Appendix: poor laws, 15 April 1831

[417]

Die Veneris, 15° Aprilis 1831.

The Marquess of Salisbury in the Chair.

Thomas Chapman Esquire is called in, and examined as follows:

What are you?

I am a Land Agent and Surveyor.

Have you been much engaged in Inclosure Bills?

Very much indeed. I have attended, I should suppose, at least Twenty or Thirty Commissions.

In what Counties?

In different Counties; a great many round the Neighbourhood of London, in the Counties of Middlesex and Surrey.

Can you state the Expence of obtaining an Inclosure Act?

That relates rather to the Solicitor; it depends entirely upon the Extent of the Inclosure.

Does the Expence of obtaining a Bill depend on the Extent of the Inclosure?

So far as relates to the obtaining the Consents; the more Proprietors there are, the greater is the Expence of obtaining the Consents.

Have those Expences any reference to the Value of the Land to be inclosed, or are they dependent on the Number of Proprietors?

They have no reference at all to the Value of the Land to be inclosed. The Expences are generally paid by Sale of a Portion of the Land to be inclosed, and sometimes by a proportionate Rate assessed upon the Proprietors; but in either Case the Value of the Land is not affected, although the Profit of an Inclosure is of course affected by the Expences.

You are unable to state to the Committee the Expence of passing an Inclosure Bill through Parliament?

I suppose it would generally be from Five to Six hundred Pounds; it may be more occasionally.

Has it come to your Knowledge, that any Inclosures have been prevented by the Expences attendant upon the Bills?

I have never known that Circumstance to occur as to those proposed Inclosures on which I have been consulted, and afterwards acted as Commissioner.

You act as a Land Agent?

Yes.

Have you ever been consulted about the Advantage of inclosing Waste Lands?

Yes; I have frequently given in Reports as to the Advantage to be derived from an Inclosure.

Have you taken into Consideration in those Reports the Expence of obtaining the Act?

Yes, in a general kind of way: it all depends on the Opposition which may arise; if there is no Opposition, the Expence will be small, comparatively.

Have you ever abstained from recommending an Inclosure of any Waste Land in Consideration of the Expence attendant upon it?

[418]

I never was called upon to give an Opinion where it was so circumstanced; all the Inclosures I have been upon have been such as would well pay the Expence; and I do not remember one single instance of being called upon to give an Opinion where the Expences would at all interfere with the Eligibility of it.

In talking of Expences, are you bearing in mind the Expences attendant on passing the Act of Parliament, or merely the Expence of carrying on the Inclosure?

I take into Consideration all the Expences likely to arise in carrying the Inclosure into Execution, up to the Award.

Among those, do you include the Expences of passing the Act of Parliament?

Yes.

Do not you consider those as in general the greatest?

No, I think not, in a general Way.

Are those Expences decreased in proportion to what they used to be?

The Inclosures have been of late very few, so that I cannot speak to the Expences latterly. I think I have not attended any new Inclosures for the last Six or Seven Years; only completing the old ones.

Have you been engaged on the Part of the Crown in any Inclosures?

No; Mr. Driver has been generally on the Part of the Crown.

Have you been engaged in the Inclosure of what is generally termed Bagshot Heath?

No; but adjoining to it, in the Parish of Stanwell, I have been concerned; and also in almost all the Inclosures of Hounslow Heath, Hillingdon Heath and Uxbridge Moor.

Can you state the Number of Acres inclosed on Hounslow Heath?

My Memory will not serve me with that at present; but I should think the Quantity of Waste Land on Hounslow Heath which has been inclosed would not be less than between Three and Four thousand Acres.

Can you state what the Expences, subsequent to the passing of the Act of Parliament, were on that Inclosure of Three or Four thousand Acres?

That was not all in One Inclosure; I mean that the Waste Land under several Inclosures might amount to that. I cannot speak to the precise Quantity.

Can you state correctly the Expence of any One Inclosure you have been concerned in on Hounslow Heath?

