The History of Wandsworth Common
Refresh this page
Index of years
1833 | 1835
Wandsworth Common
IN THE NEWS
1834
Sun (London) — Saturday 28 June 1834
TO CAPITALISTS. The valuable Property of the late Stephen Rolleston, Esq., consisting of Freehold and long Leasehold Estates, situated in Arlington-street, Piccadilly, Eaton-street, Pimlico, and St. John's-hill, Wandsworth; the whole let on leases, and producing a rental of £ 530 per annum.
MR. MILLS has the honour to announce that he is instructed by the Trustees and Executors of the late Stephen Rolleston, Esq., and Mrs. Rolleston, to SELL by AUCTION, on TUESDAY, July 1, at Twelve, at the Auction Mart, in Lots, without reserve (unless an acceptable offer were previously made by Private Contract), the following highly valuable and desirable FREEHOLD and LONG LEASEHOLD ESTATES, let on lease to highly responsible and opulent tenants; comprising a capital, spacious, long leasehold Town Mansion, with suitable offices, adapted for the accommodation of a family of rank and fashion, situate and being No. 5, on the east side of Arlington-street, Piccadilly, in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, facing the Marquis Camden's, let on lease to the Right on. George. Earl of Mountnorris, and in the occupation of ---- Stephenson, Esq., held for an unexpired term of 60 years, at a small ground rent.
Also a capital brick-built Residence, with offices and large garden, desirably situate and being No. 15, on the west side of Eaton-street, Pimlico, the corner of Upper Ranelagh street, and within a few paces of the new palace, in the occupation and on lease to Mrs. Merton, held under a lease from the Right Hon. Earl Grosvenor, for about 60 years, at a small ground rent. Also, a capital brick-built Resisidence, with offices, situated and being No. 28, on the east side of Eaton-street, Pimlico, let on lease to Mr. Clark, and held under lease from the Earl Grosvenor, for about 60 years,,at a small ground rent. Also, a brick Dwelling — house, situated in p.ton-street.
Also, a capital and desirable brick-built Freehold Residence, with stables, coach-house, suitable offices, beautiful pleasure grounds, gardens, &c., extending to Wandsworth-common, formerly the residence of the late Stephen Rolleston, Esq., but now in the occupation of, and on lease to Mrs. Stratford Robinson, beautifully situated in St. John's-place, St. John's hill, in the high road from Wandsworth to London, and nearly facing Spencer Lodge; the whole of the property is of the best description, and particularly merits the attention of capitalists and others.
The respective property may be viewed by permission of the tenants. Descriptive particulars may be had of Messrs. Baker and Hodgson, solicitors, 52, Lincoln's Inn-fields; at the Mart; and oi Mr. Mills, auctioneer and land agent, 9, St. Mildred's-court, Poultry.
[BNA: Link]
House of Commons, Common Fields' Enclosure, 31 July 1834
Common Fields' Enclosure
31 July 1834
Mr. Estcourt moved, that the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill be read a second time.
Major Beauclerk
rose for the purpose of moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did not oppose the Bill merely because his constituents would be affected by it, but because it went to deprive the poorer classes of society of that healthful recreation and innocent enjoyment which were obtained by having free access to unenclosed common lands. It was not only the people who possessed the power to turn their cows, or their pigs, or horses, on commons to obtain pasture, who were injured by these enclosures, but the whole population; for they circumscribed the limits in which the people could now enjoy themselves by perambulating the open commons without trespass. It was said, that the neighbourhoods of large towns would not be affected by this Bill; but he should always oppose the principle of making partial laws, of one law for large towns, and another law for the country. Both in a moral and political point of view, it was of the greatest importance that the poorer classes should have every inducement to healthful recreation, inasmuch as the more the House conduced to their amusements, the more likely they would be to keep out of the public-house.
Mr. Hughes Hughes
seconded the Amendment, regarding the present Bill only as part of a system which was pursued by wealthy proprietors with regard to enclosing the lands which afforded enjoyment or advantage to the poor; and, although it was contended that this was merely a Bill for the enclosure of common fields, and that commons would not be affected by it, he must take leave to say he was of a very different opinion. It had been said, that one general Bill should be passed for the purpose of enabling lands to be enclosed without the expense of a separate Act of Parliament in each particular case. He would always oppose such a principle, as he did in a Committee where it was countenanced, contending that every case of enclosure should stand upon its own particular merits, as he was willing to admit that cases might arise in which it was for the benefit of all parties that the lands should be enclosed. He hoped the House would not entertain a Bill of this description, introduced at so late a period of the Session.
