THE ENCLOSURE AND DRAINAGE OF CORS FOCHNO (BORTH BOG), 1813—47

With the passing of the General Enclosure Act of 1801, the enthusiasm for enclosure which had been catalysed by the inflated price of agricultural products during the Napoleonic Wars was given further stimulus and many thousands of acres of waste in both the coastal and hill areas of Wales were subject to the measuring chain of the surveyor and enclosure commissioner. Throughout Britain as a whole it has been estimated that the gross return from investment in waste-land enclosure frequently exceeded twenty per cent while the Funds rarely yielded in excess of six per cent.(1) In Wales and other areas where a pastoral agrarian economy predominated, farmers did not benefit from price inflation to the same degree as those in the arable sector, as livestock prices increased to a lesser degree than those of corn crops. This would have tended towards lower rentals for farms in the livestock producing areas and thus reduced incentives for landlord's investment in waste-land enclosure. On the other hand, a potent countervailing factor operated in the form of rural land hunger engendered by a rapidly increasing rate of population growth throughout both rural and urban Wales. Increasing family size created a clamour for new holdings among a rural population for whom farming was the traditional, and often the sole means of making a living. Not only did this situation lead to squatting on the extensive wastes, but also to an increase in farm rents and a growing realisation on the part of landlords that enclosure of wastes would enable the creation of new farms which could be let at economic rents.(2)

Although on many of the unenclosed wastes and commons summer grazing rights of adjacent farms were carefully regulated by the Manor Courts according to the winter stock-carrying capacity of those farms, rights of common were frequently abused. In some cases, over-stocking led to a deterioration in the value of the common, while in others persons eschewed the exercise of their common rights for fear that their stock would be stolen, maimed, or killed either by other persons holding rights of common or by the much-maligned squatters.(3) In general squatting or encroaching was strenuously resisted by farmers and others holding common rights on the unenclosed wastes, on the basis that not only would summer grazing be limited by the presence of encroachments but also that squatting tended to introduce a disorderly and unruly class of person to the area.(4) Some squatters, however, managed to establish the freehold of their encroachment by paying a nominal rent to the Lord of the Manor, while enclosure commissioners often recognised that occupation of a site for a period exceeding 21 years constituted a claim when an enclosure was apportioned.(5)

With the coming of waste-land enclosure, the opprobrium which had hitherto been reserved for the squatters was now directed towards the enclosure commissioners.(6) Rather more than sixty years ago Ivor Bowen observed that, "None of the common or waste lands in Wales were ever enclosed with the real approbation or to the material advantage of the humbler inhabitants."(7) Recent research, however, would suggest that although there was certainly resistance towards enclosure by humbler parishioners, in most cases the commissioners were careful to ensure that legitimate claims for portions of the enclosed land were met in the final apportionment.(8) Nevertheless, the legal requirement of the consent of between two-thirds and four-fifths of the parishioners before enclosure could take place was often flouted, particularly when the land lay upon one estate when the consent of the landlord and the tithe impropriator was usually considered all that was necessary.(9) While they might override the claims of persons holding land by customary right and allocate lands of unproven title to the landlord, most commissioners were aware of the importance of providing a substitute for loss of turbary rights and in many of their apportionments they set aside parish turbaries and lands for the poor. It is not the purpose of this article to re-iterate the well-worn and often passionate arguments which have raged around the social, political and agrarian implications of enclosure, but to examine some of the problems which accompanied the attempt to enclose and drain that expansive tract of land in North Cardiganshire known as Cors Fochno or, in it's less lyrical English form, Borth Bog.(10)

Although numerous encroachments and enclosures had been made on Cors Fochno for many years, the prime movers of the attempt to enclose and reclaim the whole area of the waste were Pryse Pryse of Gogerddan, Lord of the Manor of Genau'r Glyn, and his close neighbour Mathew Davies of Cwmcynfelin. To this end, they and other local proprietors promoted an enclosure act which met with little opposition and received the royal assent on June 22nd, 1813.(11) Reporting in October of the same year, the land surveyor Charles Hassall described Cors Fochno as "an extensive and valuable fen, the 5106 acres of which would readily merit enclosure."(12) A very experienced surveyor, Hassall gravely warned the promoters of the Act that, "adventurous contractors for works of this sort are ever ready to undertake them. Men of that description risk nothing. When a piece of work miscarries they easily remove themselves to another district and leave their employer to bewail his folly in having become the dupe of their ignorance and knavery." As the reclamation work progressed and friction between the commissioners and contractors intensified, both the commissioners and promoters doubtless pondered upon these words as the project lurched from crisis to crisis.

