bo 
meeting of the commiffioners, a written 
‘notice of their requeft, and authorizing 
and directing the commiffioners to add to 
the common pafture, for their uie, and 
fubject to the fame regulation as the reft, 
fo much land as the allotment of the per- 
fon or perfons thus giving notice would 
have amounted to, in cafe he, fhe, er 
they; trad not reiinquifhed it. 
~ Tt will not excite much furprife, per- 
haps, that no one of the proprietors, of 
between five and ten pounds a year, was ~ 
i year, 
defirous of relinquifhing his. or her por- 
tion of the encloture for an allotment on 
the pafture ground: it would cbvioufly 
have been a lofing game, fuch perfon not 
being entitled to an inch more land upon 
the common than he would have allotted 
to him within a fence of his own; and he 
and his heirs being for ever reftricted, 
€without a new aét of parliament) from 
breaking up the land, or ufing it other- 
wife than as a rated common. It may, 
however, excite tome furprife, that amone 
‘the many proprictors, under five pounds 
a year, almoft all of whom very clamour- 
oully oppofed the enclofure ; every one, 
with the exception of two individuals, 
gave notice of his defire to have a private 
allotment in preference to an allotment on 
the paiture-ground ; although by this 
preference they rauft have relinquifhed a 
Valuable portion of land; for they would 
have had a double portion for their allot- 
ment on the paflure-ground, and, accord- 
ing to the {pirit ot the a&t, it appears 
that, although all indeed will have an 
extra portion, not one can have a doubie 
portion. : 
Such are the provifions which we have 
made to conciliate the poor landlords : it 
is much to be wifhed that fomething alfo 
could have been done for their ftill poorer 
tenants. ‘The former, I think, might 
unquettionably be benefted by the en- 
clofure; but I am forry to be ef opinion 
that the latter cannot: for they will now 
be no longer enabled to keep the geefe or 
turkeys, which have hitherto contributed 
to pay their houfe-rent. But it will be 
faid, as the cottages are intrinfically of 
fefs.value now than they were before the 
enclofure of the common, the landlords 
mult lower their rent. Who is to make 
them ? What bufinefs have we with ano- 
ther man’s property ? In fhort, fhould we 
in their circumiftances, do fo ourfelves ? 
Cottages are fcarce ; moft lamentably 
fearce: and, from the prevalence of a de- 
feftable and unteeling policy, are likely 
to be fill more fo. But Jabourers mutt 
have—I was going to fay a fhelter for 
On fuclofure. of Commons. 
_ [*May 
their heads, but as all of them have not 
what I call a fhelter for their heads, this, 
‘it feems, is an unnecefiary luxury ; they 
muft, however, have tome hole or other, 
in which to creep with their wives and 
4 
children of a night; and fo jong as land-- 
lords are aware of this neceffity, it is not. 
very probable that they wiil, many of 
them, lower their rents, merely becaufe 
the commen is deduéted from the cottage. 
But how was this evil to be avoided 
Whatever advantage might have. been 
held out to the cottager, muft evidently 
have fallen on his landlord ; for he would 
probabiy have felt much lefs reluétance to 
raife, than to lower, -his rent. Suppofe 
any portion of land had been vefled in 
truftees, the profits of which fhould be 
fcrupuloufly appropriated to the poor 
tenants of the parih, * it needs no ghoft 
to tell us,’ that the tenant muft pay his 
landlord the precife value which the for- 
mer derives from inhabiting the cottage 
of the latter. 
I know of but one {cheme which would, 
in any degree, have compenfated the te- 
nant for the lofs of his common ; and that 
is to have fet apart a certain portion of 
land, two or three acres, and to have built 
thereon a number of folid, convenient, 
and airy, cottages. ‘1his land, and thefe 
cottages might have been in the hands. of 
the fame truftees, in whofe hands is vefted 
the common pafture of thofe two ‘forlorn 
and {folitary individuals who declined the 
acceptance of a private allotment. The 
rents of thefe lands and cottages would, 
of courfe, have belonged to the parifh at 
large, on whom the expence of building 
and repairs would have fallen. This plan 
did not occur when the bill was frft 
framed ; and, if it had occurred, might, 
poffibly, have been rejected. 
opinion, however, that it would have been 
ultimately, if not immediately, profit- 
able: and, on this account, the parith, 
by making themfelves landlords, would 
have checked the general exorbitance* of 
rent. It would have been their intereft 
to have let thefe cottages low: to fay no- 
thing of the better chance they would 
have of a regular payment, by letting 
them low, they would have aflifted the 
tenant im obtaining his liyelihood, and by 
this means prevent the neceflity, perhaps, 
of his calling on them for relief. But it 
is obvious, that if the parifh let theig 
houles low, every other landlord muft do 
the fame, or-he would never get a tenant 
till the cottages belonging to the parifh 
were all occupied; and, if every other 
landlord were to do-the fame, it is ob- 
: vious, 
I am of 
ee 
