WehaveasidelightonthevigilanceoftheHouseofCommons，whenan
EnclosureBillcamedownfromacommittee，inaspeechofWindham’sindefence
ofbull-baiting。Windhamattackedthepoliticianswhohadintroducedthe
Billtoabolishbull-baiting，forraisingsuchaquestionatatimeofnational
crisiswhenParliamentoughttobethinkingofotherthings。Hethenwent
ontocomparethesubjecttolocalsubjectsthat’containednothingofpublic
orgeneralinterest。Toprocurethediscussionofsuchsubjectsitwasnecessary
toresorttocanvassandintrigue。Memberswhoseattendancewasinducedby
localconsiderationsinmostcasesofthisdescription，werepresent：the
discussion，ifanytookplace，wasmanagedbythefriendsofthemeasure：
andthedecisionoftheHousewasultimately，perhaps，amatterofmerechance。’
FromSheridan’sspeechinanswer，welearnthatthisisadescriptionof
thepassingofEnclosureBills。’Anotherhonourablegentlemanwhohadopposed
thisBillwithpeculiarvehemence，considereditasoneofthoselightand
trivialsubjects，whichwasnotworthytooccupythedeliberationsofParliament：
andhecomparedittocertainothersubjectsofBills：thatistosay，bills
ofalocalnature，respectinginclosuresandotherdisposalofproperty，
whichmerelypassedbychance，asMemberscouldnotbegottoattendtheir
progressbydintofcanvassing，’(33*)DoubtlessmostMembersoftheHouse
ofCommonssharedthesentimentsofLordSandwich，whotoldtheHouseof
Lordsthathewassosatisfied’thatthemoreinclosuresthebetter，that
asfarashispoorabilitieswouldenablehim，hewouldsupporteveryinclosure
billthatshouldbebroughtintotheHouse。’(34*)
Forthelastactofanenclosuredramathesceneshiftsbacktotheparish。
Thecommissionersarrive，receiveanddetermineclaims，andpublishanaward，
mappingoutthenewvillage。Thelifeandbusinessofthevillagearenow
insuspense，andthecommissionersareoftenauthorisedtoprescribethe
courseofhusbandryduringthetransition。(35*)TheActwhichtheyadminister
providesthatacertainproportionofthelandistobeassignedtothelord
ofthemanor，invirtueofhisrights，andacertainproportiontotheowner
ofthetithes。AnoccasionalActprovidesthatsomesmallallotmentshall
bemadetothepoor：otherwisethecommissionershaveafreehand：their
powersarevirtuallyabsolute。Thisistheimpressionleftbyallcontemporary
writers。ArthurYoung，forexample，writesemphaticallyinthissense。’Thus
isthepropertyofproprietors，andespeciallyofthepoorones，entirely
attheirmercy：everypassionofresentmentandprejudicemaybegratified
withoutcontrol，fortheyarevestedwithadespoticpowerknowninnoother
branchofbusinessinthisfreecountry。’(36*)Similartestimonyisfound
intheReportoftheSelectCommittee(1800)ontheExpenseandModeofObtaining
BillsofEnclosure：’theexpediencyofdespatch，withouttheadditionalexpense
ofmultipliedlitigation，hassuggestedthenecessityofinvestingthemwith
asummary，andinmostcasesuncontrollablejurisdiction。’(37*)IntheGeneral
ReportoftheBoardofAgricultureonEnclosures，publishedin1808，though
anymorecarefulprocedureisdeprecatedaslikelytocausedelay，itis
statedthattheadjustingofpropertyworth£；50，000waslefttothe
arbitrationofamajorityoffive，’oftenpersonsofmeaneducation。’The
authorofAnInquiryintotheAdvantagesanddisadvantagesresultingfrom
BillsofInclosure，publishedin1781，writesasifitwasthepractice
toallowanappealtoQuarterSessions；suchanappealhecharacterisedas
uselesstoapoorman，andwecanwellbelievethatmostofthesquireswho
satonsuchatribunaltopunishvagrantsorpoachershadhadahandinan
enclosureinthepastorhadtheireyesonanenclosureinthefuture。Thurlow
consideredsuchanappealquiteinadequate，givingthemorepolitereason
thatQuarterSessionshadnotthenecessarytime。(38*)TheActof1801is
silentonthesubject，butSinclair’sdraftofaGeneralInclosureBill，
publishedintheAnnalsofAgriculturein1796，(39*)providedfor
anappealtoQuarterSessions。Inthecaseoffiveenclosuresmentionedin
thesechapters(HauteHuntre，Simpson，Stanwell，WakefieldandWinfrithNewburgh)，
thedecisionofthecommissionersonclaimswasfinal，exceptthatatWakefield
anobjectormightobligethecommissionerstotaketheopinionofacounsel
chosenbythemselves。Infivecases(Ashelworth，Croydon，Cheshunt，Laleham
