Steel v Houghton

Steel v Houghton (1788)
Court	House of Lords
Decided	1788 (1788)
Citation(s)	(1788) 1 H Bl 51; 126 ER 32.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Lord Loughborough
Keywords
gleaning property law

Steel v Houghton (1788) 1 H Bl 51; 126 ER 32^[1] is a landmark British judgment by the House of Lords that is considered to mark the modern legal understanding of private property rights. Ostensibly the matter found that that no person has a right at common law to glean the harvest of a private field but has been taken to be more general precedent for all private land matters.

Background

In early modern England gleaning was an important source of income for labouring families, at a time when many parishes were affected by enclosure and the wholesale transformation of property rights.

Over the harvests of 1785-1787 conflict had been escalating between land owners and gleaners in the village of Timworth, Suffolk. In 1787 Mary Houghton gleaned on the farm of a wealthy land owner James Steel who sued for trespass.

Verdict

In the decision the court sided with landlords and found against the gleaners claims, rejecting Mosaic Law and traditional Saxon constitution as a basis for the common law.^[2][3]

Although precedent was raised by the gleaners which, prima facie, would support gleaning,^[4] this was only to viewed in the narrowest of terms with conditions, as was legislation which had provision for gleaning. But the sections which were discussed dealt with penalties. The Court held gleaning to be a ‘privilege’ only, and not a right, that is the poor of a parish had no legal right to glean and such gleaning was trespass.^[5]

Lord Loughborough gave the leading judgment of the majority and argued that:

• gleaning wasn’t a universal common law right as it was unknown in some places;
• that it was uncertain who could claim such a right
• that the law should not turn acts of charity into legal obligations
• that Mosaic Law and pronouncements of Hale, Blackstone, Lord Justice Gilbert, and others – were either irrelevant to common law precedent or at best dicta.
• that granting the right to glean would "raise the insolence of the poor"
• as well as being against their own interests since, by reducing the farmers profits, it would reduce the rate payers’ capacity to contribute to the poor rates.

Loughborough conclusion was that the gleaners defence were "inconsistent with the nature of property which imports absolute enjoyment".

Criticism

The decision has been criticized on legal grounds for ignoring statute and precedence for an outcome that denied Natural Justice and has been criticized by Marxist scholars as a decision that was thinly veiled class oppression, particularly citing Loughborough's choice of words.^[6]

See also

• Worlledge v Manning (1786)

References