Mr. Hawes
said, he had presented a petition from the inhabitants residing on and about the commons of Wandsworth, Battersea, Wimbledon, and other places, against this Bill; but the hon. member for the University having consented to the introduction of a clause he was about to propose, by which a circuit of ten miles round the metropolis and other towns containing a specified number of inhabitants would be exempted from the operation of the measure, he should not oppose the Bill going into Committee.
Mr. Tooke
protested against the rights of the people of England being compromised because the constituents of the hon. member for Lambeth were satisfied. The question involved in the Bill, as to whether common lands would be affected, was certainly one of very great nicety, and, to say the least of it, trenched very much on common rights. He should, however, object to the Bill, on the sole ground of its introduction at so late a period of the Session.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
objected not only to the period at which the Bill was introduced, but to the principle it involved. Within his Parliamentary recollection two Bills had been introduced for the purpose of enclosing Hampstead-heath and Wandsworth-common; and the strong opposition which was raised against them showed it was necessary to make every Enclosure Bill depend upon its individual merits. He thought a Bill of such vast importance, affecting the rights of the whole people of England, should not be hastily agreed to. It was useless, in his opinion, to pass a clause exempting the neighbourhood of large towns from the operation of the Bill, because, in many instances, places that were now small and came within the provisions of the Bill would, in the course of time, be as large as many of the places excepted. Conceiving the Bill to be very injurious to the people of England generally, he should vote with the hon. and gallant member for Surrey.
Sir Henry Willoughby
had nothing to do with the Bill now before the House, but he begged to observe, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he had entirely mistaken the object of the Bill: he had confounded common fields with Commons, therefore his objections to the Bill entirely failed, the Bill only relating to small tracts of land held by individuals in common fields. It applied to no common or common right in England, but those great tracts of land held in small strips in different parts of the country; and the object of the Bill was, to give the proprietors the power to enclose them without the expense of a special application to Parliament. This, he apprehended, had nothing whatever to do with commons or common rights.
Mr. Estcourt
wished to say a few words in explanation of the Bill, which had been totally misunderstood. If he thought it would have the effect pronounced by the right hon. member for Kirkcudbright, of circumscribing the healthful recreation of the poor, or of trenching in any degree upon common rights, he would consent immediately to abandon it. The real object of the Bill was, to confer the benefit of enclosing common fields in agriculture, without subjecting the owners of them, in every case, to the immense expense of passing a Bill in Parliament. So far from being desirous to affect the commons resorted to by the public for the purposes of recreation, he had himself opposed the attempts that had been made, at various times, to inclose Hampstead-heath. The Bill would tend very much to the improvement of agriculture; for it was in vain to suppose, that small tracts of land of two or three acres would ever be improved, if the expense of enclosure was not diminished. It was impossible any Court of Law could place such a construction on the Bill, as to apply it to common rights or common lands. An objection had been taken to the period of the Session at which the Bill was introduced. The order for the second reading appeared on the books on the 7th of July, and he had only consented to postpone it at the request of hon. Members who entertained objections to the measure; it was, therefore, very unfair for them now to oppose the Bill on that ground. He was aware of the great objection to enclosing lands in the neighbourhood of large towns, and was, therefore, willing to accept the proposition of the hon. member for Lambeth. He had no great taste for Enclosure Bills, but he would declare that, unless some general measure of this description for the enclosure of lands was introduced, it would be hopeless to expect any amelioration of the lands in agricultural districts.
Mr. Blamire
supported the Bill, being of opinion that the proviso which had been introduced by the hon. member for the University of Oxford would obviate every objection to the Bill. There were, however, many difficulties to the details of the measure, such as where there was a right of severalty to the tillage, and where there was a periodical right to the herbage on common fields. He did not think such rights should be taken away without due consideration.
Mr. Childers
said, that every objection which had been taken to the Bill might be discussed in Committee. Representing an agricultural district where there were large tracts of land which would derive great benefit from the measure, he gave it his cordial support. There were many small tracts of lands, such as those described, and many labourers residing on them without the means of employment, who would be afforded the opportunity to exercise their labour if the lands were enclosed.
Mr. Potter
said, though the clause of the hon. member for Lambeth confined the operation of the Bill to a limit ten miles distant from large towns, it must not be forgotten that there were many large towns in the north of England, containing a population of 10,000 or 12,000, that a few years ago did not contain as many as 1,000. If, therefore, this Bill were to pass, even with the clause in favour of large towns, the enjoyment of the poor would be curtailed by enclosing the neighbourhood of small places that might ultimately become populous. He rejoiced to see a disposition in that House to reject measures that infringed on the rights of the lower orders, and felt much pleasure in the recollection that three Enclosure Bills had been thrown out of the House during the present Session, because they tended to inflict a serious injury on the defenceless poor.
