inthepetitionfromvariousownersandproprietorsatArmley，who’atthe
instanceofseveralotherownersofland，’signedapetitionforenclosure
andwishtobeheardagainstit，andalsointheunavailingpetitionofsome
oftheproprietorsandfreeholdersofWinfrithNewburghinDorsetshire，in
1768，21*whodeclaredthatiftheBillpassedintolaw，their’Estates
mustbetotallyruinedthereby，andthatsomeofthePetitionersbyThreats
andMenaceswereprevailedupontosignthePetitionforthesaidBill：but
uponRecollection，andconsideringtheimpendingRuin，’theyprayedto’have
LibertytoretractfromtheirseemingAcquiescence。’Fromthesamecasewe
learnthatitwasthepracticesometimestograntcopyholdsonthecondition
thatthetenantwouldundertakenottoopposeenclosure。Sometimes，asin
thecaseoftheSedgmoorEnclosure，whichweshalldiscusslater，actual
fraudwasemployed。Butevenifthepromotersemployednounfairmethods
theyhadoneargumentpowerfulenoughtobeadeterrentinmanyminds。For
anopposedEnclosureBillwasmuchmoreexpensivethananunopposedBill，
andasthesmallmenfelttheburdenofthecostsmuchmorethanthelarge
proprietors，theywouldnaturallybeshyofaddingtotheveryheavyexpenses
unlesstheystoodaverygoodchanceofdefeatingthescheme。
Itisofcapitalimportancetorememberinthisconnectionthattheenumeration
of’consents’tookaccountonlyofproprietors。Itignoredentirelytwolarge
classestowhomenclosuremeant，notagreaterorlessdegreeofwealth，
butactualruin。Theseweresuchcottagersasenjoyedtheirrightsofcommon
invirtueofrentingcottagestowhichsuchrightswereattached，andthose
cottagersandsquatterswhoeitherhadnostrictlegalright，orwhoserights
weredifficultofproof。Neitheroftheseclasseswastreatedevenoutwardly
andformallyashavinganyclaimtobeconsultedbeforeanenclosurewas
sanctioned。
Itisclear，then，thatitwasonlythepressureofthepowerfulinterests
thatdecidedwhetheracommitteeshouldapproveordisapproveofanEnclosure
Bill。ItwasthesamepressurethatdeterminedtheforminwhichaBillbecame
law。Foraprocedurethatenabledrichmentofightouttheirrivalclaims
atWestminsterlefttheclassesthatcouldnotsendcounseltoParliament
withoutaweaponoravoice。Andiftherewasnolawyertheretoputhis
case，whatprospectwastherethattheobscurecottager，whowastobeturned
adriftwithhisfamilybyanEnclosureBillpromotedbyaMemberorgroup
ofMembers，wouldevertroubletheconscienceofacommitteeoflandowners？
Wehaveseenalreadyhowthisclasswasregardedbythelandownersandthe
championsofenclosure。Nocottagershadvotesorthemeansofinfluencing
asinglevoteatasingleelection。ToParliament，iftheyhadanyexistence
atall，theyweremerelydimshadowsintheverybackgroundoftheenclosure
scheme。Itwouldrequireaconsiderableeffortoftheimaginationtosuppose
thattheParliamentaryCommitteespentverymuchtimeorenergyontheattempt
togivebodyandformtothishazyandremotesociety，andtotreatthese
shadowsaslivingmenandwomen，abouttobetossedbythisrevolutionfrom
theirancestralhomes。Asithappens，weneednotputourselvestothetrouble
ofsuchspeculation，forwehavetheevidenceofawitnesswhowillnotbe
suspectedofinjusticetohisclass。’ThisIknow，’saidLordLincoln22*
introducingtheGeneralEnclosureBillof1845，’thatinnineteencasesout
oftwenty，CommitteesofthisHousesittingonprivateBillsneglectedthe
rightsofthepoor。Idonotsaythattheywilfullyneglectedthoserights——
farfromit：butthisIaffirm，thattheywereneglectedinconsequence
oftheCommitteesbeingpermittedtoremaininignoranceoftheclaimsof
thepoorman，becausebyreasonofhisverypovertyheisunabletocome
uptoLondonforcounsel，toproducewitnesses，andtourgehisclaimsbefore
aCommitteeofthisHouse。’AnotherMember23*haddescribedayearearlier
thecharacterofthisprivateBillprocedure。’InclosureBillshadbeenintroduced
heretoforeandpassedwithoutdiscussion，andnoonecouldtellhowmany
personshadsufferedintheirinterestsandrightsbytheinterferenceof
theseBills。CertainlytheseBillshadbeenreferredtoCommitteesupstairs，
