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 | 0 |
| Dissenting, | 370 | 0 | 0 |
| Neutral, | 37 | 0 | 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.
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.