2 20 



The Inclosure and Tithe Acts. 



rio legal power to stop him, however regrettable such a course 

 might be. The only way to encourage arable farming was to 

 make it more worth while. 



Despite the lessons of the Wslt, however, the urban consumer 

 did not yet seem to realise the vital necessity of producing the 

 maximum amount of home-grown food, or to regard the agricul- 

 tural labourer as much a part of the essential life of the com 

 munit}/ as the workers in any other industry. Lord Lee 

 pleaded for a better understanding between urban and rural 

 population and for the partnership within the industry itself 

 of labourers, farmers, landowners and everyone concerned with 

 it. He beheVed firmdy in the Wages Board principle of repre- 

 sentatives of each side meeting together and trying to arrive 

 at a reasonable agreement, and suggested that the labourers 

 should try to arrange a conference with the Farmers' Union, 

 at which they should support their case by reasons and facts, 

 rather than by threats. Without a wdlling, prosperous, con- 

 tented, and vigorous labour on the land, there could be no 

 prosperity for the farming community. 



The Minister of Agriculture is empowered under the 

 Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, to effect exchanges of lands in 

 England and Wales. Lender these Acts 

 The Inclosure landowners, whether hmited or absolute 

 a.cls 3j1iu. xixiie 



Acts : Exchanges owners, are enabled to avoid the necessity 

 of Lands. ^-^^ expense of investigating the titles of 

 the lands exchanged. The leading prin- 

 ciples are that the lands exchanged shall be of equal value, and 

 that the land received in exchange shall be held under the same 

 title, and subject to the same uses, trusts, and liabilities, as 

 was the land given in exchange. Upon the confirmation of 

 an order of exchange, therefore, the land received becomes, 

 with certain exceptions, clothed with the title and subject to 

 all the liabilities of the land given up. 



It is important to bear in mind that the exchange is made 

 betw^een the two titles and not between the applicants claiming 

 title, v/ho are merely, for the purpose of the exchange, " the 

 persons interested," i.e., generally speaking, the persons in 

 actual possession. These persons may have no title, but 

 nevertheless, provided they are " the persons interested," the 

 exchange is valid as between the persons really entitled, and 

 accordingly it must be such as may properly be made on the 

 assumption that the appUcants are not really entitled. 



