§ Mr. Robert Palmer brought up the Report of the Committee on the Bucklebury Inclosure 749 Bill, and moved, that the Amendments be read a second time.
§ Mr. Waltermoved, that they be read a second time on that day six-months. He did not mean to say, that cases had never occurred wherein inclosures might have been beneficial; but of this he was persuaded, that if the rage for enclosures had been more tempered with discretion, the country would not at that moment have been burthened with such a mass of poor as now existed. With respect to the Bill now before the House, he had paid the greatest attention to it; and it was his duty to state, that the conviction of his mind was, that the measure was pregnant with as much mischief, and promised as little advantage to any person, as any Inclosure Bill that had ever been presented to the House. With the permission of the House, he would read a fair and impartial account of the advantages which the poor derived from their present right of commonage:—
He was told, that there were about 230 families interested in this common: of those, about thirty-five were freeholders, and out of that number more than twenty were opposed to the enclosure; about one-half of the remainder were said to be consenting parties, and the other half neuter. The remainder, nearly 200 families, were all opposed to the enclosure. It was probable the individuals composing the 200 families could not be fewer than 1,000 persons; most of whom were wholly dependent on their own labour, or the labour of their parents, and the benefits derived from Bucklebury Common. The injustice which would be done to the poor was thus evident. In behalf of the Bill, only one witness was called; and his evidence only went to show, that the Common, if brought into cultivation, would be worth between two and three times its present value; but there was not a tittle of evidence to show that it could ever be brought into profitable cultivation; whereas three witnesses, all 750 men of great practical experience, and two of eminent scientific knowledge in these matters, were decided as to the unredeemed mischief of the proposed measure. Mr. Francis Hawkes, surveyor at Reading, said, that the fencing and ditching, according to the Act of Parliament, would cost 3s. or 3s. 6d. a pole. He did not think half an acre worth enclosing. The fuel was worth a shilling a-week to the cottagers. It would be very difficult to find 200 acres of the common, that would repay the expenditure of capital laid out in enclosing and draining it. "Was it his opinion, that the land to be given to the poor as compensation, would be equivalent to the benefit they now derived from the common?" Answer—"Of course not. The effect of passing this Bill, would be to make the poor pay for that fuel which they now have by right." Question—"Now, you have had a good deal of experience, is it your opinion that the parties generally will derive any benefit from this enclosure?" Answer—"With respect to the small proprietors, they would be injured very materially; but with respect to Mr. Hartley, it would be a great improvement of his property." Mr. David Stewart, a land-agent and surveyor, was asked his opinion of the enclosure. His answer was—"I think it would be in a high degree injurious to the poor, and I do not think it would be beneficial to the public, because the land is of such an inferior quality, that it is not calculated for agricultural purposes." He thought that if the Lord of the Manor intended to convert it into a park, it was a most beautiful situation; but, in such case, he might very well afford to give ample compensation. Mr. Judd, who had been overseer, estimated the value of the fuel at 1s. a-week, and the grazing of a single cow at 3l. a-year. He was asked what had been the result of a neighbouring enclosure twenty years ago; and he answered, that it had increased the poor. "What was his opinion of the probable result of an enclosure of Bucklebury?"—"I think it would increase the Poor-rates very considerably." He thought that if the common were divided into small allotments, they would be of very little value to the labourers, and not equivalent to the loss of the right of common; and that any additional labour, after two years, would be done away with. Under all these hardships to the poor, the hon. Member trusted that the House would assent to his proposition.
£ s. d. By Fuel 2 12 0 By keeping pigs 1 10 0 By keeping a cow, with or without a calf 2 15 0 By keeping geese, ducks, and fowls 1 0 0 By litter, such as fern, for bedding for the cow, pigs, or colt 0 5 0 £8 2 0
§ Mr. Pryme seconded the Amendment.
