EXTENT OF EXISTING COMMON FIELDS.
A “Return of the Acreage of Waste Lands subject to Rights of Common and
of Common Field Lands in each Parish of England and Wales, in which
the Tithes have been commuted under the Tithe Commutation Acts, so far
as the same can be ascertained from the Maps, Agreements, Awards, and
Apportionments relating to the Commutation of Tithes in the custody
of the Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales, deducting any lands
inclosed under the General Enclosure Acts since the Commutation; also
the estimated Total Acreage of such lands in the remaining Parishes
of each county,” dated 27th November, 1873, ordered by the House
of Commons to be printed, April 13th, 1874, gives us the following
results:--
┌───────────────────┬─────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────┐
│ │ Number of │ │ Estimated │
│ County. │ Parishes stated │ Area of such │ Area of other │
│ │ to have Common │ Common Fields. │ Common Fields │
│ │ Fields. │ │ in the County.│
├───────────────────┼─────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │
│ ENGLAND. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ Bedford │ 9 │ 7,056 │ 12,925 │
│ Berkshire │ 21 │ 13,227 │ 2,705 │
│ Buckingham │ 16 │ 2,315 │ 2,365 │
│ Cambridge │ 9 │ 4,798 │ 2,678 │
│ Cheshire │ 16 │ 599 │ 116 │
│ Cornwall │ 16 │ 895 │ 6 │
│ Cumberland │ 22 │ 1,177 │ 868 │
│ Derby │ 11 │ 1,119 │ 638 │
│ Devon │ 15 │ 1,125 │ 32 │
│ Dorset │ 29 │ 6,793 │ 810 │
│ Durham │ 6 │ 1,936 │ 171 │
│ Essex │ 48 │ 4,614 │ 295 │
│ Gloucester │ 33 │ 4,327 │ 2,986 │
│ Hereford │ 32 │ 2,309 │ 189 │
│ Hertford │ 39 │ 9,311 │ 1,785 │
│ Huntingdon │ 4 │ 1,336 │ 2,336 │
│ Kent │ 21 │ 4,183 │ 126 │
│ Lancashire │ 22 │ 2,125 │ 1,173 │
│ Leicester │ 3 │ 42 │ 93 │
│ Lincoln │ 24 │ 6,258 │ 10,823 │
│ Middlesex │ 6 │ 697 │ 870 │
│ Monmouth │ 2 │ 64 │ 3 │
│ Norfolk │ 52 │ 3,560 │ 394 │
│ Northampton │ 3 │ 4,103 │ 13,446 │
│ Northumberland │ 1 │ 44 │ 7 │
│ Nottingham │ 14 │ 4,282 │ 6,617 │
│ Oxford │ 12 │ 4,120 │ 4,839 │
│ Rutland │ 6 │ 3,930 │ 5,726 │
│ Shropshire │ 12 │ 485 │ 40 │
│ Somerset │ 77 │ 7,794 │ 728 │
│ Southampton │ 25 │ 5,725 │ 663 │
│ Stafford │ 26 │ 1,138 │ 402 │
│ Suffolk │ 34 │ 2,395 │ 184 │
│ Surrey │ 19 │ 3,732 │ 277 │
│ Sussex │ 22 │ 2,969 │ 122 │
│ Warwick │ 5 │ 1,232 │ 1,208 │
│ Westmoreland │ 8 │ 425 │ 359 │
│ Wiltshire │ 44 │ 18,167 │ 4,503 │
│ Worcester │ 20 │ 3,092 │ 1,161 │
│ York, City and │ │ │ │
│ Ainsty │ 4 │ 187 │ 372 │
│ York, East Riding │ 14 │ 4,046 │ 7,359 │
│ York, North Riding│ 7 │ 547 │ 240 │
│ York, West Riding │ 44 │ 6,488 │ 4,361 │
│ │ │ │ │
│ WALES. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ Anglesey │ 2 │ 414 │ 33 │
│ Brecon │ 2 │ 1,549 │ 5 │
│ Cardigan │ 4 │ 372 │ 0 │
│ Carmarthen │ 8 │ 489 │ 38 │
│ Carnarvon │ 1 │ 100 │ 7 │
│ Denbigh │ 4 │ 278 │ 18 │
│ Flint │ 5 │ 297 │ 4 │
│ Glamorgan │ 10 │ 783 │ 40 │
│ Merioneth │ 2 │ 110 │ 8 │
│ Montgomery │ 3 │ 1,885 │ 24 │
│ Pembroke │ 8 │ 642 │ 18 │
│ Radnor │ 3 │ 6,167 │ 158 │
└───────────────────┴─────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────┘
TOTALS.
