STATUTE OF MERTON. 355 
added—*‘ Except in the neighbourhood of large towns, 
all this cry about Commons preservation has a very 
large element of bunkum in it.” 
The Bill was defended on the second reading by 
Lord Thring, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Ribblesdale, Lord 
Selborne, and the Lord Chancellor; and to the sur- 
prise of everyone Lord Salisbury, who had moved its 
rejection and who was supported by Lord Cross, was 
defeated in the division. The measure was read a 
second time by 32 votes to 23, and was ultimately 
carried through the House of Lords without much 
further difficulty. In the House of Commons it also 
passed without opposition or even discussion.* 
It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this 
Act. It is most significant of the change of public 
opinion that it should have passed through the House 
of Lords, in spite of the opposition of the leader of the 
majority there, and through the House of Commons, 
without a single protest. It has practically achieved 
the object which those who have advocated the right of 
the public over the Commons have aimed at since the 
commencement of the movement thirty years ago, but 
always hitherto in vain. Although it does not in terms 
repeal the Statute of Merton, it completely takes the 
sting out of that measure, and renders it quite in- 
nocuous, and will prevent its being made use of in the 
future by Lords of Manors for arbitrary inclosures, in 
the manner so often described in this work. 
Henceforth, any Lord of the Manor desiring to 
* Commons Law Amendment Act, 56 & 57 Vict., c. 57. 
x 2 
