HC Deb 13 February 1863 vol 169 cc309-20
MR. PEACOCKE

said, he rose to move, as an Amendment, an Address to the Crown, with a view to the prevention of the enclosure of Crown lands within fifteen miles of the metropolis. Parliament had always looked with a jealous eye upon Bills for the enclosure of waste lands, so as to prevent, if possible, the enclosure of lands adjacent to the metropolis and to populous towns, which were so conducive to the health as well as recreation of the inhabitants. Formerly, while other Inclosure Bills were private Bills, Bills which sought to enclose lands within a certain distance of populous towns, were Bills of a public nature; but in consequence of the great expense involved in passing private Bills, all Inclosure Bills were made public Bills. The result was that the House ceased to have any information or warning when lands were sought to be enclosed within a certain distance of populous places. Lands coming under the head of Crown Lands had been enclosed in the case of Hainault Forest, by the 14 & 15 Vict., c. 43, and hon. Members had, he hoped, given their assent to the measure legalizing the enclosure rather because they were ignorant of what its effects would be than because they were insensible to the injury which it inflicted upon the poor people up to whose dwellings the forest extended. He had, he added, moved for certain Returns with a view, among other things, of ascertaining the extent of forest rights; and so long as those rights were respected Epping Forest would remain what it now was, a tract of land extending over 10,000 acres, and affording the means of recreation and the preservation of health to the inhabitants of the eastern portions of the metropolis. When he took into account the sums of money for which rights so valuable had been in several instances disposed of, he was, he confessed, not a little astonished at the extraordinary nature of the bargains which had been made. The return to which he alluded extended over five pages, but he would take only four cases to illustrate what had been done. He found that in 1856 the Crown rights over 1,891 acres of land were sold to Lord Wellesley for £1,891; in 1857 the rights over 325 acres to Messrs. Lambert and Dane for £1,353; while in 1858 the rights over 695 acres were sold for £3,349, and in 1860 the rights over 1,377 acres for £5,468—making a total of 2.832 acres sold for about £11,000. The House would, he thought, concur with him in thinking that amount a most inadequate compensation for the loss which the public experienced in being deprived of the privilege of enjoying themselves on those grounds. It should also be borne in mind that the land thus enclosed was situated in the immediate vicinity of those poor people in the north-east of London who, with the exception of Victoria Park, had not a single open space for recreation. From that circumstance, in conjunction with the fact that the population of London had between 1851 and 1861 increased eighteen per cent, or by 441,753 persons, he did not think he should be charged with having attached undue importance to the subject in having brought it under the notice of the House. He should like to know what would be the feeling of hon. Members if they heard that a portion of Richmond Park was to be filched away in the manner he had described. Recently, when a measure was proposed to enclose Hampstead Heath, it was loudly protested against, and yet it was only a recreation ground for the com- paratively rich. With what indignation, then, ought they not to look upon the gradual encroachments on Hainault and Epping Forests, which were a source of health and a source of recreation for the densely-packed labouring classes of the metropolis? He would therefore conclude by moving as an Amendment— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that no sales to facilitate Inclosures be made of Crown Lands or Crown Forestal Rights within fifteen miles of the metropolis.

MR. COX

said, he rose to second the Motion. The reason why it had been possible for encroachments to be made upon the forests of Epping and Hainault during the last few years was, that at the time of the passing of the Copyhold In-closure Bill it was provided that notices should be given to all private individuals interested in the land proposed to be enclosed; but no provision was contained in the Act which made it necessary that any notice should be given to persons who might have merely public rights. In the last Session, without any notice whatever being given to the public, a Bill was brought in by the Secretary of the Home Department to carry into effect a provisional order of the Inclosure Commissioners. It spoke of certain lands in the parish of Chigwell, in the county of Essex, and but for a constituent of his who lived at Chigwell, it would never have been discovered that it was proposed to deprive the public of the use of between 400 and 500 acres which they had enjoyed from time immemorial. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and so strong a case was made out, that a great part of the intended deprivation of the public was prevented. It was clear the Copyhold Inclosure Act, having been passed while Epping was still a forest, did not apply to it now that it had been disafforested, and more watchfulness ought to be exercised over the sales of land. The sales of these Crown rights, while adding but little to the revenue of the country, acted injuriously upon the interests of the public, and he therefore thought it was quite proper and right that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peacocke) should be carried, and a stop put to the filching away of these lands from the people.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that no sales to facilitate Inclosures be made of Crown Lands or Crown Forestal Rights, within fifteen miles of the Metropolis, —instead thereof.

