no security that their opposition to in- closures will be effectual. Other provisions of the Bill prescribe with more minuteness the inquiries which the Inclosure Com- missioners are already directed to make as to the bearing of an inclosure upon the welfare of the neighbourhood. It is known what practical effect these inquiries have had in past times, and when the Commissioners are even now proposing the inclosure of a small, open space in the midst of crowded towns, it does not seem clear that greater effect will be given to them in future. It requires no prophet to foretell that. the re. suit of the passing of this Bill will be to set indosares in motion throughout the country. If this is a result... as Mr. Cross admitted,—not desirable in the public interests, those interests will be best served by the rejection.of the Bill.
Previous page