┌─────────┬─────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────┬─────────┐
│ │ Number of │ │ Estimated │ │
│ │ Parishes stated │ Area of such │ Area of │ │
│ │ to have Common │ Common Fields. │ other Common │ │
│ │ Fields. │ │ Fields. │ │
├─────────┼─────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ England │ 853 │ 153,867 │ 97,001 │ 250,868 │
│ Wales │ 52 │ 13,086 │ 353 │ 13,439 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────┼─────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────┤
│ │ 905 │ 166,953 │ 97,354 │ 264,307 │
└─────────┴─────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────┘
We have therefore the assurance of the Copyhold, Inclosure and Tithe
Commission that in the year 1873 common fields existed in 905 parishes
of England and Wales, of a total area of 166,953 acres, and that there
was reasonable ground for inferring the existence of 97,354 acres of
common field land, scattered presumably over some four or five hundred
more parishes; in other words, that about one parish in every ten in
England and Wales presented an example of the medieval system of land
holding and cultivation similar, though as a rule on a smaller scale,
to the survivals described above.
The statement is amazing, and would be received with incredulity by
anyone familiar with the rural districts of any county of England, so
far as it relates to that county. The Commission invites our suspicion
of its statistics. The main purpose of the return was to give the
acreage of surviving commons; these are estimated at 2,368,465 acres.
As late as 1871, however, the Commission had declared, on the basis
of an estimate made in 1843, that 8,000,000 acres of commons still
existed, and 1,000,000 acres of common field or meadow. A little
scrutiny of some details confirms one’s suspicions.
Thus, to take a single county, Kent has from the early days of the
enclosure controversy been famous as a well enclosed county. The author
of the “Discourse of the Common weal of this Realm of England” mentions
“those countries that be most inclosed, as essex, kent, devenshire”
(1549). Skipping two and a-half centuries, we find the reporter of the
Board of Agriculture in 1793 declaring that such a thing as a common
field did not exist in Kent.[8] We are confirmed in our acceptance of
this statement by finding that there have been no enclosures in Kent
of common fields by Act of Parliament, either before 1793 or since.
Yet the return gives Kent twenty-one parishes having common fields of
an ascertained area of about 4183 acres. It therefore is necessary to
criticise the methods by which the figures in the return were arrived
at.
[8] Boys’ “Kent,” 2nd edition, 8vo. (1786), p. 53.
They are based on the tithe maps, the Commissioners remarking that “the
common field lands are generally distinguishable by the particular
manner in which they are marked on the Tithe maps, and their area has
been estimated from those maps.” The Tithe Commission was appointed in
1836 (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 71), and the tithe maps and apportionments
were made mostly before 1850; we are told “the total area embraced
by the Tithe Documents is 28,195,903 acres. The total area of the
remaining parishes is 8,961,270 acres.”
In order, therefore, for the Commission to have obtained a correct
result, it was necessary--
(_a_) that the common field lands should have been _rightly_
distinguished from other lands;
(_b_) that their area should have been _rightly_ estimated;
(_c_) that due allowance should have been made for enclosures between
the date of the tithe apportionment and the date of the return;
(_d_) that the area of common field in the parishes for which there are
no tithe maps should have been estimated on correct principles.
Not one of these conditions was satisfied.