Hassall had originally suggested that the reclamation scheme should aim to divert the various streams entering the bog, to drain off the spring water which frequently flooded the surface and to prevent sea water inundation by embanking the River Dyfi. He submitted that Anthony Bower of Lincoln, who had successfully supervised the draining of the Llanelli Marshes, would be the most suitable engineer to advise as to details. Accordingly in 1815, when Hassall himself was an enclosure commissioner for the project, Bower was invited to submit a scheme for the scrutiny of the commissioners and proprietors. Based upon his experience in Lincolnshire and Norfolk, Bower recommended that the River Lerry be deepened, straightened and embanked from its opening into the sea to Lerry Bridge. A sluice was to be constructed at the river mouth from which a main drain would run through the centre of the bog. This would be accompanied by a catchwater drain which would follow the course of the Lerry to the foot of the hills and then along the south-eastern boundary of the bog to join the River Cletwr. By this means, Bower believed, water from the hills would be prevented from entering the bog while an embankment on the southern side of the Dyfi would preclude the entry of salt-water. Bower estimated that the total cost of the work would amount to not less than £30,000, a figure which appalled Robert Williams of Bangor, who, along with David Joel Jenkins of Lampeter had been appointed enclosure commissioner following the death of Hassall in 1816.(13) Williams complained that a significant proportion of the £30,000 would be absorbed in the conversion of open drains into navigable canals, an exercise which he considered quite pointless. Moreover, claimed Williams, under Bower's scheme over one thousand acres of land would be taken up by drains and embankments, leaving an acreage which, after improvement, would be valued at little more than £20,000. Thus would the project as conceived by Bower be quite uneconomical. Financial considerations apart, Williams raised very reasonable objections to Bower's insistence upon bringing one thousand labourers from Lincolnshire to undertake the drainage works, arguing that such was quite unnecessary when local labour was in surplus. Furthermore, Bower had refused to employ, as supervisor of the project, Williams's protegé Griffith Parry of Penmorfa in Caernarvonshire, who had worked for fourteen years on the construction of the London Docks under the direction of the great engineer Andrew Rennie. Williams's objections and his curt expression of them in letters to Bower, deeply angered the latter. To the co-commissioner, David Jenkins of Lampeter, Bower complained of Williams's incivility and of his incompetence in judging the merits and demerits of the drainage scheme, concluding quite unequivocally : "His observations make me laugh".

For two years the co-commissioners had disagreed as to the means whereby the drainage was to be effected, with Jenkins championing Bower's plan and Williams that of Griffith Parry of Penmorfa, which had been submitted early in 1815. Parry's scheme, which was to cost £10,000, involved the widening and deepening of the ancient ditches surrounding the bog, the embankment of the Dyfi and the diverting of the River Lerry from the west end of Ynys Fergi in a straight line to Pont Lerry, both sides of the diversion being embanked. Notwithstanding the remonstrations of Bower who had already initiated certain works on the site, his plan was eventually abandoned in favour of that of Griffith Parry. The agreement as to the first phase of the work was drawn up on June 19th, 1816 between the commissioners, Griffith Parry of Penmorfa and William Thomas and Richard Ellis of Pwllheli. The latter parties agreed, for £2,500, "... in a substantial and workmanlike manner (to) make, build, erect and finish . . . upon that part of the said Marsh land caled Cors Fochno adjoining the river Dyfi and extending from the sandhills called the Twyni to the new cut called the Tre'r ddol Cut to its extremity at the lime kilns near Tre'r ddol, a good and substantial Imbankment." This was to extend for three miles, with a height of six feet (and thus two feet six inches above the spring tide high water level) and a width of four feet. The embankment was to be of clay construction and covered with a four inch layer of turves. The contractors also agreed to construct a sluice in the embankment close to Ynys-las. This sluice would open into a drain which would run alongside the embankment and was expected to carry off surplus water. The contractors agreed to receive payment in several stages, the final £250 to be paid two years after completion, provided the various works remained secure. Robert Williams was delighted that his championship of Parry's modification of Bower's scheme had gone ahead, although his colleague David Joel Jenkins was apparently less sanguine about the future success of the project. Indeed, Jenkins seems to have objected very strongly to the Parry plans. After a meeting with the leading proprietors in June 1816, to discuss his differences with Jenkins, Williams wrote to Thomas Jones of Penybont, Clerk to the Commissioners, "I beg you will not listen to anything that Mr. Jenkins shd say, as they certainly want to impose upon the concern".(14)