buteveryoneknewhowtheseCommitteesweregenerallyconducted。Theywere
attendedonlybyhonourableMemberswhowereinterestedinthem，beingLords
ofManor，andtherightsofthepoor，thoughtheymightbetalkedabout，
hadfrequentlybeentakenawayunderthatsystem。’
Thesestatementsweremadebypoliticianswhorememberedwellthesystem
theyweredescribing。Thereisanotherwitnesswhoseauthorityisevengreater。
In1781LordThurlow，thenatthebeginningofhislonglifeofofficeas
LordChancellor，24*spokeforanhourandthreequartersinfavourofrecommitting
theBillforenclosingIlmingtoninWarwickshire。Ifthespeechhadbeen
fullyreporteditwouldbeacontributionofinfinitevaluetostudentsof
thesocialhistoryofeighteenth-centuryEngland，forwearetoldthathe
proceededtoexamine，paragraphbyparagraph，everyprovisionoftheBill，
animadvertingandpointingoutsomeactsofinjustice，partiality，obscurity
orcauseofconfusionineach。’25*Unfortunatelythispartofhisspeech
wasomittedinthereportasbeing’irrelativetothedebate，’whichwas
concernedwiththequestionoftheproprietyofcommutingtithes。Butthe
report，incompleteasitis，containsanilluminatingpassageontheconduct
ofPrivateBillCommittees。’HisLordship……nextturnedhisattentionto
themodeinwhichprivatebillswerepermittedtomaketheirwaythrough
bothHouses，andthatinmattersinwhichpropertywasconcerned，tothe
greatinjuryofmany，ifnotthetotalruinofsomeprivatefamilies：many
proofsofthisevilhadcometohisknowledgeasamemberoftheotherHouse，
notafewinhisprofessionalcharacter，beforehehadthehonourofaseat
inthatHouse，norhadhebeenatotalstrangertosuchevilssincehewas
calledupontopresideinanotherplace。’Goingontospeakofthecommittees
oftheHouseofCommonsand’therapiditywithwhichprivateBillswerehurried
through，’hedeclaredthat’itwasnotunfrequenttodecideuponthemerits
ofaBillwhichwouldaffectthepropertyandinterestsofpersonsinhabiting
adistrictofseveralmilesinextent，inlesstimethanittookhimtodetermine
upontheproprietyofissuinganorderforafewpounds，bywhichnoman’s
propertycouldbeinjured。’HeconcludedbytellingtheHouseofLordsa
storyofhowSirGeorgeSavileoncenoticedaman’rathermeanlyhabited’
watchingtheproceedingsofacommitteewithanxiousinterest。Whenthecommittee
hadagreedonitsreport，theagitatedspectatorwasseentobeingreat
distress。SirGeorgeSavileaskedhimwhatwasthematter，andhefoundthat
themanwouldberuinedbyaclausethathadbeenpassedbythecommittee，
andthat，havingheardthattheBillwastobeintroduced，hehadmadehis
waytoLondononfoot，toopoortocomeinanyotherwayortofeecounsel。
Savilethenmadeinquiriesandlearntthatthesestatementswerecorrect，
whereuponhesecuredtheamendmentoftheBill，’bywhichmeansaninnocent，
indigentmanandhisfamilywererescuedfromdestruction。’Itwouldnot
havebeenveryeasyfora’meanlyhabitedman’tomakethejourneytoLondon
fromWakefieldorKnaresboroughorHauteHuntre，evenifheknewwhenaBill
wascomingon，andtostayinLondonuntilitwentintocommittee；andif
hedid，hewouldnotalwaysbesoluckyastofindaSirGeorgeSavileon
thecommittee——thepublicmanwhowasregardedbyhiscontemporaries，to
whateverpartytheybelonged，astheBayardofpolitics。26*
Wegetveryfewglimpsesintotheunderworldofthecommonandobscure
people，whosehomesandfortunestrembledonthechancethataquarrelover
tithesandtheconflictingclaimsofsquireandparsonmightdisturbthe
unanimityofascoreofgentlemensittingroundatable。Londonwasfaraway，
andtheOlympianpeaceofParliamentwasrarelybrokenbytheprotestsof
itsvictims。ButwegetonesuchglimpseinapassageintheAnnualRegister
for1767。
’OnTuesdayeveningagreatnumberoffarmerswereobservedgoingalong
PallMallwithcockadesintheirhats。Onenquiringthereason，itappeared
theyalllivedinorneartheparishofStanwellinthecountyofMiddlesex，
andtheywerereturningtotheirwivesandfamiliestocarrythemtheagreeable
newsofaBillbeingrejectedforinclosingthesaidcommon，whichifcarried
intoexecution，mighthavebeentheruinofagreatnumberoffamilies。’27*
