By T. H. Baker. 261 
made to Parliament in the ensuing Session or any subsequent Session, for leave 
to bring in a Bill for the purpose of dividing, allotting, or inclosing the same, 
would be very hurtful to the inhabitants of Mere in general, and particularly 
distressing to the poor, and would bring and entail upon the parish a heavy 
incumbrance.” 
Notwithstanding the above opposition the act was passed, but 
riotous proceedings ensued, and the military were called out to 
suppress the tumultuous doings of the malcontents. In the Salisbury 
Journal of March 19th, 1810, is a detailed account of the affair :— 
“The inclosures of Milton and Mere Commons have excited much discontent. 
On Saturday se’nnight nearly three hundred men from Gillingham and parts 
adjacent met on Maperton Hill and Pier’swood and destroyed a long line of the 
new fences. A troop of horse from Dorchester barracks is now quartered in 
the neighbourhood, and several ringleaders of the rioters have been taken into 
custody. Four of them were on Friday lodged in Fisherton Gaol, where they 
are to remain for trial till the next assizes.” 
; On March 26th is a further account :— 
‘Since our last seventeen more of the deluded men who were concerned in 
destroying the fences of the new inclosures on Mere Common have been appre- 
hended and lodged in prison, viz., eight in Fisherton Gaol and nine in Dorchester 
Gaol, all for trial at the next assizes.” 
At the assizes held at Salisbury in August, 1810, Stephen 
Longyear, Benjamin Gray, Robert Gray, Philip Fricker, James 
Longyear, Aaron Gatehouse, William Shepperd, John Ridout, 
William Snook, and William Hill were charged with having 
riotously assembled at Mere and pulled down and destroyed the 
fences of certain allotments of land, late part of the common, 
inclosed under the late act. They were found guilty of having on 
the 10th of March last riotously and tumultuously assembled 
together at Mere and unlawfully destroyed certain fences on Mere 
Common; whom the judge, after pointing out to them the 
heinousness of their offence, but taking into consideration their 
long imprisonment, liberated (with the prosecutor’s consent) on 
their own recognizances of £100 each, for their personal appearance 
to receive the judgment of the court when called upon by the 
prosecutors and for their good behaviour for three years. This 
appears to have had the desired effect, for no disturbance took place 