I was not aware of the Particulars on which I was likely to be examined, and my Memory is not, in consequence of an Illness, such as to enable me to answer, at the Moment, to those Particulars.

Is not the Expence of making out the Titles of the Proprietors very considerable?

That does not at all affect the Expence of the Inclosure, as the same lies between the Parties contending as to the Title. The Commissioners receive the Claims according as they are put in; and if Two Parties produce a Claim to the same Estate, the Commissioners make an Allotment for that Estate, and leave it to the Parties claiming to contend their Title in a Court of Law.

Would it be right to pass an Inclosure Act without well arranging those Claims?

The Arrangement of the Claims is after the Act is passed; but the same would not be carried into Execution without the Commissioners obtaining all the Information thereon that comes within their Power: but as to the Legality of the Title, the Commissioners have nothing to do with it, as before stated; but they make an Allotment for the Estate so disputed, to go to the Party who proves his Title to the same by Course of Law.

For instance, if you were to inclose a Common, there will be numerous Claims upon that Common?

Yes, according to the Extent of the Property within the Parish to be inclosed.

Do not the Cottagers very often claim Rights of Common?

[419]

Certainly; and ancient Cottages that have enjoyed Rights of Common are allowed Allotments for the same; but not for modern Cottages.

Is it not a Matter of some Trouble, to decide which Cottages have a Right of Common, and which have not?

That we always take Evidence upon.

That is a Matter of Expence?

It is a Matter of Expence so far as it detains the Commissioners longer upon the Business.

You would not think it right that the Commissioners should make their final Award without inquiring into those Claims?

Certainly not.

Those Claims are very often very numerous?

Yes, and frequently very incorrect. We have many Claims brought forward, for which there is no Ground whatever.

Can you state what has been the Average Duration of the Commissions after the passing of the Inclosure Act?

They would vary from One Year to Six or Seven, according to Circumstances.

Do you think that inclosing a Common is an Advantage to the Cottagers who have a Right to that Common?

I do think that it is, because it gives them a Portion of Land to themselves, which they can cultivate and manage as they please.

Do they not very often sell their Land?

Sometimes they do.

Do not they sometimes spend the Money in Drink?

That depends upon the Character of the Man.

Do you not conceive it of great Advantage to the Cottagers of this Country to be enabled to turn out a Cow?

If they have no other Land I do not think the Advantage is so great; if they have other Land where they can winter the Cow, then I think the Advantage is great.

Is it the Case that a Man has a Right of Common, where he has no other Land?

Yes; frequently he has no Land attached to his Cottage, yet possesses a Right of turning out Stock by ancient Usage, and by particular Customs which regulate the Commons; but in other instances, it is a Common without Stint; and therefore no Rules govern them.

There are Two Things to look at-the Appropriation of Waste, and of another Description of Land, namely, the Commonable Land which is to be appropriated. Does it incur an additional Expence where the Commonable Land preponderates?

It increases the Expence, because there are different Rights to be inquired into. We proceed by taking a View of every Spot of Land, and making a Division of the Qualities of the Lands, and fixing the Price according to those Qualities; then they are all collected together in Money at those various Prices, to show the Amount which is allottable; then we allot it out according to the respective Values of each Proprietor's Estate.

Is it not your Opinion that a great Portion of what is termed Waste Land in England, is irreclaimable; that it is not cultivable at the present Prices of Agricultural Produce?

I think there are some Acres. If you get down into Yorkshire among the high Grounds, there it perhaps would not pay the Expence of cultivating; there are certain Portions notwithstanding that even there would be beneficial to be inclosed.

Do you conceive that there is any Waste Land in this Kingdom capable of profitable Cultivation?

A great deal.

[420]

Have you any Notion of the Extent of it?

No, I cannot speak as to that; I never turned my Mind to the Extent; but I see a great deal of Waste Land as I travel to different Parts of the Kingdom, that would pay very well for the Inclosure of it.