WhentheCommitteeontheEnclosureBillhadreportedtotheHouseof
Commons，therestoftheproceedingsweregenerallyformal。TheBillwas
readathirdtime，engrossed，sentuptotheLords，wherepetitionsmight
bepresentedasintheCommons，andreceivedtheRoyalAssent。
AstudyofthepagesofHansardandDebretttellsuslittleabouttransactions
thatfilltheJournalsoftheHousesofParliament。Threedebatesinthe
HouseofLordsarefullyreported，28*andtheyillustratetheplayofforces
atWestminster。TheBishopofSt。Davids29*movedtorecommitanEnclosure
Billin1781onthegroundthat，likemanyotherEnclosureBills，itprovided
forthecommutationoftithes——anarrangementwhichhethoughtopento
manyobjections。Herewasanissuethatwasvital，foritconcernedtheinterests
oftheclassesrepresentedinParliament。DidtheChurchstandtogainor
tolosebytakinglandinsteadoftithe？Wasitabadthingoragoodthing
thattheparsonshouldbeputintothepositionofafarmer，thatheshould
beunderthetemptationtoenterintoanarrangementwiththelandlordwhich
mightprejudicehissuccessor，thatheshouldberelievedfromasystemwhich
oftencausedbadbloodbetweenhimandhisparishioners？Wouldit’makehim
neglectthesacredfunctionsofhisministry’astheBishopofSt。Davids
feared，orwoulditimprovehisusefulnessbyrescuinghimfromasituation
inwhich’thepastorwastotallysunkinthetithecollector’astheBishop
ofPeterborough30*hoped，andwasamanabetterparsonontheSundayfor
beingafarmertherestoftheweekasLordCoventrybelieved？Thebishops
andthepeershadinthisdiscussionasubjectthattouchedverynearlythe
livesandinterestsofthemselvesandtheirfriends，andtherewasaconsiderable
andanimateddebate，31*attheendofwhichtheHouseofLordsapproved
theprincipleofcommutingtithesinEnclosureBills。Thisdebatewasfollowed
byanotheron6thApril，whenLordBathurstPresidentoftheCouncilas
acounterblasttohiscolleagueontheWoolsack，moved，butafterwardswithdrew，
aseriesofresolutionsonthesamesubject。Inthecourseofthisdebate
Thurlow，whothoughtperhapsthathiszealfortheChurchhadsurprisedand
irritatedhisfellowpeers，amongwhomhewasnotconspicuousinlifeasa
practisingChristian，explainedthatthoughhewaszealousfortheChurch，
’hiszealwasnotpartialorconfinedtotheChurch，furtherthanitwas
connectedwiththeothergreatnationalestablishments，ofwhichitformed
apart，andnoinconsiderableone。’TheBishopofSt。Davidsreturnedto
thesubjectonthe14thJune，movingtorecommittheBillforenclosingKington
inWorcestershire。Hereadastringofresolutionswhichhewishedtosee
appliedtoallfutureEnclosureBills，inordertodefendtheinterestsof
theclergyfrom’theoppressionsoftheLordoftheManor，landowners，etc。’
Thurlowspokeforhim，buthewasdefeatedby24votesto4，hisonlyother
supportersbeingLordGallowayandtheBishopofLincoln。
Thurlow’sstoryofSirGeorgeSavile’s’meanlyhabitedman’didnotdisturb
theconfidenceoftheHouseofLordsinthejusticeoftheexistingprocedure
towardsthepoor：theenclosuredebatesrevolvesolelyroundthequestion
oftherelativeclaimsofthelordofthemanorandthetithe-owner。The
HouseofCommonswasequallyfreefromscrupleormisgiving。Onepetitioner
in1800commentedontheextraordinaryhastewithwhichaNewForestBill
waspushedthroughParliament，andsuggestedthatifit，werepassedinto
lawinthisrapidmannerattheendofasession，someinjusticemightunconsciously
bedone。TheSpeakerrepliedwithagraveanddignifiedrebuke：’TheHouse
wasalwayscompetenttogiveeverysubjecttheconsiderationduetoitsimportance，
andcouldnotthereforebetrulysaidtobeincapableatanytimeofdiscussing
anyquestiongravely，dispassionately，andwithstrictregardtojustice。’32*
Herecommendedthatthepetitionshouldbepassedoverasifithadnever
beenpresented。Thememberwhohadpresentedthepetitionpleadedthathe
hadnotreadit。SuchweretheplausibilitiesanddecoruminwhichtheHouse
ofCommonsmappedupitsabuses。Wecanimaginethatsomeofthemembers
musthavesmiledtoeachotherliketheRomanaugurs，whentheyexchanged
thesesolemnhypocrisies。