250 OPEN-FIELD FARMS AND PASTURE COMMONS 



settled the terms of the petition. Even the next step that of 

 obtaining signatures might be taken privately. Sometimes it 

 happened that the first intimation which the bulk of the inhabitants 

 received of the scheme was that the petition had been presented, 

 and that leave to bring in an enclosure Bill had been granted. To 

 prevent so flagrant an abuse, clauses as to notice had been generally 

 inserted in Bills from 1727 onwards. But, in order to secure the 

 necessary publicity of proceedings, the House of Commons in 1774 

 made it a standing order that notice of the scheme must be affixed 

 to the door of the church of the parish affected, for three Sundays 

 in the months of August or September. Other standing orders 

 corrected other abuses in the procedure. They regulated the pay- 

 ments of the Commissioners, required them to account for all 

 monies assessed or expended by them, restricted the choice of men 

 who could fill the office, limited their powers of dealing with the 

 titles of claimants, and laid down the principle that the allotments 

 to titheowners and lords of manors should be stated in the BilM 

 . At all stages of the proceedings heavy costs were incurred. The 



fees paid to Parliamentary officials were considerable. If a tract 

 of common land was to be enclosed, over which several parishes 

 claimed rights, fees were charged for each parish. On this ground, 

 partly, the Lincolnshire Reporter explains the delay in enclosing 

 the East and West and Wildmore Fens. Forty-seven parishes 

 were there affected, and the general Act would be charged as forty- 

 seven Acts, with fees in proportion. Witnesses had to attend the 

 Committee of the House of Commons and subsequently of the 

 House of Lords. There might be postponements, delays, and 

 protracted intervals ; but the witnesses, often professional men, 

 had either to be maintained in London or to make two or more 

 costly journeys to town. Such an expenditure was generally pro- 

 hibitive for the opponents of the Bill. Unable to fee lawyers, 

 produce witnesses, or urge their claims in person, they were obliged 

 to content themselves with a counter-petition, which, possibly, 

 might not be referred to the Committee. Nor did the cost cease 

 when the Bill was passed. There were still the expenses of the 

 Commissioners and their clerk ; the fees for the surveyor and his 

 survey, and the valuer and his valuation ; the charges of the 

 lawyers in proving or contesting claims, preparing the award, 

 and other miscellaneous business ; the outlay on roads, gates, 

 bridges, drainage, and other expenditure necessitated by the 