Will you specify any Districts of the Kingdom in which those Waste Lands to which you have alluded are situate?

There is a great Portion of the different Forests, and there are certain Commons still remaining open near to the Metropolis, which consist of very good Land: one in the Neighbourhood of Richmond Haw Common, which is very good Land, remarkably so; and another in the Neighbourhood of Barnes: but I cannot at this Moment enumerate them all.

Do you mean to include as Waste Lands Downs?

Yes; I mean by Waste Lands all that kind of Land that remains open to a Common Right, in which no Person has a Severalty.

Then you mean that the Sussex South Downs, for instance, are Waste Lands?

They are in a great degree held in Severalty as Sheep Walks.

Do you consider that one of the Sussex South Downs, on which there are numerous Rights of feeding Sheep, are Waste Lands?

Yes; I should consider them as coming under the Denomination of Waste Lands, though profitably occupied as Sheep Walks.

Do you believe that ploughing up those Downs would be a more profitable Employment than feeding those Downs with Sheep?

Certainly not.

Then, when you state that there is a great deal of Waste Land in England, you do not mean to say that all that Land, or even a great Proportion of it, could be more profitably employed than it is at the present Moment?

I mean, that though some Lands under the Denomination of Waste Lands are profitably employed as Sheep Walks, and would not answer to be ploughed, yet when that Land is put into Severalty, a much greater Improvement will take place than while it remains in a State of open Common.

Does Epping Forest belong to the Crown?

Yes.

What Advantage does the Crown derive from Epping Forest?

The Advantage the Crown derives from Epping Forest is that of feeding Deer and raising Timber.

Do you understand by Waste Lands, all Lands which are subject to Common Rights without Stint?

That is what we generally consider as Waste Land.

Is Epping Forest subject to Rights?

Yes.

The Crown has a limited Right in Epping Forest, with other Rights in the Subject?

Yes; but it is called a Royal Forest; there are Rights to every Estate surrounding Epping Forest; all the different Parishes round the Forest have Rights for their Cattle.

And there are inclosed Lands within the Common?

Yes.

Have you observed that a great Increase of Cottages takes place usually after an Inclosure?

Certainly; there is a great Increase after an Inclosure.

It generally happens that small Allotments have been sold, and upon those Allotments Numbers of Cottages have been built?

I do not recollect that that particular Circumstance has occurred; the Cottages are certainly generally built on the smaller Allotments that are awarded, but not on the Lots sold; those Lots so sold are generally kept by the Purchasers, who occupy it as Land.

[421]

There is a great Increase of Population after Inclosure?

Yes.

Do you think that the Condition of the Poor, where those Inclosures have taken place, has been improved by those Inclosures?

I have no doubt of it; there has been a great deal more Labour produced in consequence of the Inclosure.

Do you think the Increase of Population has been greater than the Proportion of increased Labour?

No, I do not think that it has.

You conceive that there is in England a great Quantity of Waste Land not at present in Severalty, but in Common?

Yes.

That there is a great deal of such Land capable of profitable Cultivation, on which at present no Profit is made, by Sheep Walks or otherwise, but in Common Rights?

Yes, a great Portion.

In that Quantity you do not include Lands such as those that have been referred to existing in Sussex?

Yes, I include them as capable of Improvement; but wherever there is a good Down Land, I would not by any Means recommend it to be broken up.

Are you personally acquainted with the County of Southampton?

I am, in the course of Business.

Have you been in the course of Business in the Neighbourhood of the New Forest?

Yes, I have passed through the New Forest.

Are you not of Opinion that there is a great Portion of that Land that is capable of Cultivation at the present Prices of Agricultural Produce?

I am not able to speak as to the whole Extent of it; but in passing through, it appears to me there is a great deal that may be very profitably improved.

Do you judge from what is growing upon it?

Yes; from the Herbage of it.

Will you point out on which Side of the Forest the Land you refer to lies?

In the Parish of Ealing there is a large Tract of Heath Land, and large Ponds.