Mr. Fysche Palmer
considered it a great omission in the Bill that no drainage clause had been introduced. He would take, for example, the large fields between Reading and Abingdon, and ask how it would be possible to get rid of the water which lay upon them at certain seasons of the year, unless a drainage clause was passed, by which it might be carried into the river?
Mr. Estcourt
said, he had no objection to the introduction of any proviso to remedy the difficulty, morely as a cautionary clause.
Colonel Williams
considered no principle more dangerous than that of giving power to great landowners to enclose lands at the expense of the poor. He considered the labour of the poor man as much his property as the lands of any wealthy proprietor, and that it was the duty of that House not to suffer any measure to pass that would have the effect of discouraging that labour.
Lord Sandon
said, the object of the Bill was to afford the means of employment to the poor by the enclosure of lands. The Bill did not interfere with the rights of the poor, nor was it a question of common, but of common fields belonging to different proprietors, and distinct from each other.
Mr. Hume
said, a great difference of opinion seemed to prevail with reference to the real objects of the Bill; but, after the recommendation of the Committee of last year relative to public walks, he thought the House should be very cautious how it gave its sanction to any general Enclosure Bill that might tend to interrupt its operation. No person could pass Hampstead, Camberwell, or Wandsworth, on a Sunday, and see the vast numbers of persons who enjoyed innocent recreations on the commons, without admitting the great importance of a measure to prevent even the possibility of their ever becoming enclosed. He regretted to see, in many parts of the country, that such encroachments had been made upon the enjoyments of the poor by the enclosure of common lands, for they had now scarcely any opportunity afforded them in their intervals of work to enjoy a breath of fresh air. If an arrangement were made, that the suggestions of the Committee of last year would not be obstructed, he would give his support to the Bill, on the ground that it would facilitate the improvement of agriculture, and increase agricultural labour.
Mr. John Smith
did not agree with the noble Lord, that these enclosures afforded the means of employment to agricultural labourers, as he knew many cases in which it had produced a contrary effect.
Mr. Tower
having been instrumental in the passing of several Enclosure Bills, and having witnessed the beneficial effects of them in the agricultural districts, bore his testimony to the great utility of a measure of this description. By the increase of enclosures the employment of the poor was increased, and consequently their comforts. The Bill was not a perfect measure, but its faults might be remedied in Committee.
Mr. Aglionby
considered that the Bill applied only to those commons where the right was possessed in severalty, and as it did not sanction the enclosure of commons or tend to circumscribe the rights of the poor, he should give it his support.
Major Beauclerk
said, what had taken place that morning satisfied his mind that there was no desire to infringe on the enjoyments of the poor, and wishing not to throw impediments in the way of the improvement of agriculture, he would not press his Amendment.
Mr. Wilks
protested against going into Committee at all. Notwithstanding what lawyers might have said of the Bill, he contended that it contained many most objectionable provisions, and it was so worded as to render it very difficult to make any amelioration in the Committee. Though the Bill was ostensibly for the purpose of enclosing common fields, there were many periodical rights, besides the right of way, that would be entirely destroyed by it. He objected to the introduction of so important a Bill at this period of the Session, and would vote against its proceeding any further.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 39; Noes 27: Majority 12.
Bill read a second time.
List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A., Pelham, Hn. C. A. W.
Barnard, G., Phillips, C. M.
Blamire, W., Ross, Charles
Calvert, N., Sandon, Lord
Cockerell, Sir C., Scrope, P.
Crawford, W., Shawe, R. N.
Crompton, S., Shepherd, T.
Davies, Colonel, Sinclair, G.
Dillwyn, L. W., Stewart, R.
Dundas, Captain, Talbot, J.
Evans, G., Torrens, Colonel
Finch, G., Tower, C. T.
Hawes, B., Trowbridge, Sir T.
Hoskins, K., Ward, H. G.
Trion, S., Wedgwood, J.
Lefroy, Sergeant, Whitmore, W. W.
Lowther, Colonel, Willoughby, Sir H.
Macleod, R.,
Marsland, T.,
TELLERS.
Morrison, J., Childers, J. W.
Palmer, F., Estcourt, T. G.
List of the NOES.
Attwood, T., Ruthven, E. S.
Baines, E., Ruthven, E.
Blake, M., Smith, J.
Brotherton, J., Sullivan, R.
Buckingham, J. S., Tancred, H. W.
Divett, E., Tooke, W.
Hodges, T. L., Turner, W.
Howard, P. H., Walker, C. A.
Langdale, Hon. C., Walter, J.
Lowther, Lord, Wilks, J.
North, F., Williams, Colonel
Oswald, R. A., Yelverton, W. H.
O'Connell, Morgan, TELLERS.