MR. PEEL

said, that although the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peacocke) was in general terms, it appeared by his speech that it had reference exclusively to the Forest of Epping, and he did not know of any forest near London except Epping over which the Crown possessed forestal rights. Allusion had been made to Hainault Forest; but that was disafforested some years ago, when the Crown was awarded a separate estate, whereupon all its forestal interests came to an end. With regard to Epping Forest, he could not understand the hon. Gentleman dwelling on the supposed sacrifice of Crown property by the sale of the interest of the Crown over 3,000 or 4,000 acres for £10,000 or £11,000. The hon. Member must greatly overrate or misconceive the nature of the interest of the Crown in Epping Forest. The Crown did not possess any part of the soil of that Forest. The Forest belonged entirely to private persons, as lords of manors, and to those persons who had received grants from the lords of manors. The only interest possessed by the Crown was a simple forestal right of ranging deer over the lands, He need not say that such a right, so far as the revenue of the Crown was concerned, was not of the slightest value. There were no deer in the forest, and in the present state of things it would not be possible to make Epping a deer forest without the greatest inconvenience. The course which had been taken with regard to that right was clearly explained in a letter from Mr. Kennedy, the Commissioner of Woods, dated April, 1853, and published in the Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for that year. Mr. Kennedy said— I have always entertained, and still entertain, an opinion that if it were possible to disafforest Epping, to prevent subdivision by enclosure, and without cost to the Crown or the public to preserve it for the enjoyment of the public, it would be a desirable object; but, having regard to the great difficulties, I reluctantly come to the conclusion that the course indicated by the solicitors, that of bringing to sale the right of the Crown, is probably the only course which can practically be adopted; and if your Lordships should concur in the propriety of this course, I am of opinion that its adoption ought not to be delayed, as Ep- ping Forest can only be a source of expense, and its present condition, social and economical, is in the highest degree unsatisfactory. In consequence of that recommendation of the Commissioner of Woods, the Treasury sanctioned from time to time sales of the interest of the Crown in the land, and the Returns to which the hon. Gentleman had referred showed the extent to which these sales had been carried up to the present time. He might mention that in all cases the rights of the Crown were sold to the owners of the soil. The hon. Gentleman proposed that in future those sales should be discontinued, and he did so not from any desire to preserve the forestal rights of the Crown for the sake of their legitimate object, or from taking any interest in those forestal rights, but from a desire to preserve the forest in which the Crown rights existed not now over 9,000 acres, but over only about 2,500 acres, as an open forest for the use of the people. The course which the hon. Gentleman recommended should be taken was not fair either to the Crown or to the owners of the soil. Let him tell the hon. Gentleman that to attain his object it was not sufficient merely that the Crown should abstain from selling its rights, because the right of the Crown was simply to feed deer over the forest; and if that right was not exercised, it became obsolete. ["No, no!"] Practically, that was so. However that might be, the hon. Gentleman would admit that if the rights of the Crown were to be preserved, any invasion of them must be resisted; and the only mode by which the Crown could resist encroachments would be by taking proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. There were instances to show that proceedings of this kind were attended with very serious expense to the Crown. As regards the owners of the soil, the adoption of this measure would change the nature of the easement which the Crown had over the land, and would be an endeavour to use the forestal rights of the Crown as an instrument for converting the property of private persons into a public park. On these grounds he must oppose the adoption of this Address.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that in the course of the discussion on the enclosure of Chigwell Forest last year it was suggested, very reasonably, by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) that whenever a scheme received the sanction of the Inclosure Commissioners, dealing with a piece of land within fifteen miles of the metropolis or within specified distances of other large towns, the attention of the House ought to be specifically directed to the fact, in order that it might not in ignorance of the facts give its sanction to enclosures to which objections on these grounds could be brought. He accordingly wrote to the Inclosure Commissioners, requesting them in their Reports to call special attention to enclosures of this particular nature, and received a reply from them in July last, undertaking that this course would be followed on all future occasions. Under these circumstances, as long as the law remained in its present state, he thought it would be unwise to pledge the Crown to refuse its assent to what might actually be sanctioned by Parliament.