(_d_) Taking these in reverse order, it is assumed in calculating the
area of common fields in parishes that have no tithe maps, that they
have the same ratio of common field to other land as those which have
tithe maps. This principle is entirely wrong for two reasons: (1)
because Private Enclosure Acts usually arranged for tithe commutation,
so that parishes enclosed by such Acts before 1830 are ordinarily
among those without tithe maps--and equally among those without common
fields; and (2) the existence of unenclosed common fields would be a
reason for demanding a commutation of tithe. The importance of this
may be shown by taking Bedfordshire as a test case. For sixty-eight
Bedfordshire parishes there are no tithe maps, and the Commission
estimates that these sixty-eight parishes have 12,925 acres of common
fields. But sixty-six out of these sixty-eight parishes were enclosed
by Private Acts, leaving two parishes only, of a combined area of 3578
acres, in which a survival of common field might reasonably be deemed
possible, though even in these extremely improbable. Instead of 12,925
acres of common field for this part of the county, the only reasonable
estimate would be 0.
Similar statements might be made with regard to any other county which
was mainly enclosed by Act of Parliament, as Northampton, to which
13,446 acres of common field are attributed to the non-tithe map
parishes; Lincoln, to which 10,823 acres are similarly attributed;
Berkshire, with 2705 acres; Buckingham, with 2365 acres; Cambridge,
with 2678 acres; Huntingdon, with 2336 acres; Nottingham, with 6617
acres; Oxford, with 4839 acres; Rutland, with 5726 acres, and the East
Riding of Yorkshire, with 7359 acres. For this cause alone by far the
greater part of the 97,354 acres added on to the total estimated from
tithe maps must be rejected, and of course any error of over-statement
that we find with regard to parishes which have tithe maps will still
further reduce the remainder.
(_c_) Due allowance has not been made for enclosure between the date
of the tithe apportionment and the date of the return. It is of
course very difficult to say how this could have been done without an
elaborate and expensive local enquiry, so far as relates to enclosure
without Parliamentary authority. As a matter of fact, no allowance at
all has been made for this sort of enclosure. This is justifiable;
but at least a general statement should have been made to the effect
that a very large deduction had to be made on this account in order to
obtain a correct idea of the position. Further, great carelessness was
shown even in allowing for Parliamentary enclosures subsequent to the
tithe apportionment. Thus, to take one glaring instance, 1500 acres of
common field are credited to Beddington and Wallington, near Croydon,
in Surrey. These common fields were enclosed by an Act dated 1850, and
the award, dated 1853, was at the time of the return deposited with the
Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
(_a_) and (_b_) But it is in distinguishing the common fields and in
estimating their area from the tithe maps that the worst mistakes have
been made. The Commission says that “the common fields are generally
distinguishable by the particular manner in which they are marked on
the tithe maps.” From a comparison of a good many tithe maps with the
figures given in the return, I infer that those to whom the duty of
distinguishing the common fields was entrusted, were told that areas
divided into sub-divisions on the maps by means of dotted lines were
common fields. These dotted lines indicate a division of ownership
marked by some slight boundary and not by a hedge. They might indicate
allotments, for example, or a number of other local circumstances,
besides common fields. The statements that 4183 acres of common field
were to be found in Kent, and 13,439 acres in Wales, being specially
in direct contradiction of all other evidence that I had collected, I
tested these by two instances. In Kent 1400 acres were assigned to the
parish of Northbourne. By a close examination of the tithe map I could
find nothing indicating any common field at all; the only excuse for
the statement was a few dotted lines, which by a reference to the Award
were proved to indicate only that some fields were inadequately hedged.
For Wales, I got out the map and award for Llanerlyl, in Montgomery,
credited with 1675 acres of common field. Here there was something to
be found on the map looking exactly like common field, but the Award
showed that these dotted strips of land were “turbaries.”
We have seen that the open field parish in its perfection, as Castor
and Ailesworth before enclosure, possessed common arable fields,
common meadows, common pasture, and frequently commonable waste, like
Ailesworth Heath. Where the parish as a whole becomes enclosed without
an Act of Parliament, particularly if the enclosure is gradual, the
waste frequently remains common. Thus we have the numerous commons
of Kent, Surrey, and other counties. Less frequently, but still in a
considerable number of cases, the common meadows remain open commonable
and unenclosed. Port Meadow at Oxford is a familiar instance. These
common meadows are included in the return under consideration among
the common fields. Thus, for instance, the surprise with which one
receives the information that Tottenham, in 1873, had 300 acres of
common fields, disappears when it is perceived that the marshes along
the River Lea are meant.