Do you consider that as Land to which the Plough could be applied with any Chance of Profit?

If the Soil is extremely thin, with a Clay Bottom; for instance, if there is not above Six Inches of Soil, it would not answer the Expences.

If the Soil be of this Description, -a White hungry Sand, with a Sandstone at Bottom, would that answer?

No, certainly not.

Are you not aware that that Soil exists to a great Extent near the Forest?

There is some of that Land.

There is a large Extent of wild Country bordering on Dorsetshire; are you of Opinion that that would answer for Cultivation?

I cannot, from Recollection, answer that Question.

You have gone from the Royal Military College to Hartford Bridge?

I have.

According to your Judgment is that a Soil that is reclaimable to Profit?

I am hardly able sufficiently to answer that Question, because I cannot bring the Nature of the Soil before my Mind at the present Moment. A great deal depends, in respect to that inferior sort of Land, on what is the Nature of the Substratum. In Norfolk there is a great deal of light sandy Land, which some Persons would not think worth Cultivation; but when we find a Marl below it, then it becomes worth Cultivation.

[422]

Then you carry the Marl to the Surface?

Yes.

In speaking of Profit, are you not of Opinion that Land may be cultivatable to a Profit by an Individual and his Family on a very small Scale, when it would not answer to take that Land and cultivate it on a large Scale of from Three to Five hundred Acres in One Farm?

In respect to small Occupations there is no doubt they can be better managed than large Occupations, for to that small Extent the whole Family would be employed upon it, and they would bring it into that State of Improvement which a larger Farmer could not to a great Extent of Land. In this Answer I have confined myself to Cottage Occupation.

When you say you confine it to Cottage Occupation, what Quantity of Acres do you consider to be so applicable?

I should think, perhaps to the Extent of about Four Acres: we find it extremely beneficial on a large Estate I have the Management of in Lincolnshire, where we always receive the Rents regularly, and where the Poor Rates are comparatively very large. We have 100 of those Occupations; that is, about Fifty Tenants with Land from Two to Four Acres each, and the other Fifty with good Gardens only.

From Two to Four Acres each?

Yes.

Are they let to Day Labourers?

Yes, they are Day Labourers likewise.

When you speak of Cottage Cultivation, do you refer to the manual Cultivation of a Labourer and his Family, or by the Plough?

Where they have Four Acres, a Portion of it is ploughed.

What Resource have they for finding the Means of ploughing it?

Generally speaking, we find those Cottage Holders Men of much more Respectability than the common Day Labourers; they are respected by the Farmers in the Neighbourhood, who will let them have the Use of a Horse, on a fair Payment for the same.

Those Labourers who you say can profitably cultivate Land to the Extent of Four Acres, you conceive are employed to a certain Degree by the Farmers; what Assistance may the Farmers expect to receive from such Cottagers in the Way of Labour?

Those Cottagers are employed only a small Portion of their Time on their own Land; their principal Employment is by the Farmers.

You conceive that the most profitable Manner in which the Cottagers can employ the Time is by labouring for the Farmers, and employing their extra Time upon their own Land?

Yes.

Have you found that the Farmers have complained that the Labourers are idle, careless or irregular in attending their Work, from having those Acres added to their Cottages?

I never heard any Complaint of that kind.

On the contrary, do you not find by Experience that the Value of those Labourers having Land attached to their Cottages is greater than that of those who have not?

Undoubtedly that is the Case, from what I have seen.

Do you conceive the Four Acres is sufficient to take them from their daily Labour?

No; these Occupations vary from Two to Four Acres, as it is desirable to have a Difference according to their Families, and their Means of Employment.

In what Manner do you reckon that those Cottagers can most profitably cultivate those Four Acres on a Series of Crops?

That will depend entirely upon the Nature of the Soil; there must be a different System of Management according to the Nature of the Soil.