The question of paying for the extensive drainage works had been settled in 1814 when Pryse Pryse of Gogerddan had agreed to stand security for £6000 to be borrowed from the Aberystwyth Bank, the balance of the cash to arise from the sale of lands on the periphery of the marsh. The first sale, of 203 acres of land at Ynys-las, had taken place in 1815 and had realised £2340.10s.0d. In tones of which a twentieth century land agent would not have been ashamed, the sale notice proclaimed, "These lots lie close to Moelynys and are Part of the adjacent Lands, which, in its present state is of great Fertility and Richness, but will be greatly improved by the Works about to be carried on under the Inclosure Act ; its contiguity to Borth Sands, with the Beauty of the surrounding scenery renders this Spot a desirable Bathing Retreat".

It would seem that work to the Dyfi embankment had been completed by the end of 1818, for in January of the following year the contractors' solicitors were pressing the commissioners for the balance of the £2500. The commissioners, however, were unwilling immediately to pay off the remaining sum, arguing that not only was the embankment not constructed according to specification, but also that the Ynys-las sluice was far too large to fulfil its purpose effectively. With obvious satisfaction, Williams was able to attribute the inadequate construction of the sluice to Anthony Bower's drawings which the contractors seem to have followed : "I am sorry to observe that Mr. Bower's section has been the sole cause of it... it is true that the Contract refers to no Section whatever, but having made use of such and trusting to it as an infallible guide in fixing the sluice, which afterwards turned out to be an enormous one, it reasonably follows that the blame must unavoidably be attributed to the author of that section". The argument over payment continued throughout 1819, with the contractors claiming that they had been caused by the commissioners to deviate from the specification and the latter insisting that the basic structure of the embankment was unsound. Although a Chancery suit is mentioned, the documents do not give a clear indication of the outcome of these proceedings. Ten years later, the matter had still not been resolved, for Williams wrote to the then commissioner pointing out that while he had had some reservations in 1818, he felt that upon reflection his objections had been unfounded and that the contractors should now be paid.

By the end of 1819 a shadow had been cast over the activities of the two commissioners. To finance the Dyfi embankment and other works they had sold off various sections of the waste valued at rather more than £5000, thus requiring a further £1000 to repay the original bank-loan. At the time, the only means of procuring this extra cash open to the commissioners was that of auctioning further parcels of waste land. They were legally prevented from so doing, however, by the terms of the enclosure act, which clearly stipulated that the division and apportionment of the waste was to be completed within five years after the passing of the act. Once this five year period had elapsed, the commissioners forfeited their right to sell off land to defray enclosure expenses. Although they had failed to complete the enclosure in the specified time, Williams and Jenkins chose to ignore the above stipulation and were only prevented from effecting illegal sales by the combined action of the proprietors following a meeting in the Boar's Head Inn, Tre'r ddol in May 1822. Moreover, the proprietors were advised by Richard Preston of Lincoln's Inn that enclosures effected after the passing of the five year period were, in themselves, illegal and thus Matthew Davies of Cwmcynfelin was quite within his rights in ordering the removal of fences around parcels of waste adjoining his holdings on Cors Fochno. Only a new act, it seemed, would enable the project to continue.