It will also be noticed later on that in parishes where the common
field system has disappeared for generations, there are frequently
still remaining in the midst of enclosed fields strips of land of
different ownership from the rest of the field, but let to the same
farmer, and without any visible demarcation. Such fields in Wales and
the north-west of England are called “quilleted fields.” The tithe
map records, with its dotted lines, the area and position of the
“quillets.” Such fields are included under “common fields” in this
return.
In at least the great majority of cases where the supposed common
fields are small, it is probable that nothing more notable than
quilleted fields existed at the time the tithe map was made; and even
this survival would, in most cases, have disappeared since. Out of the
905 alleged cases of common fields, in 670 cases the areas given are
under 100 acres.
In fine, this return of commons and common fields, which gives such
a fair promise of numerous surviving common fields, in reality gives
little assistance, because there is but the remotest probability in
any particular case that those common fields exist. The probability
is sufficient in some cases to encourage one to make local enquiries,
but these enquiries nearly always end in disappointment. The following
cases in which common arable fields theoretically survive, are chiefly
interesting as illustrating the phenomena of the decay of the common
field system in villages where it has not died a sudden death through
enclosure. I omit the case of Hitchin, made famous by Mr. F. Seebohm.
CLOTHALL (HERTS).
Clothall is a parish lying on the north slope of the chalk hills of
Hertfordshire, just off the Great North Road, which passes through
the adjoining parish of Baldock. Approaching it from the south, one
gradually ascends the long slope from Hertford, and suddenly at the
summit has before one a far-stretching view over the flat country of
Bedfordshire and adjoining counties. The road descends steeply and
passes through the Clothall common fields. At the time of my visit the
harvest (of barley) was being gathered in; the arrangement of the field
was clearly visible. The long, narrow strips of stubble, never quite
straight, and never quite of uniform width, were divided by “balks” of
grass, grown tall and gone to seed. Each balk was reduced to as narrow
dimensions as it could be, without endangering its continued existence,
for the sake of separating one strip from another. A view of this field
is shown in Mr. Seebohm’s “English Village Community.”
But there is in Clothall the husk only, and no surviving kernel of the
English village community. The whole of the field, estimated at about
600 acres, is let to a single farmer, who cultivates it on modern
principles, but who is bound to preserve the balks. There are but three
owners of land in the field. Fifty-six acres are glebe, the remainder
belongs in alternate strips to the lord of the manor (the Marquis of
Salisbury) and to a gentleman to whom possession passed by marriage,
from a family which had been engaged in brewing. The land is famous
for barley, and the owner of a local brewery in the early or middle
part of the nineteenth century gradually bought up nearly all the land
in the common field that did not belong to the lord of the manor.
Application was made in 1885 to the Board of Agriculture for enclosure,
the manorial authorities and the vicar both desiring it, but the other
owner objected.
It is interesting to find that the villagers still hold to the
tradition that they have rights of common upon the balks, a tradition
which is probably well founded. But they dare not attempt to exercise
those rights. An enclosure here, accompanied by the provision of ground
for allotments and recreation, would be a boon for the villagers; and
it would probably pay the landowners to get rid of those balks, which
are as great a nuisance agriculturally as they are interesting from an
antiquarian point of view.
The counties of Hertford and Bedford have been, in recent years,
particularly rich in survivals of common field, for the enclosure of
Totternhoe (p. 63) was only completed in 1891; Yelden had a common
field of about 600 acres up till about the year 1881, when the chief
proprietor, by buying out or compensating all the other proprietors or
owners of common rights, obtained exclusive ownership of the unenclosed
land; and at Studham and Renhold similar voluntary enclosures were
carried out under the pressure of the chief landowners within the
memory of old inhabitants. Fragments of commonable pasture in three
different parts of Renhold parish, and a common of about 60 acres in
Studham, remain as memorials.
BYGRAVE AND WALLINGTON.