MR. BUXTON

said, the importance of the subject was much greater than might be supposed; in fact, there were few questions more nearly affecting the happiness and welfare of a large share of the metropolitan population. He differed from the hon. Member in thinking that the whole of Epping Forest ought to be preserved; there were nearly 10,000 acres which might well be enclosed. The highest points should all be retained in the hands of the Government, but there was a vast extent of swampy ground which might be sold, and would prove of great value, if not for agricultural purposes, at least for building ground. The population of the Tower Hamlets exceeded 650,000, and consisted of persons whose whole lives were spent in arduous work, and who had no opportunity of obtaining change of country air except by doing down to Epping Forest, as Victoria Park lay so far to the north-east that it was virtually inaccessible. Last year no less than 76,000 persons went down by excursion trains, in addition to multitudes who travelled by the ordinary trains at exceedingly moderate fares. Having lived for years near the main road to Epping Forest, he had seen thousands of conveyances going to and fro, and he knew no more delightful spectacle than to witness mechanics and hard-worked tradespeople enjoying the delightful air and scenery on Sundays, nearly always accompanied by their wives and families. The objection on the score of expense to the Crown would be removed by the course which he suggested, while the claims preferred on behalf of neighbouring proprietors were really not founded on reason, the proper- ties they now held having been acquired subject to forestal rights existing for 800 years. The slight inconvenience to proprietors ought not to be put in the scale against the wonderful benefits to the population of East London. He hoped the Government would take up the subject, and prevent these natural parks from being destroyed.

MR. LOCKE

said, it was obvious that if the Crown would only remain quiet and not part with its forestal rights, Epping Forest would not be closed, but the public and the inhabitants of the metropolis would continue to enjoy the privileges which had been theirs for centuries past. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had said, that if the Crown declined to interfere, its rights would be lost. In that the hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong, for there came in the old principle of law, Nullum tempus occurrit legi. The rights of the Crown always exist, no matter what might be done by its subjects derogating from those rights. Therefore, what was asked was simply that the Crown should hold its hand, and that it would not disafforest any part of Epping Forest. The consequence would be, that the public would continue to enjoy their accustomed rights. Who were the proprietors of the forest? It was said the lords of the manor; but the lord of the manor was not the lord of the soil. He had the right of taking game and so forth over the wastes, but he could not plough the ground. He presumed that the forest was in the nature of a common, and that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood had the privilege of sending their cattle there to graze, beyond which everybody had a right to use the place for the purpose of recreation and enjoyment. He should give his support with the greatest satisfaction for the proposition of the hon. Member for Maldon; and, if he divided, should vote with him.

MR. AYRTON

said, whenever a private Member attempted to bring forward a Motion affecting the public interests, he was sure to be told by some one in authority that he was wrong in the procedure he had adopted. But if the hon. Gentleman took any other course than that which he had followed, he would certainly have gone on a wildgoose chase. It was not competent to a private Member to introduce a Bill bearing upon such a question as that now before the House without obtaining the previous assent of the Crown. That was the only constitutional course. He hoped the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would be agreed to, and he thanked him for having introduced it, as in the hands of the metropolitan Members it might be made the occasion of imputations against them.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I think it is desirable that the House should pay particular attention to the terms of the Motion. The Motion proposes, by a rule as rigid as the House can make it, to prevent the Crown, from taking any steps by the sale of its forestal rights for permitting the enclosure of lands within fifteen miles of the metropolis. It is one question whether certain lands that are now open, and that are well adapted for the purpose, should continue open with a view to the recreation of the inhabitants of the environs of the metropolis; but I beg to observe to the House that it is quite another question whether the House should by an Address bind itself and the Crown to permit no sale of forestal rights whatever, and therefore to allow of no enclosure whatever, so far as they are concerned, within a radius of fifteen miles from the metropolis. If the hon. Member desires that the Crown should use a proper and careful discretion in parting with those rights, in order that those rights may not be parted with in a manner injurious to the comfort of the population, that is one thing. But what I ask the House is that they will leave it to the Crown to exercise that discretion in parting with those rights in cases where it can be done in justice to the local population—in cases where the proposal is on the part of the public at large to realize funds for the benefit of the State, and where those funds can be realized without any hardship to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. The question is not at all whether all these lands are to be enclosed and the public are to be excluded from that enjoyment of them which they have had hitherto, but whether all discretion is to be taken from the advisers of the Crown and a rigid rule is to be laid down that no matter how useless any portion of these lands may be to the people in the neighbourhood, and no matter how considerable a prize may by their sale be obtained for the benefit of the State, they shall not be sold because they are within a radius of fifteen miles of the metropolis.

