View source for Enclosures campaign

click [[Kiln Lane]] fo

'''Research by Dennis Claydon on the campaign for enclosure in the Parish of Princes Risborough.'''

Common land, in medieval times, provided rights for the peasants. These rights included the removal of wood and stones, grazing of stock and the gathering of fallen fruit. During the twelfth century, lords of the manor began to claim direct ownership of such ground. From the thirteenth century, areas were fenced off in a trend known as enclosure. This practice rapidly escalated during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The survey and valuations of 1808-1810 were probably consulted and taken into account, the proposal to seek the Enclosure of the Parish of Princes Risborough was first suggested. Following the Royal Assent to the Bill in 1820, another three years were to elapse before the matter finally become reality.

John Grubb of Horsenden, Lord of the Manor of Princes Risborough, was the largest landowner within the Parish. Lord George Cavendish, a non-resident, had recently acquired land in the Parish, making him the second largest landowner. He had a seat in Lancashire, owned an estate in Chesham and was M.P. for Derbyshire.

In June 1819, Pinder Simpson, land agent to Cavendish, but recently established in business on his own account, wrote to Grubb proposing the Enclosure. Grubb consulted with his solicitor friend, Thomas Tindal; both men then sought advice from William Collisson, a land surveyor and agent.  Collisson was later to become an Enclosure Commissioner.  Terms were finally agreed with Cavendish, following prolonged consultation and negotiations.

Tindal next proposed terms to Richard Holloway, the third largest landowner in the Parish.  Holloway, another non-resident, suffered from bouts of illness; therefore time elapsed before a final agreement was reached.

Tindal then informed Thomas Winslow of the intention to enclose, but stated that local consent was needed. Winslow, a resident of long standing and owner of land and property, was fiercely opposed to the proposition. An Opposition Committee was formed, for which Winslow acted as Chairman. At a public meeting, ninety-three people put their signatures to a resolution opposing Enclosure.

The strength of local feeling may have been grossly under estimated. When Henry Hatton, Tindal's Clerk, arrived to post the notice of intent on the Church door in Princes Risborough, he was greeted by a ‘tumultuous mob’ and ‘assaulted’. Five men were arrested. Two more postings were made on the Church door, but special constables were called in to protect the Clerk and keep the peace.  At the end of September, a note of intention to oppose, signed by twenty people, was posted on the Church door.

Like their counterparts in the Town, the inhabitants of the ‘Upper Hamlets’ were also seriously concerned by the proposals. Francis Stone, son-in-law of William Floyd, Senior, objected on the grounds of loss of common rights. Other concerns of resident opponents were, increased Poor Rates, the cost of Enclosure and loyalty to friends.

Ann Dell, with son, Thomas, initially were strongly opposed to Enclosure, signing the opposition resolutions. Thomas owned Speen Farm, whilst Ann had property in Lacey Green. Ann also farmed Stocken Farm, as a tenant of Cavendish, which placed the Dell’s in an awkward situation. Was pressure brought to bear?  One would assume it probably was, because finally, they would not offer an opinion either for or against.

Sarah Floyd, at the Brick Kiln, openly declared her neutrality, but for this she was bullied and threatened as a tenant.  Could this be the reason for the Kiln passing out of the Floyd family?  Like-minded traders in the Town were menaced and threatened, some having their property damaged.

The whole project seems to have aroused an atmosphere of mistrust and uncertainty, causing tension and frustration between landowner and tenant alike.

After much lobbying, canvassing and counter-campaigning, a Petition was presented in December 1819, the House of Commons giving leave to present a Bill.  Other obstacles, however, still had to be overcome, namely the death of King George III and a General Election. Surviving these, after a far from smooth passage, Royal Assent was finally given to the Bill on the thirtieth of June 1820.

This represented a small step forward for the Promoters, but heralded a prolonged period of claim and counter-claim. On the eighth of August 1820, John Grubb, Lord of the Manor, stakes a claim for ‘a Messuage or Tenement and Brick Kiln with two closes at Lacey Green in the occupation of Sally Floyd, four acres’.