Beneath the long sloping hillside of Clothall lies the little town of
Baldock, adjoining Letchworth and the “Garden City”; and on the other
side of Baldock is the parish of Bygrave; which is, like Clothall,
still unenclosed, and for the same reason; the Marquis of Salisbury
being here again the lord of the manor, and the other Clothall
proprietor the next largest landowner. But in Bygrave the farms, as
well as the properties, are very much intermixed. Here and there there
are grassy balks between adjacent properties; and in places the growth
of bushes on these has almost made them into hedges, but as a rule
there is no boundary between strips belonging to different holdings and
different properties. A road through the open fields at one point cuts
off the end of a strip of land belonging to Lord Salisbury from the
rest of that strip; it forms a triangular plot too small to repay the
trouble of bringing the plough across the road to plough it; and the
men who hold the adjoining land revere the rights of property too much
to touch it; it therefore remains a refuge for all manner of weeds.
As in Clothall, no common rights are exercised over the common fields
of Bygrave by the poor of the parish, nor could I hear of any tradition
of rights belonging to the poor or to cottagers. But the different
occupiers of land in the common fields have, and exercise, the right of
shackage, _i.e._, of grazing cattle after harvest, over one another’s
holdings. And the lord of the manor has a special right of “sheep-walk”
over the whole, for a month, from the first week in May and October.
This right is let with one of the farms. It is not actually exercised,
because the other occupiers of lands in the open field buy exemption.
The hamlet of Luffenhall, also near Clothall, has “shack lands” held
under similar conditions.
The next parish to Clothall on the east, Wallington, is also
unenclosed. It has a small common on which cottagers have the right
to keep a cow and a calf, but so far as the rest of the parish is
concerned, the only surviving feature of the externals of the common
field system is the wide, breezy stretch of open land, under wheat,
roots and grass; and of the spirit of the “village community” there is
nothing. There are but two farms; the wages paid are only 10_s._ to
12_s._ per week. Such wages, so near London, naturally fail to keep
the labourers in the village; and the population is now (1903) less
than 100, though the church has seats for 260. As the men go, more and
more land is laid down in grass, and machinery is more and more used;
the absence of hedges of course facilitates the use of certain kinds of
agricultural machinery. The unenclosed parish of Wallington, in fact,
represents in an extreme degree the triumph of all those tendencies
against which the opponents of enclosure waged war--great farms,
absolute dependence of the labourer, low wages, rural depopulation.
SUTTON (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE).
The parish of Castor, or Caister, includes, besides the hamlets of
Castor and Ailesworth, the enclosure of which has been described,
the townships of Sutton and Upton. Sutton had not at the time of the
enclosure of Castor and Ailesworth been legally enclosed, and the
parish is described from the tithe map as consisting of 450 acres of
common field and 150 acres of common, out of a total of 888 acres.
The vicar, who had bought nearly all the land in the parish, and also
the manorial rights, in 1899 applied for an Act of Enclosure, which
he obtained in 1901. There were in Sutton certain lands belonging to
the township, intermixed with those in private ownership. The rents
of these were paid with the poor rates. Up till 1880 the two farmers
who between them occupied nearly the whole of the cultivated land,
used to confer every year and agree upon their course of tillage.
They were then persuaded by the vicar to disentangle their farms, and
cultivate them in the ordinary way. At that time there ceased to be in
Sutton any visible sign of any exceptional features in the system of
landownership. The lands belonging to the township are recorded in the
tithe map, and their measurement in the tithe award, but no balks to
mark them are preserved.
I am indebted to the vicar of Sutton for the following illustration of
the possible evils of the common field system. It occurred in a parish
where he had formerly been resident, which he did not name.