O'Dwyer, A. C., Beauclerk, Major
Potter, R., Hughes, W. H.
[https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1834-07-31/debates/10fc0dee-dead-4bed-b208-000e7916d679/CommonFieldsEnclosure
London Courier and Evening Gazette — Thursday 31 July 1834
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS.- (This Day.) Speaker took the chair at the usual hour.
COMMON FIELDS ENCLOSURE BILL.
Mr. ESTCOUHT moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. the motion that the bill read a second time. Major BCAUCLEHR rose to move, by way of amendment, ** that the bill be read secood time this day six months.'* A very large number of bis constituents were deeply interested in the principle of this bill, and although the Hon. Mover of the second reading had consented to sda clause which many of bis constituents, and the residents the metropolis sod in large towns would exempted from its operation, yet he did Wot think it fair have two laws. shnald therefore oppose the bill. Mr. H. HUGHES would second the amendment. was opposed to enclosures generally, bet in acme particular instances they might prove of advantage. The inhabitants of Wandsworth, Wimbledon. Battersea, and Clapham, were in great slam about the ultimate effects of this bill, because, notwithstanding present it was proposed to exempt their commons, yet at some future day, they were afraid lest they might included. Mr. HAWES that as far bis opposition to the working this bill was concerned, it was removed by the consenting of the Honourable Member the insertion of clause exempting all lands within ten miles of the Post Office, and within three miles of all towns having a population of three thousand persons. Mr. TOOKE objected to the passing of this bill at so late period of the session. Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought the bill, as well upon the ground of the lateness of tbo session, as with respect to its principle, ought not to be agreed to. — lie objected to the principle cf this bill. He had it in bis parliamentary recollection, that two bills were brought into that House, the one for the incloture of Hampstead heath, and the other for the incloeure of Wandsworth Common, and that both of them were thrown out. The discussion those bills had satisfied him that it was necessary that each case should stand on its own peculiar ground. He must object to sweeping measure aa this; for, in fact, tbs bill went to affect the right of common throughout England. (Hear, bear.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY supported the bill. Mr. ESTCOURT denied that this bill would have effect of giving right to enclose common and waste lands. Were such to be the effect should not have undertaken to carry the measure through the House. He was happy to introduce the clause alluded to the Honourable Member for Lambeth, and also to add proviso, which would render it impossible for any result like that stated Honourable Members to take place. ( Hear, hear.) Mr. explained. Mr. supported the measure. Mr. CHILDERS also advocated the secood resding. Mr. Potter and Mr. F. Palmer spoke against the bill. After a few remarks from Mr. Estcourt, in explanation, and from Mr. Wtlluma, dwelt upon the necessity of not invading the rights the poor, and begged the House to recollect that (his was not a question of commons but of common fields. Mr. HUME thought the House ought to he very cautious in passing bill of this description, for there had already been so much encroachment upon common lands, that the poor had scarcely room for exercise. A discussion then ensued between Sir S. Wballey. Mr. T. Attwood, Mr. Rutbven. Mr. C. Fergusson, explanation. Mr. Hughes Hughes, Mr. Tower, Mr. Aglionby, Major Beauclerk, Mr. Wilks, Mr, Tooko, and other Hon. Members. The House divided. The numbers upon the division were follows — For the second reading 39 Against it . . . . . . .. Majority for the second reading — l2 [Left sitting.]
Common Fields' Enclosure Bill
05 August 1834
Mr. Childers moved the Order of the Day, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill.
Mr. Tooke
moved, that the Bill be committed that day three months.
Sir John Hobhouse
admitted it to be somewhat ungracious to oppose the committal of a Bill in limine; but at the same time he could not but think it would have been much better if a measure of so much importance to the people had originated in that House, as it was only reasonable to suppose, that the Representatives of the people were better acquainted with the wishes of their constituents than any member of the other House of Parliament could possibly be. His own constituents at Nottingham were very hostile to the Bill, and had expressed a hope that their town might be exempted from its operation. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill into the other House of Parliament had been misinformed with regard to the sentiments of a majority of the inhabitants of Nottingham. The Bill was very generally objected to there, and he should feel it to be his duty to vote against it.
Mr. Childers
said, he had no intention to propose the exemption of any one particular town; but a general clause would be introduced, by which the neighbourhood of all large towns would be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
Mr. Tooke
expressed his determination to persevere in the Amendment he had proposed. He strongly objected to the House being called upon, at so late a period of the Session, to legislate on a subject of such grave importance. He would, however, be willing to lend his assistance in the next Session of Parliament to any well-digested measure on this subject.
Mr. Blamire
supported the Bill, and trusted no impediment would be thrown in the way of passing it into a law during the present Session: if the Bill was imperfect, it was a reason for going into Committee.