Disaffection with the conduct of the commissioners eventually resulted in the resignation of Williams, the discharging of Jenkins and the appointment, in June 1822, of Richard Griffiths of Bishop's Castle as the new commissioner. The appointment was welcomed by Thomas Jones, the Clerk to the commissioners who, in his letter of congratulations to Griffiths, observed, "The concern has been most shamefully managed hitherto and will require great exertions on the part of a new commissioner to get through it with credit to himself and satisfaction to the proprietors".(15) An experienced man who had been responsible for the successful completion of three enclosures in Shropshire, Griffiths was empowered to proceed under the terms of a new act secured by the proprietors in 1824.(16) Assisted by the surveyor, Charles Mickleburgh of Montgomery. Griffiths carried out extensive drainage works including the alteration of the course of the River Lerry on the western side of the bog to its present position. Financial difficulties, however. were never far away. By the spring of 1825, Griffiths was almost in a position to draw up his award, but was unable to do so until outstanding debts against the concern had been paid. To one of the proprietors, William Tilsley Jones of Gwynfryn he lamented, "It was my wish to have come up and settled the business finally, but you see how I am circumstanced. I will thank you to send me another Bill for I suppose we have no money in the Bank and the next thing will be the Bankers will be arresting me for the £1000 which I am indebted to them. From the difficulties I have had in the concern it has quite tired me and I regret I ever had anything to do with it . . ."(17) Jones, it seems, did not respond favourably to the unfortunate commissioner's request for a further bill. Two years later he was informed by Griffiths that not only were his creditors threatening to proceed against him, but also that the banks refused to lend any further money for the concern without a bond for £1000. The Chancery suit filed by Griffith Parry and his associates against the enclosure commissioners some eight years previously was still dragging on and added to Griffiths' burden of problems and the prospect of additional financial embarassment. By 1825 total debts exceeded £3000, included among which were substantial demands from Bower and ex-commissioner Williams. In July 1828, Griffiths received a letter from Williams, not only condemning Griffiths' work, but also, curiously enough, criticising the concern for failing to satisfy the contractors' demands, over which he had undergone a volte-face.

The spectre of the Chancery suit, which was not finally settled until 1833, deterred Griffiths from drawing up his award on completion of the drainage works. Moreover, damage to both the Dyfi and Lerry embankments and the Ynyslas sluice further inhibited progress and added to Griffiths' distress. The proprietors were unwilling to advance funds for the repair of the damage and were also strongly opposed to Griffiths's plans to close off access roads to the Ynyslas sands upon which certain proprietors had long enjoyed grazing rights. However, despite lack of co-operation on the part of the proprietors and the many minor difficulties confronting the concern, Griffiths called a meeting at the Gogerddan Arms in Aberystwyth on June 15th, 1829 to hear objections to his award which he had previously compiled and deposited for inspection in the house of Hugh Rowlands of Tre'r ddol. As there were no written objections he gave notice that all rights of commons on the enclosed commons and waste, "cease, determine and be for ever extinguished".

This, however, was by no means the end of the saga, and although there appear to be no documents dealing with the progress of the enclosure over the next nine years, it seems that matters had degenerated considerably by December 1838 when the proprietors held a meeting aimed to bring, "this truly unfortunate concern to a close with the least loss to all parties interested". Shortly after publishing his award and prior to executing it, Richard Griffiths had died and the seemingly ill-fated post of commissioner had been taken up by his son, Thomas. Throughout 1838, the proprietors, with the collaboration of Thomas Griffiths, struggled with the formidable task of unravelling the complex financial state of the enterprise. With some difficulty they managed to establish that the first commissioners had expended between seven and eight thousand pounds during their period of office. Although commissioner Richard Griffiths had received, from land sales, some £17,802, a debt of £974 (together with counsel's fees) still remained and it was agreed that this could be discharged with monies received from the sale of hitherto un-allotted land on and around the embankments. Prior to such a sale, however, considerable sums would be required to put the embankments in a saleable state. Indeed, the embankments had deteriorated to such a degree that upwards of one thousand acres of the enclosed land was in precisely the same condition as it had been prior to the earlier drainage work, and it was estimated that some £3584 would be required to restore the works and discharge outstanding debts. Having decided that the unallocated land was valued at £3000, the proprietors agreed to purchase this as a joint venture and to hand the purchase money to the commissioner for completion of the enclosure. The documents do not indicate whether this proposed venture was effected and there appears to be no further documentary evidence until the final execution of the award in 1847, some thirty four years after the passing of the original act.(18)

R. J. Colyer Aberystwyth

APPENDIX I

The 1824 act carefully stipulated that the Commissioner apportion the enclosed lands according to the scale of holdings already in possession of the numerous proprietors within the Lordship of Genau'r Glyn, "excepting in right of encroachments which may have been made upon or from the said commons and waste lands for twenty years or upwards before the passing of the said recited Act . . .". The Lord of the Manor was to receive his customary allotment and the poor were to receive allotments in lieu of loss of turbary rights. After very considerable dispute and acrimonious debate, Griffiths' final apportionments were published as set out below.

Allotments of land to the Lord of the Manor, Freeholders and Proprietors under 5 Geo. IV c. 29, drawn up by Richard Griffiths and executed by Thomas Griffiths in 1847. [Areas rounded to nearest acre].

APPENDIX II Lands sold at various times for the purpose of financing the concern