In this parish two adjacent strips of land were occupied respectively
by a farmer and a shoemaker. The farmer, who was a careful and diligent
cultivator, having well manured and laboured his strip, sowed it with
wheat, and as harvest approached saw the prospect of an exceptionally
good crop. The shoemaker left his strip entirely untouched. But when
the farmer was about to begin to reap, the shoemaker intervened, and
claimed that the strip which was cultivated was his, and the untilled
strip belonged to the farmer. The field jury was summoned, and the
extreme positiveness and assurance of the shoemaker carried the
day, and the shoemaker reaped the wheat. The farmer then begged his
successful adversary for some compensation for his lost labour and
expense, but was told that he might consider himself lucky not to be
prosecuted for trespass. The farmer then proceeded to make the best of
his bad bargain, and set to work to plough up the weeds and thistles
that covered the strip of land awarded him. But as he ploughed he
continually turned up pieces of leather, corners wasted in cutting
out “uppers,” and other refuse of a shoemaker’s workshop. These he
collected and brought before the field jury. The previous decision was
then reversed and the shoemaker was compelled to make restitution to
the man he had wronged.
ELMSTONE HARDWICKE (GLOUCESTER).
Elmstone Hardwicke is an extremely interesting example of the common
field system in a state of natural decay. Very nearly the whole
parish belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the holdings
are intermixed and in small parcels, over a large part, perhaps 1000
acres, of the parish, the farms having been granted on leases of three
lives. The farmers would be glad to consolidate their holdings and
enclose, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners effectually discourage
this, as I was told, by exorbitant demands for increase of rent. On the
other hand, I was informed that the Commissioners themselves desired
to enclose, but did not care for the expense of proceeding by Act of
Parliament, and they were endeavouring to obtain their object by
refusing to “re-life,” in order that the leases might fall in, and be
converted into leases for short terms that might be made to terminate
simultaneously. Thus an old farmer who had a lease of 60 acres in
100 different parcels scattered over the common fields, informed me
of the negotiations that had been entered into with him. He was by
no means disposed to readily part with his lease, as he had two good
lives remaining, both being his nephews, one aged 40 and the other 50.
“They’ll both mak’ ’ighty,” he said, that being his own age, though he
looked a score of years younger.
This one farmer still (in 1899) followed what had been the customary
course of cultivation for the parish--a four years course of wheat,
beans, wheat, fallow; this being a modification of a still earlier
course of wheat, beans, barley, fallow, the soil being more suitable
to wheat than to barley. The other farmers followed no fixed rule,
each one cultivating his farm as he chose, subject, however, to the
right that was still recognised and exercised, that each occupier could
turn horses, cattle and sheep on to the common fields after harvest
until the first of November. In consequence of the abandonment of the
traditional course of cultivation the common use of the fallow-field
has been dropped by general consent, for the last forty or fifty years.
The institution of the field jury has also disappeared; though the
above-mentioned old farmer still posts the notices declaring the fields
open or closed, and so may be said to fill the post of “foreman of the
fields,” he does so by right of inheritance rather than of election, in
succession to his father.
Various controversies have arisen recently in Elmstone Hardwicke with
regard to the rights of various persons interested. I have referred
above to the case of the farmer who, in the spring of 1899, occupying
a “headland” in the common fields on which various strips belonging to
his neighbours abutted, instead of following the customary practice
and waiting to plough till the last, ploughed his headland before
the abutting lands were ploughed, and then sued for damages when his
neighbours turned their ploughs on his land.
Another farmer who occupied a very small holding in Elmstone
Hardwicke, and a much larger holding in an adjoining parish, made a
practice of turning great numbers of sheep on the Elmstone Hardwicke
common fields in the open time, which he was able to keep in the
close time on his other land. The question arose whether this unfair
procedure was lawful. The coming into force of the Parish Councils Act
of 1894 also had the effect of suggesting enquiries into the claims of
labourers to share in common-right privileges.
The vicar, the Rev. George Bayfield Roberts, accordingly obtained the
opinion of Sir Walter Phillimore on the subject. It was as follows:--
“As far as I can gather from the facts laid before me, I think that
every freeholder and copyholder has a right to turn cattle upon every
part of the common field, and that the right is not confined to the
particular field or part of the common field in which he holds land.
“This right passes to the tenant or occupier under each freeholder or
copyholder. The tenant, or occupier, has it, not in his own right but
merely as claiming under his landlord.