Mr. Hawes
was desirous to know whether the Clause he had proposed on a former occasion, excluding the neighbourhoods of large towns from the operation of the Bill, would be objected to?
Mr. Childers
was willing to adopt the first part of it, to prevent the Bill from taking effect within ten miles of the metropolis; but he thought there were many objections to the other part of the Clause, excluding towns with a population of 3,000 from the operation, within three miles of such towns. That was a question for consideration in Committee.
Major Beauclerk
was glad to see the House entertain a different view of the question to-day from that which formerly induced it to vote against his Amendment. He was induced to withdraw his opposition to it on that occasion, at the suggestion of several Members of the House, on the understanding, that large towns would not be included in the Bill. Finding, however, that such a proposition had been abandoned, he should give the Bill all the opposition in his power.
Mr. Finch
supported the Bill, contending that it would tend much to the improvement of agriculture and the benefit of the lower classes.
Mr. Aglionby
was convinced, that nothing contained in the Bill would have the effect of depriving the poor of any of the rights or enjoyments they now possessed. He earnestly hoped the Bill would be suffered to pass during the present Session.
Mr. Rigby Wason
said, the period at which it was introduced formed alone a fatal objection to the measure.
Mr. Hodges
opposed the Bill. Among the defects of the measure there was one to which he would call the attention of the House he alluded to tithes, which were not taken notice of in the Bill. He also reminded the House of the objection taken by the hon. member for Reading on a former occasion to the entire omission of any clause for the drainage of land. These objections formed only a part of the ground on which he opposed the Bill; there were many other very serious difficulties.
Sir Henry Willoughby
said, the Bill was evidently not understood by the House. There was not one word in the whole of it that could lead to the possible inference, that any waste or common land could be enclosed. He gave it his cordial support.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 14; Noes 34 Majority 20.
The Bill to be committed in six months.
List of the AYES.
Ashley, Lord Shepherd, Thomas
Barnard, George Sinclair, George
Blamire, William Steuart, Robert
Finch, George Talbot, James
Houldsworth, Thos. Willoughby, Sir H.
Howard, Philip
TELLERS.
M'Leod, R.
Poyntz, W. S. Aglionby, H. A.
Sandon, Lord Childers, J. W.
List of the NOES.
Baines, Ed. Perceval, Col.
Brotherton, J. Potter, R.
Buckingham, J. S. Ruthven, E. S.
Chichester, J. P. B. Sullivan, R.
Codrington, Sir Ed. Tower, C.
Colborne, Ridley Trowbridge, Sir Thos.
Crawford, Wm. Waddy, C.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Wall, Baring
Ewart, W. Walter, John
Harvey, D. W. Warre, J. A.
Hawes, Benjamin Wason, Rigby
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. Whalley, Sir Samuel
Wilks, John
Hodges, T. Williams, Colonel
Hotham, Lord Wood, Ald.
Irton, S. Young, G. F.
Kemp,T.
TELLERS.
Marjoribanks, S. Beauclerk, Major
Pelham, Hon. C. A. Tooke, Wm.
London Courier and Evening Gazette — Thursday 31 July 1834
Wandsworth Common Enclosure Bill
[BNA: Link]
Evening Mail, Friday 01 August 1834
(Click on image to enlarge)
HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, July 31 [1834].
COMMON FIELDS ENCLOSURE.
The house met at quarter past 12 o'clock, and proceeded to the orders of the day for the second reading of the Common Fields Enclosure Bill.
Major BEAUCLERK rose for the purpose of moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He did not oppose the bill merely because his constituents would be affected by it, but because it went to deprive the poorer classes of society that healthful recreation and innocent enjoyment arising from free access to unenclosed common land. (Hear.) It was not only the people who possessed the power to turn their cows, or their pigs, or horses on commons to obtain pasture, but because it circumscribed the limits now enjoyed by the whole country to enjoy themselves perambulating open commons without trespass. It was said that the neighbourhoods of large towns would not be affected by this bill; but he should always oppose the principle of making partial laws, of one law for large towns, and another law for the country. In a moral as well as a political point of view, it became of the greatest importance that the poorer classes should have every inducement to healthful recreation, inasmuch aa the more the house conduced to their amusements, the more likely they would to keep out of the public-house.
