Peculiarities in the Enclosure of Egham Act 1814; an hypothesis.
by Geoff Meddelton
Enclosure, the parcellation of land, a visible manifestation of the privatization of asset ownership characterized by the patchwork quilt patterning of much of the English countryside today had profound socio economic consequences which have been long recognized by historians.1 In this movement, Egham was no exception, ‘perhaps the two Nineteenth century events which affected the social life and prosperity of Egham more than others were the enclosure of the common fields and the introduction of the railways.’2
Enclosure affirmed the primacy of individual rights of land ownership and husbandry over common rights and collective land governance. From the 15th century, the process evolved from landlords reclaiming control of leaseholds once tenancies expired, to informal agreement with other landlords. This was done by arrangement through swapping of fields in order to consolidate existing holdings. Lastly, from the mid 18th century, private acts of Parliament became the main driver for later enclosures. These required the agreement of two thirds of land owners by value of their holdings. In such manner, therefore, a few large landowners could easily override the objections of the majority.3 As a result of 5000 separate enclosure acts, it has been calculated that 21% of England was enclosed.4 As a result of such legislation, between 1750 and 1820 ‘the commons in England were gradually driven out of existence’.5
Among economic factors posited as explanation for the rise of parliamentary enclosures during the early 19th century was the impact of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1793-1815). The effect of rising grain prices caused by disruption of continental supplies and the duration of the conflicts convinced many landowners that enclosure was a worthwhile risk; returns from increased productivity would outweigh costs incurred by the process of setting up enclosures.6 This might, therefore, explain the spate of enclosures in Surrey, Middlesex and parts of neighbouring Berkshire during the first decade of the 19th century.7
The story of enclosure needs to be told also within a localized context. The aim of this brief paper is to suggest how such factors may have played a role especially in the timing and shaping of events hence the inclusion of the term ‘peculiarities’ in the title. One of the features of enclosure in parts of the home counties was their late date after the crisis of the French wars had passed. Given that an act of enclosure must represent 2/3 land ownership by value, in Surrey it was clear that many landed proprietors remained unconvinced. That there was plenty of opposition in Surrey, is evidenced by the 25 counter-petitions to enclosure recorded. As a result of this, of the 101 bills submitted to Parliament for enclosure of land in Surrey between 1730-1839, only 50 acts were passed. Compared with other counties, this represented an unusually high failure rate.8 The date of the Egham Enclosure act is also significant, June 1814 which was after the defeat of Napoleon and the signing of the Treaty at Fontainbleau in April by which the pre-war borders in Europe were restored and Napoleon forced into exile to the Mediterranean island of Elba and the Bourbon monarchy restored to France.
The connection between war and guaranteed high prices for domestic corn which had preciously influenced farmers into supporting enclosure in parts of Surrey and Middlesex were not relevant to the timing of the Egham Enclosure Act. It is the contention of this paper that rather than war induced profit speculation, the influence of the Crown and court circles was significant in the timing of enclosure of Egham. The previous year, the Windsor Forest Act enclosed a vast area of 24 500 acres of land belonging to the Crown.9 Attention has been drawn to the fact that contemporaries exaggerated the inefficiency of farming methods in unenclosed land and talked up the economic benefits of enclosure to the proprietors.10 It is possible, however, that enclosure was perceived as a way for increasing revenue. A source of embarrassment in his relationship with parliament was the matter of public funding of the debts of the Prince Regent who, from 1811 was acting head of state until his own coronation in 1820. In the same year that the Egham Enclosure Act was passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in responding to a parliamentary question about the matter of state assistance for the clearance of the prince’s debt claimed that the government had no knowledge of the size of the debt.11