[423]

Do you conceive those Cottagers, generally speaking, ought to have a certain Quantity of Potatoes, a certain Quantity of Wheat; and what other Matter do you conceive it desirable they should cultivate?

We never bind them down to any particular System, conceiving that their own view of Advantage will point out what is best.

In Cases where you find Cottagers having Land in this Manner, what Effect has that upon the Poor Rate?

The Poor Rates are always much less.

You are aware that the Persons holding Land in that Manner have no Right to Relief from the Poor Rates?

Generally, those Occupations are rated in proportion with other Lands in the same Parish, and we find that where there are Tenants of that Description, the Poor Rates are a great deal less than where there were none of that Description.

In speaking of the Quantity of Waste Land in England capable of Cultivation, you mean to say that, in your Opinion, there is a considerable Quantity of Waste Land in this Kingdom capable of Cultivation to a Profit by the Cottagers, upon the System you have just spoken of in Lincolnshire?

Certainly; and not only by Cottagers but by Farmers likewise: and I beg leave to state, that where there is an Inclosure of Commons a much greater Increase of Labour is produced, and consequently more Benefit to the Poor.

And that has the Effect of diminishing the Poor's Rates?

Undoubtedly, because if they can find Employment, there is not that Excuse for going to the Parish for Relief.

How do they manure those Four Acres?

There is generally Plenty of Manure. There is a great deal of Manure made within or about the Cottage; and they would be able to get Manure very likely from some Market Town near at hand.

Is that the Case in the Cottages you referred to in Lincolnshire?

They are able to keep some Stock.

How much Stock do they keep in the Cottages to which you refer?

Probably they will keep Two Cows, and they keep a Pig.

Then they are, in point of fact, small Farmers?

We do not call them Farmers; they work for the Farmers; their small Occupations alone would not support them.

Do you believe that giving a Man Four Acres of Land would enable him to keep his Family?

Not taking the Year through.

Is it not a Matter of Complaint that there are many Men out of Employment?

Undoubtedly.

Your Plan is only to ameliorate the Condition of those in Employment?

With respect to those out of Employment, there is a great Difference between the Parishes. I know some Parishes where the Labourers are more numerous than they have Labour for; in other Parishes the Labourers are rather scarce: it depends entirely upon the Extent of the Population in the respective Parishes.

Where are the Wages the highest; in the Parish where there is the greatest Demand for Labour, or the others?

I should say where the Labour is scarce, the Wages were higher.

Do you think that it is of great Importance that those small Allotments of Land should be near the Residence of the Cottagers?

I think they should not be far off; the nearer the better.

What is the greatest Distance at which it would answer?

They would prefer having it close at hand; and it would be always more beneficial and better managed if the Land is nearer. They would be very willing to get it as near as they possibly could.

[424]

What is the greatest Distance at which it would be beneficial for their Occupation?

I think they should not have it more than Half a Mile from their Cottages.

A great deal of the Waste Land existing is more than Half a Mile from the Cottages of Labourers?

At present, undoubtedly.

Do you think it would be beneficial to build Cottages and Hovels for Cows, and to remove the Cottagers to those Waste Lands?

That would depend upon a Variety of Circumstances. If the ancient Cottage was in that State to require a great deal of Money to be laid out to put it into a proper state of Repair, I should advise it should be taken down, and that a new Cottage should be erected upon the Piece of Ground to be occupied.

What would be the Expence of building a Cottage and a Hovel for Cows on Epping Forest, for instance?

I should suppose that the utmost which would be necessary for building a Cottage, and necessary Outbuildings, would be 100£.

How much would it cost reclaiming a Hundred Acres of Land adjoining that Cottage?

There would be the Fencing of it; and I do not know that there would be a great deal more than that, beyond usual Cultivation.

Can you give a rough Estimate of the Expence?

I could not without going into Calculation.

What would the Four Acres be worth, after it was so fenced in?

That would depend on the Quality of the Soil.

The Fencing costs generally from a Shilling to Eighteen-pence a Pole; does it not?