“I know of no rule of law which would give this right to farmers as
such, and deny it to cottagers as such, if the latter have holdings on
which they can keep their beasts during close time. But the right to
turn on to Lammas lands (as this common field is) can only be exercised
in respect of beasts used in the cultivation or manuring of the holding
in respect of which the claim is made (_Baylis_ v. _Tyssen-Amhurst_,
Law Reports 6 Ch. D. p. 500).
“As the cottagers are said to be tenants of the farmers, the latter
can make it clear in all future lettings that they do not let with the
cottages the right to pasture in the common field.
“(2) The tenant of the Barn farm should keep his land unenclosed during
open time, and anyone who has a right to turn on cattle can sue him
if he obstructs (_Stoneham_ v. _London and Brighton Railway Co._,
Law Reports 7 Q. B. p. 1), or can pull down the fencing (_Arlett_ v.
_Ellis_, 7 B. & C. p. 346).
“(2a). I do not think it would be wise to pull down a whole fence,
or sue for the damage caused by the fence, if substantial and easy
openings were made during open time. But there is some authority for
saying that the whole fence must be removed (_Arlett_ v. _Ellis_, cited
above).
“(3) The only _locus standi_ for the Parish Meeting is, if it has been
given by the County Council all the powers of a Parish Council under
section 19, sub-section 10, of the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57
Vict. c. 73), to apply to the Board of Agriculture under section 9 of
the Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56).
“This power is given to Parish Councils by section 8, sub-section c, of
the Local Government Act, 1894.
“Section 9 of the Commons Act, 1876, enables the Inclosure
Commissioners (whose place is now taken by the Board of Agriculture)
to give information and direction ‘upon application’ in order to bring
about ‘the regulation of Commons’; and for this purpose Lammas lands
are included as Commons, as they also came under the Inclosure Acts.
“By section 3 a Provisional Order made by the Board for ‘regulation’
may provide for the ‘adjustment of rights,’ and section 4 shows how
much can be done upon such an adjustment.”
This opinion was given in March, 1897. The very significant passage
which pointed out that since the cottagers held their cottages from the
farmers, they could not effectively claim any rights which the farmers
did not choose to grant them, threw cold water on the agitation.
Elmstone Hardwicke is apparently another case in which something would
be gained and nothing lost by an Act of Enclosure.
EWELME (OXFORDSHIRE).
Rather more than half this parish, near Wallingford, is legally in the
condition of open common fields, and there is besides a very extensive
“cow-common” on which is a golf course. The neighbouring parishes of
Bensington[9] and Berwick Salome had until 1852 common fields which
were in part intermixed with those of Ewelme, and there were commons
commonable to all three parishes. In 1852 an Act was passed which was
carried into effect in 1863 for the enclosure of Bensington and Berwick
Salome, and the parts of Ewelme which were intermixed with these.
Ewelme is owned by a number of small proprietors who chiefly farm their
own land. These made a voluntary division,[10] but they still enjoy
certain rights of common and of shooting over one another’s land. No
labourers enjoy rights of common.
[9] The Vicar of Bensington has the custody of a remarkable eighteenth
century map of the three intermixed parishes.
[10] Exchanges of land in common fields so as to enable proprietors to
consolidate their properties are authorised by 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 30.
There are two significant facts about this parish.
In the first place, one particular farm enjoys a special right of
pasturing sheep on the cow-common, not shared by other farms. This
is significant when taken into consideration with the facts for
Cambridgeshire and elsewhere related below.
Secondly, this gives a typical instance of the effect of enclosure of
_commonable waste_ on the poor. One of the commons enclosed was known
as the “Furze Common,” and it supplied the poor of the neighbourhood
with their fuel, for _every_ inhabitant had the right of cutting furze
on it. After enclosure the Furze Common was allotted to one man, who
allowed no trespass on it, and the _owners_ of cottages were awarded
allotments of land in consideration of rights which the _cottagers_
had exercised. The lands so allotted became part of ordinary farms,
and the poor simply lost their supply of fuel without any compensation
whatever. This was done under the sanction, not of an Enclosure
Act rushed through Parliament before 1845, but of the Enclosure
Commissioners, appointed expressly to prevent any injury to the class
least able to guard its own interests, as well as to facilitate
enclosure.