Area.—According to Act ‘by Estimation about 3000 Acres,’ but Award gives 2126 Acres only.
Nature of Ground.—‘Large open fields, Arable and Meadow Grounds, and Lammas Lands, about 1621 acres, and also several Commons, Moors and Waste Lands,’ about 505 acres (unstinted).
Parliamentary Proceedings.—
First Attempt, December 12, 1766.—Petition for Enclosure from the Lord of the Manor, the Impropriator of the Great Tythes, the Vicar, and the most considerable Proprietors. Leave given. Bill read first time, January 27, 1767.
February 18, 1767.—Petition against the bill from various ‘Owners or Occupiers of Cottages or Tenements in the parish of Stanwell,’ setting forth ‘that the Petitioners in Right of their said Cottages and Tenements are severally intitled to Common of Pasture for their Cattle and Sheep upon all the said Commons, Moors, and Waste Lands, at all Times of the Year, except for Sheep, without any Stint whatsoever, as also a Right of intercommoning their Cattle and Sheep, with those of the Tenants of divers other Manors, at all Times in the Year, upon the large Common called Hounslow Heath: and the Petitioners in the Rights aforesaid, are also intitled to and do enjoy Common of Turbary on the said Commons and Heath, and that the Lord of the Manor of Stanwell lately caused part of the said Moors within the said Parish, to be fenced in, and inclosed with Pales for his own sole and separate Use, without the Consent of the Petitioners and other Persons intitled to a Right of Common therein, which said Pales have been since pulled down by several of the Petitioners and others, against whom several Actions have been commenced by the Lord of the said Manor, in order to try the Petitioners’ said Right of Common therein, all which Actions are now depending; and that the Petitioners apprehend, and believe, in case the said Bill should pass into a Law, the Legality of the Petitioners’ said Rights will be left to the Determination of Commissioners unqualified to judge of the same: and that in case the Petitioners’ said Rights should be allowed by such Commissioners, that no adequate Compensation in Land will or can be awarded to the Petitioners for the same: and that the dividing and inclosing the said Commons, Moors, and Waste Lands within the said Parish, will greatly injure and distress many....’ Another petition was presented on the same day from George Richard Carter, Esq., Samuel Clark, Esq., Jervoise Clark, Esq., John Bullock, Esq., and several others, being owners and proprietors of Farms and Lands in the parish of Stanwell, setting forth that the Petitioners, as also the Owners of near 100 Cottages or Tenements within the said Parish, and their respective Tenants are entitled to right of pasture as in the petition given above, and stating that inclosing will be attended with great inconvenience.
On February 26 came yet another petition from owners and occupiers in the parishes of Harmondsworth, Harlington, Cranford, Heston, Isleworth, Twickenham, Teddington, Hampton, Hanworth, Feltham, and East Bedfont in Middlesex, setting forth that the Commons and Waste Lands in the parish of Stanwell were part of Hounslow Heath, over which the petitioners had right of pasture, and stating that if the part of the Heath in Stanwell parish were inclosed it would be very injurious to all the owners and occupiers in the parish of Stanwell, except to the Lord of the Manor, and would also be prejudicial to the petitioners.
All these petitions were ordered to lie on the table till the second reading, which took place on February 26. Counsel was heard for and against the Bill; the motion that the Bill should be committed was defeated by 34 to 17 votes, and thus the farmers were able to parade along Pall Mall with cockades in their hats.[500]
Second Attempt, February 20, 1789.—Petition from the Lord of the Manor (Sir William Gibbons), the Vicar and others for enclosure. Leave given. Bill read twice.
Report and Enumeration of Consents.—March 30, 1789.—Sir William Lemon 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 Proprietors of Estates of the Annual Value of £164, 14s. or thereabouts who refused to sign the Bill, and also except the Proprietors of £220, 5s. 8d. per Annum or thereabouts who did not chuse to sign the Bill, but made no Objection to the Inclosure, and also except some small Proprietors of about £76 per Annum who could not be found, and that the whole Property belonging to Persons interested in the Inclosure amounts to £2,929, 5s. 4d. per annum or thereabouts).’ Bill passed both Houses. Royal Assent, May 19, 1789.
Main Features of Act.—(Private, 29 George III. c. 15.)