Yes; it would not come to much.

In the Counties in which you have known Waste Land so cultivated, what has been the Expence of building Cottages?

I have not been much concerned in building Cottages, as in the Estates which are under my Management there have been already Cottages.

Are you not aware that, in most of those Districts, the Poor will build Cottages for themselves, at a trifling Expence?

Those that possess Money may do it.

Are you not aware, that on the Commons which have been inclosed, there are small Cottages which have been built by the Cottagers, who have appropriated to themselves Rights which did not originally belong to them?

I do not think that Labourers in general have Money to build Cottages with; there are some industrious Men who would do that, provided they had the Occupation of the Land on low Terms.

Do you conceive it would be possible to build a comfortable habitable Cottage at as low Cost as 30£.?

That depends on the Materials; but I have no doubt it may be done.

With what Materials must a Cottage which cost no more be built?

There are some of the Cottages in Norfolk built with Clay Walls, which would not cost more.

How many Chambers have those Cottages up Stairs?

Generally Two.

Does not the Thatching alone come to a considerable Sum?

No, not a great deal.

How long will those Cottages last?

I should think I can trace some Cottages on Lord Walsingham's Estate, which I have the Management of, that have been in existence for Forty Years.

Have there been Repairs from Year to Year?

Some small Annual Repair.

Is there a Brick Footing in them?

Yes, just clear of the Ground.

[425]

That is included in the 30£.?

Yes; it does not take many Bricks.

You stated that you thought that a Cottager who had an Allotment of Four Acres could keep Two Cows upon it; do you conceive he could do it without having a Turn-out on some Common?

That would depend entirely on the Quality of the Soil. I conceive that if the Land was of good Quality, an Acre in Pasture, and a Half Acre to mow, would be sufficient for a Cow; consequently Three Acres would enable them to keep Two.

One Acre should be laid up for Hay every Year for Supply for the Winter Food?

Yes.

It must be Land, then, that is capable of being sown every other Year?

I mean Grass Land, the natural Food.

Have you not known instances of Cows having been maintained without any Hay at all? Have you not seen Accounts of a Cow being maintained by Herbage or Vegetables grown on Half or even a Quarter of an Acre of Ground?

Yes, I have seen Statements of that kind, but I am not aware of such Facts.

Do you totally disbelieve such Statements?

No, I do not.

Do you disbelieve that a Cow may be maintained on Half an Acre or a Quarter of an Acre of Ground?

I cannot speak with Certainty to this Question, but I am of Opinion that there might be a sufficient Quantity of Vegetables produced on such a Quantity of good Land, very highly cultivated, to support One Cow.

What Quantity of such Waste Land as you have described, say Epping Forest, or some other Common Land, would, in your Opinion, suffice to maintain a Man, his Wife and Four Children, independent of Labour for Hire?

I never went into a Consideration of that, therefore I am at a Loss to answer that Question.

With your Experience of late Years, have you not found that the little Occupiers have been those that have been the earliest ruined, that have gone the soonest to the Wall?

With respect to Farms of Fifty Acres and so on, it entirely depends upon the Quality of the Soil, but a small Farmer on good Soil, I think, would always do well.

A small Farmer on indifferent Soil would not do well?

No, they have not done well; I think all small Farms should be on Land of good Quality.

In the Reply to the last Question, you understood the Question to apply to Farmers who grow the Crops for Sale, whereas the Question previously proposed applied entirely to a small Quantity of Land cultivated for the Sustenance of the Cottager himself; whether of the ordinary Quality of Land, a certain Number of Acres, from Six to Ten, might not be sufficient to maintain a Man and his Wife and Four Children?

I never entered into a Calculation of that kind, but I thought at the Moment, probably, about Ten Acres; I think, on Re-consideration, that that is more than is necessary.

In the Word Maintenance, do you mean to include not only his Sustenance as far as Food goes, but that he will be able to buy his Family Clothes and all the Articles requisite, which the Land itself would not produce?

