APPENDIX A (14)
Subsequent History of King’s Sedgmoor
In 1775, Mr. Allen, Member of Parliament for Bridgwater, tried to get an enclosure bill passed. ‘Sanguine of success, and highly impressed with the idea of its importance, he purchased a large number of rights, and having obtained a signature of consents, went to Parliament; but not having interest enough in the House to stem the torrent of opposition, all his delusive prospects of profit vanished, and he found himself left in a small but respectable minority.’[502] No further attempt was made till 1788, when a meeting to consider the propriety of draining and dividing the moor, was held at Wells. ‘At this meeting Sir Philip Hales presided; and after much abuse and opposition from the lower order of commoners, who openly threatened destruction to those who supported such a measure, the meeting was dissolved without coming to any final determination.
‘The leading idea was, however, afterwards pursued, with great assiduity, by Sir Philip, and his agent Mr. Symes of Stowey; and by their persevering industry, and good management,’[503] application was again made to Parliament in 1791.
Parliamentary Proceedings.—February 18, 1791.—Petition from several Owners and Proprietors for a bill to drain and divide the tract of waste ground of about 18,000 acres called King’s Sedgmoor. Petitioners point out that the moor is liable to be overflowed, ‘and thereby the same is not only less serviceable and useful to the Commoners, but also, by reason of the Vapours and Exhalations which arise from thence, the Air of the circumjacent Country is rendered less salubrious’; also that it would be ‘beneficial, as well to the wholesomeness of the neighbouring Country as also to the Profitableness of the Pasturage of the said Moor’ if it were drained and divided into Parochial or other large allotments. The House was also informed that the expense of the undertaking was not proposed to be levied by Tolls or Duties upon the Parties interested.
Leave given. Mr. Philips and Sir John Trevelyan to prepare. February 28. Bill committed to Mr. Philips, Mr. Templar, etc.
Report and Enumeration of Consents.—March 7.—Mr. Philips reported that the Standing Orders had been complied with, that the allegations were true, and that the parties concerned had consented ‘(except the Owners of 107 Rights on the said Moor, who declared themselves neuter in respect to the Bill; and also except the Owners of 84 Rights, who declared themselves against the Bill; and that the whole of the Rights on the said Moor consist of 1740, or thereabouts; and that no Person appeared before the Committee to oppose the Bill).’
The Bill passed Commons, March 9; Lords, April 15. Royal Assent, May 13.
Billingsley, after describing the attempts to enclose Sedgmoor, remarks (p. 192): ‘I have been thus particular in stating the progress of this business merely to show the impropriety of calling public meetings with a view of gaining signatures of consent or taking the sense of the proprietors in that way. At all publick meetings of this nature which I ever attended noise and clamour have silenced sound sense and argument. A party generally attends with a professed desire to oppose, and truth and propriety have a host of foes to combat. Whoever therefore has an object of this kind in view let him acquire consent by private application; for I have frequently seen the good effects thereof manifested by the irresistible influence of truth when coolly and quietly administered; and it has frequently happened that men hostile to your scheme have by dispassionate argument not only changed their sentiment but become warm partisans in that cause which at first they meant to oppose.’
The task of Sir Philip and Mr. Symes in acquiring consents by the cool and quiet administration of truth must have been considerably lightened by the fact that Parliament anticipated the Commissioners with extraordinary accuracy in disregarding 55% of the claims. The Commissioners, says Billingsley, investigated 4063 claims, of which only 1798 were allowed. The Parliamentary Committee had asserted that there were 1740 rights, ‘or thereabouts.’
The Act for draining and dividing King’s Sedgmoor is not, so far as we have been able to discover, amongst the printed Statutes.
Particulars of the expenses are given by Billingsley (p. 196), who estimates the area at 12,000 acres:—
| £ | s. | d. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| To act of parliament and all other incidental expenses, | 1,628 | 15 | 0 |
| Interest of money borrowed, | 3,239 | 4 | 11 |
| Commissioners, | 4,314 | 7 | 8 |
| Clerk, | 1,215 | 19 | 0 |
| Surveyor, | 908 | 12 | 6 |
| Printers, | 362 | 6 | 3 |
| Petty expenses, | 575 | 11 | 1 |
| Land purchased, | 2,801 | 4 | 11 |
| Drains, sluices, bridges and roads, | 15,418 | 2 | 8 |
| Awards and incidentals, | 1,160 | 0 | 8 |
| £31,624 | 4 | 8 |
About 700 acres were sold to discharge the expenses.
The drainage and division into parochial allotments was a preliminary to enclosure of the different parochial shares, which was of course made easier by the fact that 55% of the claims had already been disallowed. In the years 1796, ’97, and ’98, fourteen Enclosure Acts for the different parishes were passed.
(Butleigh and Woollavington, 1796. Aller, Ashcott, Compton Dundon, Higham, Othery, Moorlinch, Somerton, Street, and Weston Zoyland, 1797. Bridgwater, Chedjoy, and Midellzoy, 1798.)
Billingsley estimated that the total cost of subdividing parochial allotments would be £28,000.
He also estimated that the value of the land rose from 10s. to 35s. an acre.