The village labourer, 1760-1832 / A study in the government of England before the Reform Bill

by J. L. Hammond; Barbara Bradby Hammond

Parliamentary Proceedings.—

First attempt, January 31, 1767.—Petition from Sir James Lowther, Lord of the Manor, and from ‘divers owners’ for enclosure of the open fields and commons, and also of ‘a large Pasture called Laleham Burway.’ Leave given, but bill dropped after first reading.

Second attempt, December 7, 1767.—Petition for enclosure from Sir James Lowther alone, on behalf of himself and others. Leave given; bill prepared by Mr. Anthony Bacon and Mr. Fuller, read twice and committed (December 14) to Mr. Bacon, Mr. Jenkinson, Sir James Lowther, and others.

December 21, 1767.—Petition against the bill from various persons, being Owners, Proprietors and Occupiers entitled to Rights of Common, and also Owners of Cow Gates on Laleham Burway, setting forth ‘that the Inclosure sought by the said Bill is contrary to the general Sense and Opinion of the Petitioners and others, who compose a Majority in Number of the Owners or Proprietors of, or Persons interested’ in the Inclosure, and also stating that the meadow of Laleham Burway is not within the Manor of Laleham, but has been proved by a trial at law to be part of the Manor of Chertsey Beaumont. Petitioners to be heard on Report.

Report and Enumeration of Consents.—December 21, 1767 (same day).—Mr. Anthony Bacon reported from the Committee that the Allegations of the Bill were true, and ‘that the Parties concerned had given their Consent to the Bill, to the Satisfaction of the Committee (except the Proprietors of Estates, who are entitled to Right of Common in the said Manor, who are rated to the Poors Rate to the Amount of £8, 2s. 0d. per Annum; and also the Proprietors of Estates, who are intitled to Right of Common in the said Manor, who are rated to the Poors Rate to the Amount of 15s. per Annum, who, being applied to, refused to sign the Bill, but declared they would not oppose the same; and that the whole of the Estates, in the said Manor, are rated to the Poors Rate to the Amount of £27, 6s. 6d. or thereabouts; and that the Proprietors of Eighty-six Cow Pastures or Farines, had refused to give their Consent to the said Bill; and that the whole Number of Cow Pastures, or Farines, are 292½); and that no Person appeared before the Committee to oppose the said Bill.’

The consideration of the Report was put off several times; February 25, 1768, a debate on the subject, resumed on February 29, with the result that the Bill was defeated.

Third Attempt, February 28, 1774.—Petition from various owners and occupiers for enclosure of Laleham and of Laleham Burway. Leave given. Bill read first time March 18.

March 22.—Petition against the bill from various owners and proprietors of certain Messuages, Cottages, Farmsteads, Lands and Rights of Common, and also owners of Cattle gates on Laleham Burway, setting forth that the ‘Bill is contrary to the general Sense and Opinion of the Petitioners and others, who compose a great Majority of the real Owners and Proprietors of, or Persons interested in, the Lands and Grounds intended to be inclosed: and that the Petitioners conceive that the said Bill, if passed into a Law, will in general be injurious to all the Petitioners, and in particular highly burthensome and oppressive to such of them who enjoy small and inconsiderable Rights and Interests therein.’ The Petition again pointed out that Laleham Burway was not in the Manor of Laleham, and that apart from that fact, ‘Inclosure would render the Enjoyment thereof’ inconvenient if not impracticable. To be heard by Counsel on second reading. On April 15 came another Petition from William Barwell, Esq., and other proprietors in and near Chertsey, opposing the enclosure of Laleham Burway as detrimental to the proprietors thereof and to the inhabitants in general of Chertsey, and suggesting that it is ‘calculated only for the private Emolument of some One or few’ of the proprietors. Petition to lie on table.

May 20.—Bill read a second time. Both above Petitions read and Counsel against the Bill heard and several witnesses examined. Bill committed.

Report and Enumeration of Consents.—June 7, 1774.—Mr. Norton reported from the Committee, that the allegations were true and that the parties concerned had consented ‘(except the Owners of 13 Houses intitled to Right of Common and the Proprietors of Lands rated to the Land Tax of £35, 4s. 6d. per Annum who refused to sign the Bill, and also except the Proprietors of Lands rated to the Land Tax at 9s. per Annum who could not be found; and that the whole Number of Houses having Right of Common is 80, and the whole of the said Lands are rated to the Land Tax at £168, 2s. 6d. per Annum).’