KINGSCLERE ENCLOSURE. (Hansard, 19 April 1842)

§ Mr. Labouchere
brought up the report of the 805 Kingsclere Enclosure Bill. On the question that the amendment made by the Committee be now read a second time,

§ Mr. Godson
> said, the intention of this bill was to enclose a certain tract of common land. A similar measure had been before the House in 1834, when it was defeated; and, such being the fact, he begged leave, as shortly as possible, to advert to the circumstances of the case. The common fields in question consisted of 1,700 acres, and a few rich farmers and others who did not reside in the immediate neighbourhood, but who would be benefitted by it, were favourable to the bill; but a number of poor persons, he would say some hundreds, would be deeply injured if the measure were passed in its present form. To the following clause he wished to call the particular attention of the House, as being in his opinion most objectionable: And be it enacted, that all encroachments and enclosures which shall have been made by any person from or upon any part of the lands to be enclosed within twenty years next before the passing of this act, whether any amerciament, annual rent, or any money payment or acknowledgment, hath or hath not been paid in respect of the same, to or for the use of the lord of the soil or any other person, shall be deemed parcel of the lands to be enclosed, and shall be divided, allotted, and enclosed accordingly. Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the several persons who shall be in possession of any such encroachment or enclosure, or in the receipt of the rent thereof, at the time of the passing of this act, to take down and remove all such buildings, fences, and other erections as shall then be thereon, and to convert the materials thereof to their own use, provided such removal take place within a certain time, to be limited by the commissioner for that purpose, by a notice delivered to the persons respectively in possession of such encroachments, or affixed upon-some conspicuous part of such encroachment or enclosure. He had read this clause to the House for the purpose of showing how unjust was the principle on which it proceeded; for nothing could be more unjust than that the lord of the manor or the freeholder should see individuals, from time to time, expending money on the ground, for five, ten, or perhaps fifteen years, and then turning round and telling them that, because they had not held it for twenty years, it should be taken away from them and enclosed; this was a proceeding which, he thought, ought not to be per- 806 mitted. The people ought to be allowed to have a portion of this land at a moderate price; and he believed that in the committee on the Ormsby Enclosure Bill a proposition of that nature was carried; but no such thing was to be found in this bill. He should, therefore, move "that the bill be recommitted."

§ Sir W. Heathcote
said, that with regard to the justice of the clause to which allusion had been made, he dissented wholly and entirely from the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not see the necessity of drawing a distinction in this case other than that which the law of the land had generally laid down, which required a possession of twenty years; and he could see no ground for giving to wrongdoers advantages which the law denied to them. With respect to the light in which the measure was viewed, he begged to observe, that he had presented a petition in favour of the enclosure signed by 200 labourers. Those persons knew that work and employment were wanting in that neighbourhood, and they felt that this measure would immediately bring a considerable quantity of land into cultivation. He had also presented a petition, signed by seventy-seven individuals of the higher class, in favour of the bill, which they approved of with reference to its general principle. The general principle of the bill had been sanctioned on the second reading. It was then sent to a committee, where there were two points to be considered;—1st, whether the preamble had been proved; and 2d, whether the clauses were proper for carrying out the object contemplated by the preamble. The committee, after due inquiry, were unanimously of opinion that the preamble was proved, and that the clauses were proper. The only point of difference arose as to the reception of certain evidence. One Member was of opinion that the evidence in question should be received; but the chairman and the other members thought that it should not. Now, he would take upon himself to say, that if the committees of that House were to be guided by any of the ordinary rules of evidence, the evidence tendered in this case, and refused, must be, and was rightly, rejected. That evidence consisted of a copy of a paper that had been burnt when the House of Commons was destroyed by fire; a copy of a re- 807 port that bad been formerly made by a surveyor on this subject. The committee were expected, without any one being called to prove that this was a correct copy of the report laid before a former committee, to receive it at once as evidence. With regard to the course taken by the committee on that point, he saw no reason whatsoever for altering his opinion. Then the parties opposed to the measure asked for the re-committal of the report, on the ground of the necessity of further time being allowed, for the purpose of enabling them to bring forward evidence in support of their allegations. Now, he contended that sufficient time had been allowed, as would appear by a' reference to the proceedings. The bill was read a second time in February, and it stood for committal on the 15th of that month. The committee was not appointed till the 12th of April. The opponents of this measure had all that interval to take such steps as they might deem necessary. They, however, made no proposition to the committee for the withdrawal or the alteration of any clause, but objected to the preamble altogether; and they now came forward on the ground that time had not been given them to do justice to their case. If the House granted further time on such a plea as that which was now put forward, then they would have every bill, after its merits had been fully discussed and fairly decided in committee, subject to be again opened for re-argument, whenever any party chose to insist on fresh inquiry because some difference of opinion existed. Mr. Brotherton said, it was the duty of that House to throw its shield over these poor people. In 1834, it appeared so clearly that the cottagers would be injured by the measure then introduced, that it was thrown out. In 1835 a similar measure was, he believed, abandoned. It was now made matter of charge against these poor cottagers that they had not employed counsel to oppose the bill. But where were they to find money for that purpose? From all the circumstances which had come under his observation with respect to this case, it did appear to him that it had not been sufficiently inquired into, and therefore the report ought to be sent back. The committee had, it appeared, refused to adjourn a day or two, in order that they might procure the necessary evidence to authenticate the report which they wished the committee to take into consideration. 808 When all the circumstances were looked into he conceived that the House was bound, before they agreed to a bill like this, which was calculated to injure many poor persons, to give them every opportunity for the defence of their just interests. If they had not been able to offer an effectual resistance to the bill on account of their poverty, that was the very reason that ought to induce the House to assist them.

