52 WESTMORLAND AGRICULTURE, 1800— 1900 



some 2000 acres — the Commissioners had to allot to the Earl of Lons- 

 dale, as Impropriator of the Rectory and Vicarage of Shap, one-eighth 

 part or share of the said wastes and commons walled* round with stone 

 to the height of six feet, also* to the Earl of Lonsdale one-sixteenth 

 part of the residue for his right to the soil of the said common. To 

 the Vicar of Shap an allotment in full satisfaction of all tithes, etc., in 

 the Manor of Shap. The Commissioners were next to allot to the Earl 

 of Lonsdale in satisfaction of all tithes, great and small, due to him 

 from ancient inclosed lands, having right of common on the lands to be 

 inclosed, ring-fenced with a wall* six feet high, thirty-six inches at the 

 bottom, and sixteen inches at the top. The residue of the commons 

 had then to be divided amongst the persons entitled to any estate, 

 property, right or interest in the commons, in proportion to such right 

 or interest according to the value of such messuages, lands, and tene- 

 ments as ascertained by the Poor Rate. Provided always the Earl of 

 Lonsdale should at all times " have, hold, win, work and enjoy all 

 mines of coal, ironstone, and minerals of what nature and kind soever, 

 within and imder the said commons, together with all convenient ways 

 and way leaves, roads, etc., paying such satisfaction for all such 

 damages, spoil of ground, and other loss as might be occasioned 

 thereby." 



On such lines as these the Acts authorizing the inclosure of the 

 commons generally proceeded, the Lord of the Manor taking from one- 

 fourth, as at Appleby, to one-eighth in the earher ones ; and from one- 

 twelfth to one-sixteenth share in those of later date. With such 

 provisions it is impossible to think that either the Lord of the Manor 

 or owner of the tithes was in any measure despoiled by the Acts. 



Wm. Pearson, writing in 1844 on the inclosure of Crosthwaite 

 Common, says, " The smallest landowner had his allotment, the lord of 

 the manor, the vicar or rector of the parish all had their share, yet there 

 was one party who had a right, a privilege on these commons — often 

 of much service to him, whose claim was entirely forgotten — this was 

 the poor labourer, who could have kept a pony, a sheep or a cow upon 

 the commons. Yet his right, his vested interest, as it would have 

 been called had it belonged to any other class, was completely over- 



• This was exceptional in the case of the Lord of the Manor but fairly general with regard 

 to allotments to rectors and vicars in lieu of tithes. 



