February 28.—Petition against the bill from the Earl of Strafford, stating that the bill will greatly affect and prejudice his property. Petition referred to Committee.
Same day, Petition against the bill from several Persons, being Owners of Estates and Occupiers of Houses in the Town and Parish of Wakefield. ‘Setting forth, That, if the said Bill should pass into a Law, as it now stands, the same will greatly affect and prejudice the Estates and Property of the Petitioners, (viz.), their being deprived of the Benefit they now receive from the Pasturage of the Ings, from the 12th of August to the 5th of April, and for which they cannot receive any Compensation adequate thereto, as well as the Restrictions which exclude the Inhabitants from erecting Buildings on Land that may be allotted to them for Twenty, Forty, and Sixty Years, on different Parts of Westgate Common, as specified in the said Bill.’ This petition also was referred to the Committee.
Report and Enumeration of Consents.—March 12.—Wilberforce reported from the Committee that the Standing Orders had been complied with, that they had considered the first Petition (Lord Strafford’s), (no one had appeared to be heard on behalf of the second Petition), that they found the allegations of the Bill true, that ‘the Parties concerned’ had given their consent to the Bill, and also to adding one Commissioner to the three named in the Bill ‘(except the Owners of Estates whose Property in the Lands and Grounds to be divided and inclosed is assessed to the Land Tax at £5 per Annum or thereabouts, who refused to sign the Bill; and also, except the Owners of Estates whose Property in the said Lands and Grounds is assessed to the Land Tax at about £51 per Annum, who have either declared themselves perfectly indifferent about the Inclosure, or not given any Answer to the Application made to them respecting it; and that the whole Property belonging to Persons interested in the Inclosure is assessed to the Land Tax at £432 per Annum, or thereabouts ...).’
Bill passed Commons and Lords. March 28, Royal Assent.
Main Features of Act.—(Private, 33 George III. c. 11.)
Commissioners.—Four appointed. (1) Richard Clark of Rothwell Haigh, Gentleman; (2) John Renshaw of Owthorp, Notts, Gentleman; (3) John Sharp of Gildersome, Yorks, Gentleman; (4) William Whitelock of Brotherton, Yorks, Gentleman; the first representing the Duke of Leeds, the second the Earl of Strafford (no doubt this was the Commissioner added in Committee), and the other two representing the Majority in Value of the Persons interested. Any vacancy to be filled up by the party represented, and new Commissioners to be ‘not interested in the said Inclosure.’ Three to be a quorum. In case of dispute and equal division of opinion amongst the Commissioners, an Umpire is appointed (Isaac Leatham of Barton, Gentleman); the decision of Commissioners and Umpire to be final and conclusive.
Payment To Commissioners.—2 guineas each for each working day. The Surveyors (2 appointed) to be paid as Commissioners think fit.
Claims.—All claims with full particulars of the nature and tenure of the property on behalf of which the claim is made are to be handed in at the 1st or 2nd meeting of the Commissioners; no claim is to be received later except for some special cause; and the determination of the Commissioners as to the various claims is to be binding and final. There are, however, three exceptions to the above, (1) Persons claiming in virtue of Messuages and Tofts need not prove usage of common; (2) Any Person who is dissatisfied with regard to his own or some one else’s claim, may give notice in writing, and the Commissioners are then to take Counsel’s opinion on the matter. The Commissioners are to choose the Counsel, who is to be ‘not interested in the Premises.’ The Commissioners may also on their own responsibility take Counsel’s opinion at any time they think proper; Counsel’s opinion is to be final. The costs are to be paid by the party against whom the dispute is determined, or otherwise as the Commissioners decide; (3) The Earl of Strafford is exempted from specifying particulars of Tenure in making his claim, for there are disputes on this subject between the Duke and the Earl, ‘which Matters in Difference the said Duke and Earl have not agreed to submit to the Consideration or Determination of the said Commissioners.’ The Commissioners need not specify the tenure of the Earl’s share in making their award, and if the Duke and Earl go to law about their dispute and the matter is settled in a Court of Equity, then the Commissioners are to make a second special Award for them.
System of Division—Special Provisions:
Provisions for the Lord of the Manor—‘the Most Noble Francis, Duke of Leeds.’—