Mr. HUGHES seconded the amendment, regarding the present bill only as part of system which was pursued bv wealthy proprietors with regard to enclosing the lands which afforded enjoyment or advantage to the poor; sad although it was contended that this was merely bill for the enclosure of common fields, and that commons would not be affected by it, he must take leave to tay was of very different opinion. It had been said that one general bill should be passed, for the purpose of enabling lands to be enclosed without the expense of separate act of Parliament in each particular case. He would always oppose such a principle, he did in a committee, where it was countenanced, contending that every cose of enclosure should stand upon its own particular merits, as he was willing to admit that cases might arise in which it was for the benefit of all parties that the lands should be enclosed. He hoped the house would not entertain a bill of this description, introduced at so late a period of the sssslnn
Mr. HAWES said he had presented petition from the inhabitants and about the commons of Wandsworth, Battersea, Wimbledon, and other places, against this bill, but the hon. member for the University having consented to the introduction of clause he was about to propose, which a circuit of 10 miles round the metropolis and other towns containing specified numbers of inhabitants would be exempted from the operation of the measure, he should not oppose the bill going into committee. (Hear.)
Mr. TOOKE protested against the rights of the people of England being compromised because the constituents of the hon. member for Lambeth were satisfied. The question involved in the bill, as to whether common lands would affected, was certainly one of very great nicety, and to say the least of it, trenched very much on common rights. He should, however, object to the bill on the sole ground of its introduction at so late period of the session.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON objected not only to the period which the bill was introduced, but to the principle it involved. Within his Parliamentary recollection two bills had been introduced for the purpose of enclosing Hampstead-heath and Wandsworth-common, and the strong opposition which was raised to them showed the importance of making every Enclosure Bill to depend upon its individual merits. He thought bill of this vast importance, affecting the rights of the whole people of England, should not be hastily agreed to. It was useless, in his opinion, to pass a clause exempting the neighbourhood of large towns from the operation of the bill, because in many instances places that were now small and came within the provisions of the bill would, in the course of time, be as large as many of the places excepted. Conceiving the bill to be very injurious to the people of England generally, he should vote with the hon. and gallant member for Surrey.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY had nothing to do with the bill now before the house, but he begged to observe, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, that he had entirely mistaken the object of the bill had confounded common fields with commons, therefore his objections to the bill entirely failed, the bill only relating small tracts of land held by individuals in common fields. It applied to no common or common right in England, but those great tracts of land held in small strips in different parts of the country, and the object of the bill was to give the proprietors the power to enclose them without the expense of a special application to Parliament. (Hear.) This,he apprehended, had nothing whatever to do with commons or common righto.
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to say a few words in explanation of the bill, which had been totally misunderstood. If he thought it would have the effect pronounced by the right hon. member for Kirkcudbright, of circumscribing the healthful recreation of the poor, or of trenching in any degree upon common rights, he would consent immediately to abandon i
u the reel object of the bill woe to confer the benefit of enclosing common fields in agriculture without subjecting the owners of them to the immense expenee of bill in Parliament in every case. for from being desirous to affect the commons resorted to the public for the purposes of recreation, had himself opposed the attempts that had been made various times to enclose Hampstead-heath. The bill would trad much to the Improvement of agriculture, for It waa in vain to suppose that small tracts of land of two three acres would ever he Improved If the expense of enclosure was not diminished. the hon. member then read provision of the bill which had bean framed Mr. Serjeant Wilde to meet the object lone that had been made, and contended that it is Impossible any court of law could place such construction os the bill with that proviso is to suplr it to common rights common lands. objection had hem taken to the period of the session which tbs bill was introduced. The order for the second reading appeared the books the July, and had only consented to postpone it at the request of hoo.members who entertained objections the measure; It was therefore very unfair for them to make such charge against him. Ha was aware of the great objection to enclosing lands in the neighbourhood of large towns, and was therefore willing accept the propodtioo of the hoo. member for Lambeth. He had no great taste for enclosure bills, but would declare that, unless some general measure of this description for the enclosure of lands wss Introduced, It would hopeless to expect any amelioration the lands In agricultural district
[CARRY ON EDITING FROM HERE.]
Mr. PBROUSSON never meant tossy that common lands might be enclosed this bin, but be gave it the opinion of an eminent lawyer that the obnoxious measure of enclosing Hampstead.heath might be effected under the fifth clause of the MIL
Mr. BLAMIRE supported the bill, being of opinion that the proviso that had been introduced by the non. member for the University of Oxford would obviate every objection the MIL There were, how:ver, many difficulties the details of the measure, such where there was right of severalty to the tillage, and where there was periodical right to the herbage common fields. He did not think such rights should taken sway without due eons!deration.
Mr. CHILDERS said that every objection which had been taken to the might made In committee. Representing an agricultural district where there were large tracts land which would derive groat benefit from the measure, he gave his cordial support. There were many small tracts land, such those described, d nun? labourers residing them without the mean of employment, who would afford d the opportunity to exerriae their labour If the lands wc.e enclosed.