Yes, I mean to include every Expence the Cottager would be subject to, so as to be quite comfortable.

Supposing you were to place a Cottager in one of those Mud Hovels that cost 30£. on Waste Land, and give him Four Acres of Land, would it not be necessary that he should find something further to employ him?

I have stated before, that a Cottager occupying Four Acres of Land of course labours for the Farmers also.

[426]

If you give him Ten Acres he becomes a Farmer?

He becomes able to support his Family without any Assistance from the Farmer.

On the Average, a Man having Four Acres could not, you think, maintain himself and his Family without being employed during some Portion of the Year by the Farmer?

I think not.

But that a Man could, on Ten Acres, maintain himself and his Family without such Employment?

Just so.

Could a Man take Ten Acres without some Capital?

No, certainly not.

Could he buy his Cows without Capital?

Certainly not.

Or his Plough?

No, certainly not.

When you are asked whether Capital is not necessary, do you not think that a Man locating on Seven or Ten Acres of Land, with a Cottage such as that described, with Implements of Husbandry, he would be able, in the Course of Time, by his own Industry to purchase a Cow, and raise that Capital without which it would be perfectly incompetent to him to commence Business?

I think he should be in Possession, at the first taking of this Land, of those Agricultural Instruments, and likewise the Stock he should have, or he cannot manage to advantage.

Would it not be possible for the Person to begin on a small Quantity of Land without the Stock, and by the Profits upon that small Quantity of Land eventually procure for himself the Stock contemplated?

I think so; that is the Reason I say that it is necessary to have Gradations of Occupation, that they may go from a smaller to a larger. It is not to be supposed that a Cottager could in the first instance undertake profitably the Occupation of Ten Acres of Land, without a sufficient Capital.

Do you think that within Seven Years he might be able to occupy Ten Acres, without the Aid of a Man of Capital at starting?

Yes, I think he might, by Gradation of Occupation, if he had a Family who assisted him.

That would depend upon the Size of his Family?

If he had a large Family, of course he would not be able to proceed so well.

Then suppose that he has to begin with a small Occupation, and that in the Course of Seven Years he might be enabled to occupy the Soil, how is he to maintain himself and his Family during those Seven Years?

He will maintain himself by Labour and by the Produce of the Four Acres of Land.

You suppose he must be in a Situation where there is an Abundance of Labour to be procured?

Of course upon the Supposition that there is Labour for him whenever it is required, beyond the Time he is occupied on his own Land.

If he were to be placed in a poor Colony, remote from Labour that he could procure, would he be able to maintain himself without having a considerable Capital to start with?

No, I think not, if on very poor Land.

Suppose a Parish were so circumstanced that it had a Superabundance of Agricultural Labour, which it was bound to maintain at a considerable Expence out of the Poor's Rates, would it not be a beneficial Application of the Means of that Parish to locate some of that extra Population in some Place where they could obtain for them some Land, in addition to the Cottage to be built for them?

[427]

The Parish would receive the same Advantages whether the Poor had the Occupation in their native Parish, or in any other Parish, because they would be able to support themselves in one Place as well as in another.

If they had not an Opportunity of being provided with Land in their own Parish, would it not be beneficial to a Parish so circumstanced to provide Money to enable them to be so located in another Parish, and particularly if they looked to the Means which they would have, after a certain Period, of reimbursing the Parish for the Money provided to enable them to commence those Operations?

Yes; I think they certainly might do that; but then there is a very material Question to be taken into Consideration, which is this, the Introduction of poor People into a Parish to which they do not belong, because you would thereby be bringing the Burden upon that Parish. Although those Cottagers are able to support themselves for a certain Time, yet, from Misfortunes that may arise to them, they may become subject to call upon the Parish in which they then reside for Relief: that, I think, is a very important Point for Consideration, whether that System should be adopted, or not.

The Point to which the Question applied was, the Benefit to be received by the Parish that had such a redundant Population?