andLouth)，adisappointedclaimantmightbringasuitonafeignedissue
againstaproprietor。AtArmleyandKnaresboroughthefinaldecisionwas
lefttoarbitrators，butwhereasatArmleythearbitratorwastobechosen
byaneutralauthority，theRecorderofLeeds，thearbitratorsatKnaresborough
werenamedintheAct，andwerepresumablyasmuchthenomineesofthepromoters
asthecommissionersthemselves。
Thestatementsofcontemporariesalreadyquotedgotoshowthatnoneof
thesearrangementswereregardedasseriouslyfetteringthepowerofthe
commissioners，anditiseasytounderstandthatalawsuit，whichmightof
courseoverwhelmhim，wasnotaremedyfortheuseofasmallproprietor
oracottager，thoughitmightbeofsomeadvantagetoalargeproprietor
whohadnotbeenfortunateenoughtosecureadequaterepresentationofhis
interestsontheBoardofCommissioners。Butthedecisionastoclaimswas
onlypartofthebusiness。Aman’sclaimmightbeallowed，andyetgross
injusticemightbedonehimintheredistribution。Hemightbegiveninferior
land，orlandinaninconvenientposition。Inmostofthecasescitedin
thischaptertheawardofthecommissionersisstatedtobefinal，andthere
isnoappealfromit。TwoexceptionsareKnaresboroughandArmley。TheKnaresborough
Actissilentonthepoint，andtheArmleyActallowsanappealtotheRecorder
ofLeeds。Sofarthereforeastheclaimsandallotmentsofthepoorwere
concerned，thecommissionerswereinnodangerofbeingoverruled。Their
freedominotherwayswasrestrictedbytheStandingOrdersof1774，which
obligedthemtogiveanaccountoftheirexpenses。
Itwouldseemtobeobviousthatanysocietywhichhadanelementarynotion
ofthemeaningandimportanceofjusticewouldhavetakentheutmostpains
toseethatthemenappointedtothisextraordinaryofficehadnomotive
forshowingpartiality。Thismightnotreasonablyhavebeenexpectedofthe
societyaboutwhichPittdeclaredintheHouseofCommons，thatitwasthe
boastofthelawofEnglandthatitaffordedequalsecurityandprotection
tothehighandlow，therichandpoor。(40*)Howwerethesecommissioners
appointedatthetimethatPittwasPrimeMinister？Theywereappointedin
eachcasebeforetheBillwaspresentedtoParliament，andgenerally，as
Youngtellsus，theywereappointedbythepromotersoftheenclosurebefore
thepetitionwassubmittedforlocalsignatures，sothatinfacttheywere
nominatedbythepersonsofinfluencewhoagreedonthemeasure。Inonecase
(MoretonCorbetinShropshire；1950acresenclosedin1797)theActappointed
onecommissioneronly，andhewastonamehissuccessor。Sometimes，asin
thecaseofOtmoor，(41*)itmighthappenthatthecommissionerswerechanged
whiletheBillwaspassingthroughCommittee，ifsomepowerfulpersonswere
abletosecurebetterrepresentationoftheirowninterests。Inthecase
ofWakefieldagain，theHouseofCommonsCommitteeplacatedLordStrafford
bygivinghimacommissioner。
Now，whowassupposedtohaveavoiceintheappointmentofthecommissioners？
ThereistobefoundintheAnnalsofAgriculture(42*)anextremely
interestingpaperbySirJohnSinclair，preliminarytoamemorandumofthe
GeneralEnclosureBillwhichhepromotedin1796。Sinclairexplainsthat
hehadhadeighteenhundredEnclosureActs(takenindiscriminately)examined
inordertoascertainwhatwastheusualprocedureandwhatstipulations
weremadewithregardtoparticularinterests；thiswiththeintentionof
incorporatingtherecognisedpracticeinhisGeneralBill。Inthecourse
oftheseremarkshesays，’theprobableresultwillbetheappointmentof
oneCommissionerbytheLordoftheManor，ofanotherbythetithe-owner，
andofathirdbythemajorpartinvalueoftheproprietors。’(43*)Itwill
beobservedthatthethirdcommissionerisnotappointedbyamajorityof
thecommoners，norevenbythemajorityoftheproprietors，butbythevotes
ofthosewhoownthegreaterpartofthevillage。Thisenablesustoassess
thevalueofwhatmighthaveseemedasafeguardtothepoor——theprovision
thatthenamesofthecommissionersshouldappearintheBillpresentedto
Parliament。Thelordofthemanor，theimpropriatoroftithes，andthemajority
invalueoftheownersareasmallminorityofthepersonsaffectedbyan
enclosure，andallthattheyhavetodoistomeetroundatableandname
thecommissionerswhoaretorepresentthem。(44*)Thuswefindthatthepowerful
personswhocarriedanenclosureagainstthewillofthepoornominatedthe
tribunalbeforewhichthepoorhadtomakegoodtheirseveralclaims。This