Mr. POTTER said, though the danse of tbs bon. member for Lambeth caofiosd the operation of bill
he thought the houes should be very cautious how c It a aanctloo any general enclosure bill that might tend Imerrupi lu operation. No person could pass Hampstead, Camberwell, or Wandsworth, on Sunday, and see the vast number persons who enjoyed innocent recreations on the commons, without admitting the great im''rTf affording protection against the possibility of tnelrcrer becoming cndoaetL regretted ace in many parts of the country that such encroachments had been made upon the enjoy menu} of the poor the enclosure of commoo lands, that they had scarcely any opportunity afforded in their intcnralsof woik to enjoy breath of fresh air. If an arrangement was made that the suggestions of the comralttcc ot last year would not obstructed, would give his support to the bill, the ground that it would fadlitatc the improvement of agriculture, and increase agricultural labour. Hr. J. SMITH did not agree with the noble lord (Sandon) that these enclosures afforded the meant employment to agricultural labourers, knew many cases in which it bad produced contrary effect.
[NEXT SECTION SCRAMBLED . . . ]
Umh whtout MnUM Mm, aunt wt h. feM jojSSt"" to ur Urre town., u., cn. oJfhtaurtoodof'TSLi? '""'Wd tnclotlnf the populouf. H i.S 1, 0,l ' l'to>.id7 bocome !??? . dlapotltlon in that bou M lo nd felt much " '!! 'be lower ordcn, the. ;_"< ' ' I" the bill lor exemidr h, 1., .- .I 1 totroductd. He would leke, LTi . between Heading and Abingdon. lr^uno |heni P " lbl the ..kThlch j r, l . aeaecoa of the rear, a dninaae Wr lt 'Kbl carted into the? .ion, ~ h inttoductionary cUuw. 'be difficulty, merely aa a can. g oo iih f A,? la _" principle more danclok lande at w lo great landowncre lo en" i!"a, — coneidered the i.iduui or |ioor man much hia property at the lands of C,,,,, S o,, ~sr to'r Of that houae .Tdu^r.r. h.Tsr,., " ~U to ot'jrto Ibe bill waa to afford . h,n^. 7mCT,' to, 1 b by the of h d no< interfere with the tVhle the poor, lon onuimon, but ot common Heldabe. lunging to different ptoprletota, and dktlncl from each . " difference oploloo rremed lo . the real objrcla the WU, but after u. o ,h eoramlitccof Uat year rclalirc to �bllc walk.,
S. WHALLEY said, after the clause of the hon. member for Lambeth had been acceded to, should not oppose the bill going into coramhlce.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD said, the bill did not seek to distuHb the pastime of the village.green, he would not oppose the JUTHVEN the bill.
Mr. TOWER having been instnuncnUl in the passing of several enclosure bills, and having witnessed the effects of them in the agricultural districts, bore his testimony to the great utility of measure of this description. Br the incressc of enclosures the employment of the poor increased, and consequently their comforts. The bill was pot a perfect mnj'urc, but its faults might all be remedied in committee. Mr. AOLIONBV considered that the bill applied only to those commons where the right was possessed in severalty, and did not sanction the enclosure of commons or tend to circumseribe the rights of the poor, be should give it his support. Major BEAUCLERK said what had taken place that morning satisfied his mind that there was no desire to infringe on the enjoyments ot the poor, and wishing not throw Impediment in wey of the Improvement of agriculture, be would not press his amendment.
Mr. WILKS protested against going into committee ail. Notwithstanding what lawyers might have said of the bill, he contended that it contained many most objectionable provisions, and It was so obviously worded to render it very difficult to make any amelioration in committee. Though the bill was ostensibly for the purpose enclosing common Helds, there were many periodical rights, besides the right of way,that would be entirely destroyed by It. He objected the introduction of so important bill this period of the session, and would vote against its proceeding any further. the house then divided, and the numbers were — For the second reading . . . Against 27
HOUSE OF COMMONS.-Wednesday, July 30
. . . that within his Parliamentary recollection two Bills had been introduced for the purpose of enclosing Hampstead-heath and Wandsworth-common, and the strong opposition which was raised to them showed the importance of making every Enclosure Bill depend upon . . .
Kendal Mercury, Saturday 09 August 1834
BNA: LINK
London Courier and Evening Gazette, Thursday 31 July 1834
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS.- (This Day.)
Speaker took the chair at the usual hour.
COMMON FIELDS ENCLOSURE BILL.
Mr.ESTCOURT moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. the motion that the bill read a second time.
Major BEAUCLEHR rose to move, by way of amendment, that the bill be read second time this day six months.' A very large number of his constituents were deeply interested in the principle of this bill, and although the Hon. Mover of the second reading had consented to sda clause which many of his constituents, and the residents the metropolis sod in large towns would exempted from its operation, yet he did not think it fair? have two laws. shnald therefore oppose the bill.