§ Mr. Labouchere
said, he had no personal interest whatever in this matter, but as he had happened to be chairman of the committee he wished to say a few words in explanation of his opinions. He conceived that the measure would, generally, operate in a beneficial manner. It should be observed that the place proposed to be enclosed was not in the neighbourhood of any great town, and it was situated in a part of the country where there was a very great want of employment. The land intended to be enclosed was good land, capable of being cultivated, and he had no doubt whatever that the interests of these poor people would be greatly assisted, instead of being deteriorated by a measure that was calculated to bring that land into cultivation, and of thus affording additional employment. Certainly they would reap more benefit from it when enclosed than any which they could hope to derive from it in its present state. With respect to the amendment of the hon. Member, he saw no necessity for it. The question had been aheady fully examined; and he denied that the measure tended to deprive any individual of the smallest possible right to which he could exhibit a just claim. Persons had encroached on this common; but they had not held those encroachments for twenty years, and therefore, they could advance no proper claim to that which they had enclosed. Those Gentlemen who supported their demand wished to give to them a legal right, which he held to be a most dangerous principle to advance. So far from those persons having any just right to complain, he contended that it was perfectly competent, at any moment, for the lord of the manor to proceed against them, and to eject them, they not having been in possession of the ground encroached upon for twenty years. He, therefore, did not conceive that they were inflicting any hardship on those parties which the law, if it were put in force, would not also inflict. The bill then before the House provided for them 809 as far as it possibly could, by indemnifying them for any expense which they might have incurred. But it went no further than the law went, and very properly refused to give those people a freehold where previously they had none.

§ Lord G. Somerset
was of opinion that the House ought not to agree to the amendment of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The rights and claims of the parties had been fairly and properly considered. Everything they had to allege in support of their case had been heard, and as the matter had been before the House repeatedly, they could not justly say that they were unprepared. They certainly had not made out to his mind such a case of hardship as called on that House to interfere with the report of the committee.

§ Mr. Fielden
was of opinion, that the parties complaining ought to be allowed to be fully heard. It was the especial duty of the House to protect individuals situated as these poor people were. He saw very good grounds for sending the report back to the committee. Those who resided at a distance from the place were, he believed, likely to derive advantage from this measure, but those who lived on the spot would, on the contrary, be seriously injured by it.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Campbell, A.
Aglionby, H. A.	Christopher, R. A.
Aldam, W.	Chute, W. L. W.
Allix, J. P.	Clive, hon. It. H.
Antrobus, E.	Cochrane, A.
Arbuthnott, hon. H.	Copeland, Mr. Ald.
Astell, W.	Courtenay, Visct.
Bagge, W.	Craig, W. G.
Bailey, J.	Cripps, W.
Bailey, J. jun.	Darby, G.
Baillie, Col.	Denison, E. B.
Baillie, H. J.	Dickinson, F. II.
Bankes, G.	Divett, E.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Douro, Marquess of
Baring, H. B.	Drummond, H. H.
Barnard, E. G.	Duffield, T.
Barrington, Visct.	Dugdale, W. S.
Beckett, W.	East, J. B.
Bernard, Visct.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Blake, Sir V.	Fitzroy, Capt.
Bowes, J.	Fleming, J. W.
Bradshaw, J.	Forbes, W.
Broadwood, H.	Gaskell, J. Milnes
Bryan, G.	Gore, hon. R.
Busfeild. W.	Granger, T, C.

Greene, T.	Parker, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Patten, J. W.
Grimsditch, T.	Philips, M.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Pigot, Sir R.
Hamilton, W. J.	Plumptre, J. P.
Hastie, A.	Plumridge, Capt.
Hay, Sir A. L.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F.
Hayes, Sir E.	A. C.
Henley, J. W.	Price, R.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Pusey, P.
Hill, Lord M.	Reade, W. M.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Rolleston, Col.
Hogg, J. W.	Rous, hon. Capt.
Hornby, J.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Howard, hn. C.W. G.	Scott, hon. F.
Howard, hon. H.	Shirley, E. P.
Humphery, Mr. Ald.	Sibthorp, Col.
Hutt, W.	Smith, A.
Irton, S.	Somerset, Lord G.
James, Sir W. C.	Stuart, W. V.
Johnson, W. G.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Johnston, A.	Thesiger, F.
Kemble, H.	Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Lambton, H.	Towneley, J.
Lefroy, A.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Trollope, Sir J.
Lockhart, W.	Trotter, J.
Lowther, J. H.	Tufnell, H.
Lowther, hon. Col.	Vane, Lord H.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Mackinnon, W. A.	Verner, Col.
Mahon, Visct.	Vernon, G. H.
Mangles, R. D.	Waddington, H. S.
Manners, Lord C. S.	Wall, C. B.
Manners, Lord J.	Wawn, J. T.
March, Earl of	Wilshere, W.
Marton, G.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Martyn, C. C.	Wood, C.
Maunsell, T. P.	Worsley, Lord
Miles. W.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Mitcalfe, H.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Mundy, E. M.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Murray, C. R. S.
O'Brien, A. S,	TELLERS.
Ord, W.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Packe, C. W.	Heathcote, Sir W.

List of the NOES.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Muntz, G. F.
Bowring, Dr.	Murphy, F. S.
Butler, hon. Col.	Rundle, J.
Crawford, W. S.	Scott, R.
Duncombe, T.	Thornely, T.
Elphinstone, H.	Williams, W.
Fielden, J.	TELLERS.
Harris, J. Q.	Brotherton, J.
James, W.	Godson, R.