No doubt the Parish that sent a Portion of their Poor out would be benefited by finding Employment for them.

Supposing they could find Employment for themselves where they were so located in a distant Place, if they were to have as much as about Four Acres of Land, do you think they would become comfortably situated, and that the Parish from which they were removed might claim in due Time to receive back a Portion of the Money advanced to enable them to settle themselves?

If they can find Employment, then I conceive they would stand in exactly the same Situation as if they were remaining in their own Parish.

If they could so find Employment, and it was expedient that they should be removed from the Parish at which they were found, would not that be the best Mode of disposing of them?

Undoubtedly.

Supposing they could not find Employment at the Place to which they were to be removed, if a larger Sum were provided for them, by which they would be enabled to cultivate Land enough for their Maintenance, their Clothing and other Necessaries, might not the Parish from which they were removed expect, in due Time, to be repaid for any such necessary Advances?

That would entirely depend upon the Success of the Man, because in stating the certain Quantity of Ten Acres it was not supposed that they were to be able to make a Saving out of that to create a Fund to refund to the Parish the Money they had advanced; therefore they must go to a greater Extent of Occupation, by Degrees, to enable them to save the Money.

Do you not think it might be reasonably expected they could by Instalments repay such Money advanced to them?

If they were successful they might do it by small Instalments, but it would be a considerable Time, particularly if Interest were charged upon it.

Supposing a Parish removing such Portion of that redundant Population, would it not be much benefited by the Comfort in which the Population would be placed which would remain in the Parish?

No doubt it would benefit those who remained, and for this Reason, because that Portion of the Poor sent into another Parish, not becoming liable to the Parish from which they were sent, there is of course the greater Means of Relief to the Population remaining in the Parish.

The remaining Population in the Parish from which the others were removed would be able to have more Work and better Wages?

Undoubtedly.

You have said it might be felt to be a Grievance by the Parish to which those Labourers were removed, their being removed to such Place; if that was to be created a distinct Parish, any such Objection would be removed?

[428]

Only in part; because, although the Land upon which these Poor are to be placed is to be made a distinct Parish, and consequently to support itself, yet as the Land taken for this Colony contributed to the Poor Rates of the Parish from which it is taken, and the Poor of the said Parish not lessened by the Establishment of the said Colony, the Amount that such Lands contributed to the Rates will be a total Loss to the Parish from which it is separated.

If this Pauper Colony were made a Parish of itself, how would any Relief be given to those Inhabitants in case of Sickness?

There would be no Means.

Are you a Landed Proprietor?

I am not.

You are Agent for Lord Walsingham?

I am.

Is there any Waste Land upon his Lordship's Property in Norfolk?

No, not Commonable Waste Land. There are very extensive Rabbit Warrens.

Has any Gentleman, you are Receiver or Agent for, any Waste Land?

Not to any great Extent; but small Portions of Waste Land.

If it were proposed to you to give you 10£. or 20£. for every Labourer that would settle upon that Waste Land from the County of Sussex, should you recommend to your Employer to accept of that Money?

That would entirely depend upon the Number of Labourers already in the Parish; if there were not a sufficient Number of Labourers in the Parish, I should be thankful for more; but if there were a sufficient Number of Labourers, I should not do that.

Cannot you get whatever Number of Labourers you wish, without having to look for them?

Generally speaking, there is a Sufficiency of Labourers.

Supposing that a House and Seven Acres of Land, without any other Capital than Implements of Husbandry, be provided for a Cottager, will he be able, under such Circumstances, to maintain his Family, and repay all Expence, including that of building the House, in Twelve Years, and at the Expiration of the Twelve Years that a Rent in proportion to the Quality of the Land may afterwards be paid, which Rent would be clear Profit to the Owner of the Soil, Repairs only excepted?

That is on the Presumption that no Rent is paid until the Expiration of the Twelve Years. Yes, under those Circumstances, I think it might.

The Witness is directed to withdraw.

Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday next, Twelve o'Clock.