§ Mr. Robert Palmerwished to say a few words in defence of the Bill. He had no immediate interest in the Bill; it was placed in his hands in the ordinary course, to conduct through that House, and he knew nothing more on the subject than the simple facts of the case. On a former occasion he stated, that he only acted Ministerially with respect to the Bill, and that he was in no other way interested as to the result. The facts were these:—the Lord of the Manor was the proprietor of by far the greater part of the soil. The number of acres amounted to 4,050; of which the Lord of the Manor and seven other individuals assenting to the measure possessed 3,942. The remaining 108 acres belonged to different persons; among these, the number of those dissenting from the enclosure was nineteen, and the number assenting was twelve, who were owners of the common rights. A petition had been presented by 150 tenants-at-will of the Lord against the Bill; but so far from being injurious to their interests, he was of opinion it would protect them. Evidence had been offered to the Committee to show, that the land was capable of great improvement. He admitted, that only one witness had been called to prove that the land was now in an unproductive state, and that it would be rendered highly productive by being enclosed. He also admitted, that three respectable witnesses had been called on the other side, who declared that considerable injury would be sustained by those tenants whose lands were to be enclosed. He did not think, however, that the number of witnesses on the one side and the other, should have any weight with the House, as it was in the power of either party to have called more. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would permit the Bill to be read a second time.
§ Mr. Peasesaid, that one of his constituents was interested in the measure, and had desired him to oppose the Bill in his behalf. He, however, felt it to be his duty to do so upon principle. He must say, that an act of greater unfairness toward the poor, in his opinion, had never been committed. They were to be deprived of their rights by the Bill, and no manner of compensation was to be afforded to them. He called upon the House, now, to protect the rights of the poor against the oppression of the great landed proprietors of Berks. He protested against the measure generally, and hoped that such at- 752 tempts to deprive the poor of their rights would not be countenanced by that House.
Colonel Evansalso opposed this Bill, as it was his intention to oppose several other Inclosure Bills, now in progress through the House, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member who spoke last—namely, because he considered it an infringement of the rights of the poor. The hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Palmer) had stated, that if the land were enclosed, it would become greatly increased in value, by being rendered productive. The petitions which had been presented to that House, from all parts of the country, complaining of agricultural distress, declared that the best land in the country would scarcely pay the rent, and that, therefore, the present system of Corn-laws must be kept up. He would ask the hon. Member, how that could be reconciled with the pretext set up on the present occasion for depriving the poor of their rights—that the land would be rendered more valuable by the inclosure?
§ Mr. Throckmortonhaving been a member of the Committee, was desirous to observe, that so far as the evidence adduced before the Committee went, there was no argument advanced that could induce him to withhold his support from the Bill.
§ Mr. H. B. Curteisgave his decided opposition to the Bill upon public principle. He knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he opposed the measure generally, because he thought the rights of the poor were not sufficiently protected in any Bills of that nature which were introduced into the House. He was himself the Lord of a Manor, and he very well knew, that a universal desire prevailed with the Lords of Manors to encroach on the rights of the public, and particularly of the defenceless poor, and for this reason their conduct ought to be watched with great jealousy by that House. Another ground of objection to this Bill was, with respect to the great amount of tithe which would be received out of this land. He strongly objected to the pressing forward Bills of this nature at the present time. When it was remembered that a great Parliamentary measure for the commutation of tithe was about to pass, it must be admitted, that the present Bill was premature.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that it was never contended in the Committee, that the poorer freeholders would not be injured by the bill. The very fact that the Lord of the Manor had offered them compensation proved, that there must be some 753 injury anticipated; and one of the questions before the Committee had been, whether the compensation offered to the poor was sufficient. He admitted, that if the poor-rates of the parish were increased, the principal part of that increase would fall upon the Lord of the Manor, but that was no reason for adopting a measure which was calculated to make paupers of those who had hitherto supported themselves by their industry. Numbers of these poor persons had come to the Committee and stated that they now supported themselves by their own exertions, and were most anxious to continue to do so; they had even implored the Committee, with tears in their eyes, not to make paupers of them by this bill. They said this bill would deprive them of fuel, of pasturage for their cow or sheep, and of various other advantages they now derived from their right of common; indeed, there had been no proof offered that anybody but the lord of the manor would derive advantage from this Bill. He thought that its preamble was not proved—indeed he had divided the Committee upon it, and the report had only been agreed to by a majority of one. In conclusion, he called upon the House to withhold its consent from this Bill, which enabled the lord of the manor to add to his own park at the expense of his poorer neighbours.
§ Mr. Robert Palmer, in reply, repeated that he only acted ministerially on the present occasion, and regretted it became his duty to divide the House on the question.
§ The House divided on the Question that the Bill be read a second time: Ayes 6; Noes 38—Majority 32.