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。