ancient woods, and stop destructive enclosures, and the Verderer’s Court was reconstituted, so as to represent the commoners more effectually. [Sidenote: Fawcett _versus_ Ruskin.] It is when dwelling on this fight of Fawcett’s for beauty versus money that it is amusing to realise that he was once challenged by Ruskin to a public debate—Fawcett to defend the political economy of his day against Ruskin’s charge that it was radically opposed to Christianity. Fawcett wisely realised that they would have no common meeting-ground and refused to enter the lists. [Sidenote: ‘The monstrous Notion.’] The general questions of enclosures had still to be settled. The old method had been stopped for all time in Fawcett’s Battle of Wisley Common, but no new machinery had been substituted. Bills were brought in two or three times, but failed to win sufficient support to be carried. In 1876 Lord Cross, the Home Secretary, brought in a Bill which showed a distinct advance in public opinion. Nevertheless, it did not satisfy the Commons Preservation Society. Next, the chairman of the society, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, now Lord Eversley, moved a resolution embodying the enactment of provisions and safeguards. The Bill was supported by a speaker who at the same time attacked what he chose to call ‘the monstrous notion,’ _i.e._ that the inhabitants of large towns had a right to wander over distant commons as they pleased. Fawcett, who also supported the Bill in a vigorous speech, swooped down, seized this ‘monstrous notion’ and held it aloft for admiration and support, and contended that the commons were a great and valuable possession for the people of the entire country.’ He had again to insist that the bill did not adequately protect the labourers nor provide sufficient security against a ruthless enclosure of commons. He pointed out that ‘under the old Enclosure Commission, 5,500,000 acres had been added to the estates of great proprietors, whilst villagers by the hundred had lost their rights of pasture, and now found it difficult to provide milk for their children. Yet the commission which had used this procedure was still to be trusted.’ ‘The worst and most mischievous of all economies,’ he declared, ‘was that which aggrandised a few, and made a paltry addition to the sum-total of wealth by shutting out the poor from fresh air and lovely scenery.’ The bill passed through the committee, doggedly, though not very successfully, opposed by Fawcett and his friends. Lord Eversley and Fawcett succeeded later in amending the procedure to be followed by the Enclosure Commissioners. The Commissioners were instructed that they must have proof that any proposed enclosure should be of real benefit to the neighbourhood as well as to private interests. Furthermore, every enclosure scheme had to be submitted to a standing committee of the House of Commons of which Fawcett was one of the first members. [Sidenote: Charm of Home.]