HL Deb 11 July 1872 vol 212 cc935-42

House in Committee (according to Order).

(Preliminary.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

(Allotments for Recreation Grounds and Field Gardens.)

Clause 3 (Allotments for recreation grounds and field gardens out of common).

LORD PORTMAN

said, he had given Notice of a series of Amendments to this clause, with the view of testing the opinion of their Lordships as to whether one-tenth of the lands to be inclosed as a minimum should be set apart for public recreation grounds—that being the proposal in the clause. Public recreation grounds were very desirable in their way; but it would be a positive wrong to take from the commoners a tenth part of the land over which they had rights, and to hand them over to the public without compensation to those from whom they were taken. If it was really intended to curtail all in closures in that way, the pressure in many cases would be extreme, and would doubtless be resisted. He had no objection to proper facilities being given to the public for recreation on commons, and for field gardens, but he strongly deprecated any such peremptory interference with existing rights. He moved the omission of the word "shall," in order that the word "may" might be inserted in its place.

LORD ORMATHWAITE

said, a distinction should be made between urban and suburban commons and wastes that were situate in remote parts of the country. In Cumberland and Westmoreland, for instance, there were great tracts of country, mostly used for sheep-walks, and thinly inhabited, and any noble Lord who was acquainted with such localities must be aware that the proposition to allot such land for recreation purposes or for cottage gardens was in itself totally impracticable. The provisions of the Bill were absurd and ludicrous, both with regard to recreation grounds and garden allotments. Land so set apart on the top of hills would be utterly useless, and become monuments of a rash and ill-considered scheme.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, this was the most important clause of the Bill. There appeared to be some misapprehension as to the existing law on the subject. At present it was left to the the Inclosure Commissioners whether they should make the allotments now objected to as confiscation; but if the Commissioners did not in their discretion provide for these public allotments, they were bound to assign reasons to the Secretary of State in their annual Report. If the lord of the manor could obtain the unanimous consent of the commoners, he could at once inclose the common without having recourse to the scheme provided by this Bill; but if Parliament gave them such facilities for inclosure as this Bill afforded it had a right to annex conditions in return for the advantages which the Bill would confer. He denied that the Bill confiscated any rights, whether of the lords or of the commoners; but it was a difficult question to decide how Parliament was to compensate the public for certain general rights which they had over commons as against the almost dormant rights of commoners and the legal rights of the lords of the soil. The object of the clause was to provide that there should in every case be a portion of the commons set aside for public purposes; and it was thought that this allotment should take the form of a recreation ground or field gardens, or both. The clause provided that the allotment for these purposes should not be less in extent than one-tenth of the whole, except in cases where the inclosure exceeded 500 acres. Where it exceeded 500 acres the maximum of allotment for public purposes was to be one-tenth and the minimum 50 acres. The noble Lord (Lord Ormathwaite) had alluded to cases, such as those of mountainous land, where allotments for public purposes would be of no real public utility; but in such cases there could be exchanges under a power given by the Act of 1845, and proprietors would be glad to make exchanges of land where by so doing they could obtain facilities for inclosure at a moderate expense.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, their Lordships were asked to legislate on Reports and evidence made to the other House of Parliament, which Reports had never been laid before their Lordships, and therefore they were in great difficulties as to this Bill. He did not understand what the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) meant by "dormant rights." He believed there were no common rights which were not exercised from day to day, and therefore they could not be regarded as dormant. He thought the compulsion to set aside these allotments in every case was objectionable. There were certain commons which it might be very useful and desirable to inclose; but there were large districts in Wales and Cumberland with which it would be impossible to deal in a satisfactory manner. Therefore he thought inclosure should not be made compulsory in all cases, and would vote with the noble Lord opposite if he went to a division.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

expressed his regret that the Report of the Select Committee and the Evidence taken before it had not been presented to their Lordships according to his promise.

LORD PORTMAN

said, the object of his Amendment, upon which he intended to take their Lordships' opinion, was that no ground should be allotted for recreation grounds to the injury of the property of the commoners, except it were first paid for by the parties to be benefited.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that by the existing law the Commissioners might allot recreation ground free of expense; but the noble Lord's proposition was that there should be no further allotments free of expense.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought that under the circumstances it would be better not to divide.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD WENLOCK

said, that the arbitrary provision for setting apart 50 acres in all cases must have been introduced into the clause by some person who had but little knowledge of the subject.

Amendment moved to leave out from ("allotment") to the end of the clause, and insert— (Where such common exceeds 400 acres) according to the following schedule:—namely, for every thousand or fraction of a thousand of population, 20 acres; for every additional thousand of population 10 additional acres, and soon up to 60 acres. Where the area of land to be inclosed does not amount to 400 acres, the Commissioners shall determine the amount of allotment, having regard to the special circumstances of the parish; provided always, that no such allotment shall be of less extent than 10 acres."—(The Lord Wenlock.)