wasthewayinwhichtheconstitutionthatPittwasdefendingaffordedequal
securityandprotectiontotherichandtothepoor。
Itwillbenoticedfurtherthattwointerestsarechosenoutforspecial
representation。Theyarethelordofthemanorandtheimpropriatoroftithes：
inotherwords，theverypersonswhoareformallyassignedacertainminimum
inthedistributionbytheActofParliament。EveryActafter1774declares
thatthelordofthemanoristohaveacertainproportion，andthetithe-owner
acertainproportionofthelanddivided：scarcelyanyActstipulatesthat
anyshareatallistogotothecottagerorthesmallproprietor。Yetin
theappointmentofcommissionerstheintereststhatareprotectedbythe
Acthaveapreponderatingvoice，andtheintereststhatarelefttothecaprice
ofthecommissionershavenovoiceatall。Thurlow，speakingintheHouse
ofLordsin1781，(45*)saidthatitwasgrosslyunjusttotheparsonthat
hispropertyshouldbeatthedisposalofthesecommissioners，ofwhomhe
onlynominatedone。’HethankedGodthatthepropertyofanEnglishmandepended
notonsolooseatribunalinanyotherinstancewhatever。’What，then，was
thepositionofthepoorandthesmallfarmerswhowerenotrepresentedat
allamongthecommissioners？Inthepaperalreadyquoted，Sinclairmentions
thatin。somecasesthecommissionerswerepeers，gentlemenandclergymen，
residingintheneighbourhood，whoactedwithoutfeesoremolument。Hespoke
ofthisasundertakingausefulduty，anditdoesnotseemtohaveoccurred
tohimthattherewasanyobjectiontosuchapractice。’Tolaydownthe
principlethatmenaretoservefornothing，’saidCobbett，incriticising
thesystemofunpaidmagistrates，’putsmeinmindoftheservantwhowent
onhire，whobeingaskedwhatwageshedemanded，saidhewantednowages：
forthathealwaysfoundaboutthehouselittlethingstopickup。’
ThereisacuriouspassageintheGeneralReportoftheBoardofAgriculture(46*)
onthesubjectoftheappointmentofcommissioners。Thewriter，afterdwelling
ontheunexampledpowersthatthecommissionersenjoy，remarksthatthey
arenotlikelytobeabused，becauseacommissioner’sprospectoffuture
employmentinthisprofitablecapacitydependsonhischaracterforintegrity
andjustice。ThisisareassuringreJectionfortheclassesthatpromoted
enclosuresandappointedcommissioners，butitringswithaverydifferent
soundinotherears。Itwoulddearlyhavebeenmuchbetterforthepoorif
thecommissionershadnothadanyprospectoffutureemploymentatall。We
canobtainsomeideaofthekindofmenwhomthelandownersconsideredto
becompetentandsatisfactorycommissionersfromtheStandingOrdersof1801，
whichforbadetheemploymentinthiscapacityofthebailiffofthelord
ofthemanor。ItwouldbeinterestingtoknowhowmuchofEnglandwasappropriated
ontheinitiativeofthelordofthemanor，byhisbailiff，actingunder
theauthoritygiventohimbytheHighCourtofParliament。Itissignificant，
too，thatdownto1801acommissionerwasonlydebarredfrombuyingland
inaparishinwhichhehadactedinthiscapacity，untilhisawardwasmade，
TheActof1801debarredhimfrombuyinglandundersuchcircumstancesfor
thefollowingfiveyears。
Theshareofthesmallmaninthesetransactionsfromfirsttolastcan
beestimatedfromthelanguageofArthurYoungin1770。’Thesmallproprietor
whosepropertyinthetownshipisperhapshisall，haslittleornoweight
inregulatingtheclausesoftheActofParliament，hasseldom，ifever，
anopportunityofputtingasingleoneintheBillfavourabletohisrights，
andhasaslittleinfluenceinthechoiceofCommissioners。’(47*)Buteven
thisdescriptiondoeslessthanjusticetohishelplessness。Thereremains
tobeconsideredtheprocedurebeforethecommissionersthemselves。Most
EnclosureActsspecifiedadatebeforewhichallclaimshadtobepresented。
Itisobviousthattheremusthavebeenverymanysmallproprietorswhohad
neitherthecouragenortheknowledgenecessarytoputanddefendtheircase，
andthatvastnumbersofclaimsmusthavebeendisregardedbecausetheywere
notpresented，orbecausetheywerepresentedtoolate，orbecausetheywere
irregUlarinform。TheCroydonAct，forexample，prescribesthatclaimants
mustsendintheirclaims’inWritingundertheirHands，ortheHandsof
theirAgents，distinguishinginsuchClaimstheTenureoftheEstatesin
respectwhereofsuchClaimsaremade，andstatingthereinsuchfurtherParticulars