Mr. H. HUGHES would second the amendment. was opposed to enclosures generally, but in acme particular instances they might prove of advantage. The inhabitants of Wandsworth, Wimbledon, Battersea, and Clapham, were in great slam about the ultimate effects of this bill, because, notwithstanding present it was proposed to exempt their commons, yet at some future day, they were afraid lest they might included.
Mr. HAWES that as far his opposition to the working this bill was concerned, it was removed by the consenting of the Honourable Member the insertion of clause exempting all lands within ten miles of the Post Office, and within three miles of all towns having a population of three thousand persons.
Mr. TOOKE objected to the passing of this bill at so late period of the session.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought the bill, as well upon the ground of the lateness of the session, as with respect to its principle, ought not to be agreed to. — lie objected to the principle of this bill. He had it in his parliamentary recollection, that two bills were brought into that House, the one for the inclosure of Hampstead heath, and the other for the inclosure of Wandsworth Common, and that both of them were thrown out. The discussion those bills bad satisfied him that it was necessary that each case should stand on its own peculiar ground. He must object to sweeping measure aa this; for, in fact, tbs bill went to affect the right of common throughout England. (Hear, bear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY supported the bill.
Mr. ESTCOURT denied that this bill would have effect of giving right to enclose common and waste lands. Were such to be the effect should not have undertaken to carry the measure through the House. He was happy to introduce the clause alluded to the Honourable Member for Lambeth, and also to add proviso, which would render it impossible for any result like that stated Honourable Members to take place. ( Hear, hear.) Mr. explained. Mr. supported the measure.
Mr. CHILDERS also advocated the second reading. Mr. Potter and Mr. F. Palmer spoke against the bill. After a few remarks from Mr. Estcourt, in explanation, and from Mr. Wtlluma, dwelt upon the necessity of not invading the rights the poor, and begged the House to recollect that (his was not a question of commons but of common fields.
Mr. HUME thought the House ought to he very cautious in passing bill of this description, for there had already been so much encroachment upon common lands, that the poor had scarcely room for exercise. A discussion then ensued between Sir S. Wballey. Mr. T. Attwood, Mr. Ruthven. Mr. C. Fergusson, explanation. Mr. Hughes Hughes, Mr. Tower, Mr. Aglionby, Major Beauclerk, Mr. Wilks, Mr, Tooko, and other Hon. Members. The House divided. The numbers upon the division were follows — For the second reading 39 Against it . . . . . . .. Majority for the second reading — l2 [Left sitting.]
fj.VrNTJRT INTELLIGENCE,
. . . involved. Within his Parliamentary recollection two billa had been introduced for purpose of enclosing Hampstead-heath and Wandsworth-common, and the strong opposition which was raised to them showed the importance of making every Enclosure Bill to depend upon . . .
Published: Friday 01 August 1834 Newspaper: Evening Mail
BNA: LINK
Old Bailey — "These are the claws of my goose."
(Click on image to enlarge)
[The case was heard in November 1834 but the crime took place 25 October 1834]
JAMES CLARKSON.
Theft: animal theft.
24th November 1834
Reference Number t18341124-192
Verdict Guilty > with recommendation
Sentence Imprisonment
James Clarkson b. 1813, 2 records
192. JAMES CLARKSON was indicted for stealing, on the 25th of October, at Wands worth, 1 goose, value 5s., the goods of Thomas Flavell.
WILLIAM HALL: I am a labourer, and live on Wandsworth-common. On Saturday, the 25th of October, I saw the prisoner in Mr. Rough's hedge, about half-past one o'clock, driving a goose into the ditch — the prisoner followed it into the ditch, and was there about five minutes — he then rose up before me with the goose under his arm, tied in a handkerchief — it was then dead — I followed him — he threw it down — I took it up and gave it to Flavell, who took the prisoner shortly after.
THOMAS FLAVELL: I am a labourer, and live on Wandsworth-common. Hall produced a goose to me, dead — it was worth 5s. — I had turned it out that morning, about seven o'clock — it was my property — I took the prisoner into custody myself — he acknowledged it all to me.
THOMAS BICKNELL: I am inspector of the V division of the police, stationed at Wandsworth. On Saturday, the 25th of October, the prisoner was brought to me, in custody, by Flavell, who produced a goose — it was still warm — I have the claws.
THOMAS FLAVELL re-examined: These are the claws of my goose.
Prisoner's Defence: The goose was dead when I found it in the hedge.
GUILTY. Aged 21. — Recommended to mercy . — Confined Three Months.
Fourth Jury, before Mr. Sergeant Arabin.
[Old Bailey Online: Link]