Enclosure Takes Off

          Some 20 years after the first (unsuccessful) notice about enclosure appeared in the newspaper, an almost identical one appeared in the Cambridge press announcing the intention to seek an Act of Enclosure for Great Shelford parish (CC, 27 Sep 1833). As before, the names appended were those of Jesus College's solicitors, now Pemberton and Hayward.

          A first meeting of Proprietors was held at the Eagle Inn in Cambridge on 1st October. Edward Green sent his apologies, but expressed his support for enclosing the parish. The meeting voted in favour of getting acts through Parliament to enclose the parish and to commute the tithes. They also agreed that there would be two Commissioners (who carried out the work of the Enclosure). One would be chosen by Jesus College, the other by the owners (the Proprietors) of land. The commissioners would in turn appoint an umpire, who would arbitrate in case they disagreed. The Proprietors chose Edward Gibbons as their man. They already knew him.  He had worked on a number of local parish enclosures and had lived in Great Shelford from 1816 to 1822 - at Porch House - over the course of them. The meeting also apppointed Edward Cuming, who was currently living in Great Shelford, as surveyor, and you can see his name on the Enclosure map which recorded the final distribution of land. A committee was appointed to settle "the Details of the Measure", and needless to say this was composed of all the big men - the college bursars, Edward Green (or his tenant Richard Maris), and the main farmers - Peter Grain, Henry Headly, William Headly and Thomas Stacey. You can see that the small men weren't going to get a look in.

          A second meeting took place on 21 November. The lord of de Freville Manor, Edward Humphreys Green, had taken exception to the appointments made in the first. He had sent his apologies to the meeting, without sending anyone to represent him, so the meeting had carried on without him. He now complained that, as an owner of 400 acres in the parish he should have been consulted. More particularly, he complained that the colleges had between them sewn up the whole process: they'd appointed one commissioner, and proposed the candidate that the Proprietors had then selected. He now stated that he wanted to choose a candidate himself. Mr Pemberton, the solicitor, gave him short shrift: he should have attended the meeting if he wanted a part in the selection; the Proprietors had chosen to have two commissioners because it was cheaper than having three; and they'd chosen their commissioner, not because the colleges foisted him on them, but because he had lived in Shelford for a few years, and they knew him. Mr Green got increasingly shirty, and now began to say he wasn't sure he supported the Enclosure. So this second meeting was called, though Mr Green claimed that neither he nor his representative could be present. The meeting agreed to ignore his complaints, and ratified their previous decisions. Thereafter Mr Green was roundly opposed to the Enclosure.

            It is also notable that the firm of solicitors employed for the Enclosure was the very same as that representing Jesus College, Pemberton & Hayward. Another conflict of interest, you might think, but apparently no-one objected.

        By 22 May 1834 the Act of Enclosure and Commutation of Tithes had passed into law. 

          One of the prerequsites for getting an Act was the Statement of Property. Each landowner had to be consulted, and his view on enclosure canvassed. The value of your consent or dissent wasn't predicated on one man (or woman) one vote. Instead, you were assessed according to the value of your land (the assessment was the basis for the Land Tax that landowners paid). Thus Caius College were asessed at £38 15s 3 1/2 d, while carpenter William Moore was assessed at 3s. So you can see that here, as throughout the process, it was the big boys who called the shots. The final statement of consents for Great Shelford still survives and shows that all the colleges and bigger farmers were in favour. The most notable dissent was the lord of De Freville Manor, Edward Humphreys Green, who, as we have seen, had come round to opposing it. For all that his assessment was £29 2s, it barely registered on the scales. Ten landowners expressed a neutral opinion, while eleven were opposed. These opponents were in a minority, outnumbered by the thirty who consented.

       With the Acts in place, the actual work began: deciding who owned what, who should be entitled to what, and agreeing the actual divvying up of the land between the various owners.

          The Commissioners began by making a call to all proprietors to submit a Claim stating what land they held, what was their tenure (freehold, copyhold, or leasehold), their rights, and if copyhold from which manor it was held. They called a three-day meeting from the 18th to 20th June, and received the claims. These were duly entered in a register, and one copy was displayed at the George Inn (now the house called Old Thatch in Church Street), the other at the solicitors' office in Cambridge. The Proprietors were to inspect these claims, and submit any objection they might have to them.

          The original hand-written Claims can still be found in Cambridge University Library, and provide the most potent link we have to the villagers who were caught up in the business of enclosure. Their format ranges from the well-organized and well written to the vagaries of expression and spelling of men, and occasionally women, who were not accustomed to writing.

Exchanges 

          Landowners were allowed to offer up bits of land that they owned and were not particularly keen to hang on to. These were called the Exchanges. All the Exchanges, common arable and the commons or waste went into a pot to be distributed by the Commissioners.

v1 © Helen Harwood, uploaded March 2025