Such an admission would seem economical with the truth and perhaps a deliberate falsehood to shield the monarchy from public criticism and even ridicule. It was certainly in the interest of the Crown for the Prince Regent’s household to find means of increasing his own private sources of income. One way to do this was Enclosure. Notwithstanding their subjectivity, contemporary land surveys offered tantalizing predictions of how enclosure could increase value of holdings. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Board of Agriculture carried out surveys of Egham’s unenclosed fields and suggested that the value per acre of common land could be increased by as much as double in value if enclosed. That enclosure was seen as a way of consolidating assets is also evident in a contemporary response to the enclosure of Windsor Forest the previous year.12 Peacock asserted that under orders from the Crown, two regiments of cavalry were employed to corral deer into the enclosed part of Windsor Park. Having enclosed the expanse of Windsor Forest, the Crown sought to consolidate its holdings in The Manor of Egham also the property of the Crown and leased to W.H. Fremantle, a courtier.13 Both the Crown and Fremantle were sponsors of the application for enclosure of Egham. The means by which both the Crown and social elites managed the process of Enclosure is evident by the entries in the act relevant to Englefield Green and Egham race course. By the middle of the 18th century, the green was regarded as a fashionable residential district; importantly populated ‘for the most part by people more or less connected with the Court at Windsor.14
Could the said connection with circles close to the Prince be a reason why the green was left ‘unenclosed for the pleasure of their [inhabitants] and adornment of their residences’?15 By 1814, Egham Races was patronized both by regency high society and the Royal family itself, unsurprisingly, therefore, the area covered by the races was to be left unenclosed and, where necessary, fences should be temporarily removed so as not to impede the sport.16
To conclude, the limited nature of the evidence available means that the conclusions offered here are tentative and can only be the basis for a hypothesis. Nevertheless, this paper does attempt to offer an explanation as to the timing of the Egham Act and how localized circumstances play a pivotal role in the interpretation of national events and movements, including their adaptation to suit influential parochial interests.
References:
1. https://www.permanentculturenow.com/history-of-enclosure – The fact is that England and Wales’ rural population dived from 65 per cent of the population in 1801 to 23 per cent in 1901; while in France 59 per cent of the population remained rural in 1901, and even in 1982, 31 per cent were country dwellers; A short History of Enclosure in Britain – The Land Magazine by Simon Fairlie
2. Frederick Turner, Egham, Surrey; a History of the parish under Church and crown (Box and Gilham, Egham, 1926), p.235.
3. T.A. Bryan; The Egham Inclosure Act of 1814 (manuscript dated August 1947) in Egham Museum document 5665 (Box 484).
4. https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/culture-and-leisure/history-centre/
5. https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance/direct-action/expropriation/the-enclosure/ – The Enclosure Movement by DGR News Service | Feb 5, 2022 | ANALYSIS, Reclamation & Expropriation
6. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/27713/excerpt/9780521827713_excerpt.pdf – The Enclosure Movement in England and Wales
7. T.A. Bryan (op.cit); dates for enclosure are bracketed; Berkshire; present day Slough (1809); Datchet and Stoke Poges (1810). Surrey; Walton and Weybridge (1800); Thorpe (1807) Chertsey (1808). Middx; Feltham, Hanworth and Sunbury (1809); Hampton (1811)
8. https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/culture-and-leisure/history-centre/ – Parliamentary Enclosure
9. https://visions.eghammuseum.org/enclosure-and-the-changing-landscape – It was one of the largest areas enclosed by an act of Parliament and served as a stimulus for other enclosures in both Berkshire and Surrey. See also Bedfont in Middx was enclosed the same year, Bryan, op.cit.
10. Egham Visions, op.cit .; see also original text Egham Inclosure Act 1814 (54 G. III, c. 153); Egham Museum [document 605, Box 105]. ‘‘whereas the lands and grounds of the respective proprietors in the said open fields open meadows and common lands at present very inconveniently situated for the cultivation thereof and the said commons and waste grounds in their present state are incapable of much improvement and it would be of great advantage to the several persons interested if all the said….. were divided and inclosed and specific parts thereof allotted’.
11. HC Deb; 21st April 1814; Hansard volume 27/ cc461-2; questions in Parliament.
12. www.thomaslovepeacock.net/winfor.html; Thomas Love Peacock (1753-1866), ‘The Last Day of Windsor Forest’.
13. http://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/member/fremantle-william-1766-1850 – FREMANTLE, William Henry (1766-1850), of Englefield Green, Egham, Surr. and Stanhope Street, Mdx. | History of Parliament Online
14. Turner, op.cit; p.216’ A glance of the pre enclosure maps will show the poor did not live around the green, the houses for the most part were of the gentry.’
15. Egham Inclosure Act 1814; op.cit.
16. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/surrey/vol3/pp419-427