THE EARL OF MORLEY

admitted that the proposed minimum of 10 acres was an improvement on the Bill, as being in favour of the public; but the proposition of his noble Friend was to make the allotment in proportion to the population instead of according to the area, as was proposed by the Bill. He thought that it would be very difficult to carry out such an arrangement, and he could not acquiesce in it. The noble Lord had not explained whether the population was to be that of the parish, or of the neighbourhood, or of an adjoining town. If the parish merely was taken, it must be remembered that the population might be considerably increasing, that manors were often not coterminous with parishes, and that adjoining parishes frequently shared at present in the enjoyment of these commons. If, on the other hand, the population of the neighbourhood was taken, there would be a difficulty in settling its limits and a special census would be necessary, thus increasing the expense of the inclosure. It was desirable, also, to give the Commissioners the power of distributing the allotments over different places, instead of confining it to one particular spot.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that every succeeding step confirmed him in the opinion he expressed on the second reading, that the Bill could only be properly dealt with by a Select Committee. He doubted, indeed, whether the Bill would be found satisfactory when it left the Committee; and if it should be so, he should be obliged at a future stage to take the sense of the House upon it. He could not support the Amendment of the noble Lord.

LORD PORTMAN

recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment, in order that the question might be decided on the proposal to be made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond).

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 2, lines 38 and 39, to leave out ("than one-tenth of the common, nor of less extent").

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 57; Not-Contents 52: Majority 5.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Allotment for recreation ground out of commonable land) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Situation, &c. of allotment for recreation ground and field garden).

On Motion of The Duke of RICHMOND, in line 19, the word ("may") inserted in lieu of ("shall"), making the clause permissive instead of obligatory.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Allotment for paths, rides, and drives).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, the clause declared that the allotments for these purposes were to be vested in the churchwardens or other local authorities, but that it should not be obligatory on the parish to repair such rides, paths, or drives. He should like to know who were to be responsible for the expense of keeping the riding and driving paths in order in such places as Malvern, Brighton, and Buxton?

THE EARL OF MORLEY

explained that it would not be compulsory upon the parochial authorities to keep up the paths in question, but there was nothing to prevent them from doing so. By Clause 9 the surplus rents at the disposal of the allotment Wardens were applicable to keeping up those paths, rides, and drives.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he could not see that any provision was made to meet cases where no such funds existed applicable to that purpose. The duty of keeping up these roadways ought to be imposed upon somebody or another.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, he did not see why their Lordships were to be called upon to make provision for the recreation of those who used carriages and horses. That particular clause had nothing to do with the advantage of the poor, and would only benefit the wealthy. Having some experience of the neighbourhood of Malvern, he could state that there was no necessity for further legislation for that place. The clause seemed to him to be quite beyond the main purpose of the Bill, and had better be left out altogether.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

pointed out that the clause related to paths as well as rides and drives, and therefore the poorer classes were interested in the matter. He was willing, however, to amend the clause on the Report, so as to meet objections.

THE EARL OF POWIS

thought that, if this provision were adopted at all, it ought to be enacted that the paths, rides, and drives should be set out on the requisition of the local authorities of the town concerned, who should be called upon and empowered to maintain them out of the local rates. The provisions of the law relating to suburban commons, however, rendered the clause wholly unnecessary; but as regarded roads in country inclosures, the roads made of necessity for agricultural purposes were quite sufficient for the accommodation of the district.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

held that the clause did not affect a few towns only, but the whole people of this country, It was not a question merely of a few carriage drives, but it would apply to all the open spaces of England. The entire population of the kingdom was greatly interested in not having all the open spaces of the country inclosed, and it was not an unimportant matter to see that those roads and drives were maintained. Still, he did not think that the clause was of first-rate importance, and therefore he would assent to it being negatived upon the understanding that a new one should be brought up on the Report if necessary.

Clause struck out.

Clause 7 (Expenses of clearing, draining, and fencing allotment for recreation ground and field garden).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, the clause provided that these expenses should be paid by the valuer as part of the general expenses of the inclosure. He thought it unjust to make those who were to be deprived of their property pay for the expense of doing it. He moved that the clause be struck out.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

hoped the clause would be retained. At present the field-garden allotments were often in such a state that it was extremely difficult and costly to clear them; and, consequently, the poor people who had these allotments made to them were often unable to take advantage of them. The clause was distinctly recommended by the Committee of the other House which had inquired into the subject.

LORD PORTMAN

suggested that the noble Earl should reconsider the clause. It was liable to much abuse. A number of gentlemen might think the most recreative use of the ground would be to make it a cricket-field, so that the commoners would have to pay for levelling the rich man's ground. The limitation of the expense to field gardens for the inhabitants was not open to any similar objection.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he did not think there was ground for any such fear. Under the present law, when a recreation ground was set out by the Commissioners, the expenses were paid as part of the general costs of the inclosure. Those recreation grounds were for the poor, not for the rich; and the gift, whether of a recreation ground or a garden allotment, ought not to be made in such a manner as to render the gift useless.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that to take a tenth part of a common, and clear, drain, and fence it might exhaust nearly the whole value of the common land.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

explained that the clause contained these qualifying words—"unless the Commissioners think it inexpedient so to do."

After some conversation, Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Map of recreation ground, field garden, path, ride, and drive) struck out.

Regulated Pastures.

Clauses 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Suburban Commons.

Clause 19 (Definition of suburban common).

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved the omission of the word "boundary," in order to substitute the word "town-hall," the object of his Amendment being that the distance of a common from a populous place should be calculated from the centre of the town, instead of from the municipal boundary.

On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not - Contents, 15: Majority, 4.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 32 struck out.

Clauses 33 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended (No. 204.)