APPENDIX A (13)

Quainton.—Attempted Enclosure, 1801

Parliamentary Proceedings.—March 20, 1801.—Petition for enclosures from ‘several persons.’ Leave given. Earl Temple, Sir William Young, and Mr. Praed to prepare bill.

April 2.—Bill read first time.

April 13.—Petition from various proprietors of Lands, Common Rights, and other Hereditaments against the bill, stating that enclosure ‘would be attended with an Expence to the Proprietors far exceeding any Improvement to be derived therefrom.’ Ordered to be heard on second reading.

April 15.—Bill read second time. Petitioners declined to be heard. Bill committed to Mr. Praed, Earl Temple, etc.

April 21.—Petition against the bill from various proprietors stating ‘that the Proprietors of the said Commonable Lands are very numerous, and the Shares or Properties belonging to most of them are so small that the proposed Division and Inclosure would be attended with an Expence far exceeding any Improvement to be derived therefrom; and that a great Majority in Number of the said Proprietors dissent to the said Bill, and the Proprietors of more than One-third, and very nearly One-half Part in Value, of the Lands to be inclosed, also dissent thereto; and that many of the Clauses and Provisions in the said Bill are also highly injurious’ to the petitioners.

Referred to the Committee. All to have voices.

Report and Enumeration of Consents.—June 12.—Mr. Praed reported from the Committee that the Standing Orders had been complied with, that the allegations were true, and that the Parties concerned had given their consent (except the owners of Estates assessed to the Land Tax at £39, 12s. 6¼d. who refused to sign the bill, and the owners of Estates assessed at £3, 10s. 0d. who were neuter; and that the whole of the Estates ‘interested’ were assessed at £246, 8s. 6d.).

Same day.—Petition against the bill from Richard Wood on behalf of himself and other proprietors who were parties to the former petition, Richard Wood being the only one left in London, setting forth ‘that the said Bill proposes to inclose only a Part of the said Parish of Quainton, consisting of 3 open Arable Fields, and about 280 Acres of Commonable Land, lying dispersedly in, or adjoining to the said Open Fields, the rest of the said Parish being Old inclosed Lands’; that the agent for the bill had given the Committee a statement (1) of the names of the persons interested; (2) of the amount at which these persons were assessed to the Land Tax for their property throughout the parish, according to which statement it appeared, first, that of the 34 persons interested, ‘not being Cottagers,’ 8 assented, 4 were neuter, and 22 dissented; but that, second, as stated in terms of Land Tax Assessment, £203, 5s. 11¾d. assented, and £39, 12s. 6¼d. dissented; that this statement was wrong inasmuch as the proprietors of old inclosed lands had in respect of old inclosures no rights over the commonable lands, and that therefore no old inclosed land could rank as property ‘interested’ in the inclosure. The petitioners gave the following enumeration of Consents as the correct one; whole quantity of land in the Open Fields, ‘in respect of which only a Right of Common could be claimed,’ 42¼ yard lands:—

Land belonging	to those who	assented,	21¾	yard lands
„	„	dissented,	19½	„
„	„	were neutral,	1	yard land

or in terms of annual value—

Assenting,	£406	10
Dissenting,	370	0
Neutral,	37	0

The petitioners further stated that their Counsel had offered to call witnesses before the Committee to prove the above facts; that the agent for the bill had retorted that old inclosed lands had a right in the Commons, although he did not pretend that such right had ever been enjoyed, or produce any witness to show that it had ever been claimed, but supported his claim by quoting a clause in the bill by which it was proposed that the Rector’s Tithes for the old inclosures as well as the new should be commuted for an allotment of land; and that the Committee refused to hear the evidence tendered by the petitioners’ Counsel. This Petition was referred to the Committee to whom the bill was recommitted, and the bill was dropped.