MR. HENLEY

said, that if he thought the proposition of his hon. Friend would do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would do, he would not support it; but, on the contrary, he thought it would not have such effect. So far as he understood the thing it was this, that no subsequent dealing with the land in question should take place without the consent of the Crown, because the Crown having forestal rights, the Inclosure Commissioners would be very loath, and he believed it would be difficult in law for them to do it, to enclose such land without the consent of the Crown. The consequence would be, that if there were a proper case made out for enclosure, a case which could be defended in that House, the enclosure would take place, and the Crown would get its allotment in place of its right, and that allotment could be turned into money. There would, then, be the great security, that no dealing would take place in the locality referred to—a large portion of the land in which on all hands it was deemed desirable should be kept open— that no dealing with it should take place without the full consent of the Crown. That would be a great security. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head, but he did not think the Inclosure Commissioners, or if they did that the House, would confirm it—frame a provisional order for enclosure without the consent of the Crown.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he could hardly agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, for the proposal went to the extent of saying that no sales whatever should take place of forest land within fifteen miles of the metropolis. He would suggest that some qualifying words should be introduced, for he apprehended that what the House meant was, that no sale should take place where the land was for the benefit of the public, but that where the land was not for the benefit of the public it might be sold. But under the present wording it was clear that no sale could take place under any circumstances whatever.

MR. MALINS

said, he heartily concurred in the general proposition of the hon. Member, that a considerable restriction should be placed on the alienation of waste laud; still, he could not vote for the Motion as it stood. He agreed with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) that the Crown should exercise a discretion in this matter—that it should select certain spots to be kept open, but that other portions might be enclosed with advantage to everybody. He would suggest the withdrawal of the present Motion and that the hon. Member should reintroduce it in a modified form, so as to remove the objection now felt by many Members of the House to the proposition in its present form.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not withdraw his Motion. If from past experience they could assume that any discretion would be exercised as to the lands to be enclosed, he would not recommend the hon. Gentleman to persevere. If he were not mistaken, no lands could be enclosed over which rights of common had been exercised for fifty or sixty years, unless by special Act of Parliament; and with regard to Epping Forest, those rights had been enjoyed. In addition, he believed that persons who purchased such lands did so with serious responsibility, because if those lands were parted with without the sanction of an Act of Parliament, the lands might be allotted within twenty years, and the purchasers might suffer. Therefore, upon every ground, whether as regarded the public or individual purchasers, he should support the Motion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 113: Majority 40.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that no sales to facilitate Inclosures be made of Crown Lands or Crown Forestal Rights within fifteen miles of the Metropolis.

AYES.
Bagwell, J. Crawford, R. W. (London)
Baines, E.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. (Portsmouth) Dalglish, R.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. (Hadd.)
Beaumont, W. B. (Northumberland, S.)
Davie, Col. F. (Barnst.)
Beaumont, S. A. (Newe.) Dering, Sir E. C.
Booth, Sir R. G. Dodson, J. G.
Bouverie, hon. P. P. (Berks) Dunbar, Sir W.
Ewart, J. C. (Liverp.)
Bruce, H. A. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ewing, H. E. Crum
Gavin, Major
Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Gilpin, C. (Northamp.)
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Castlerosse, Viscount Glyn, G. C. (Kendall)
Childers, H. C. E. Glyn, G. G. (Shaftesb.)
Churchill, Lord A. S. Gower, hon. F. L. (Bod.)
Clive, G. (Hereford) Gregson, S.
Craufurd, E. H. J. (Ayr) Grenfell, H. R. (Stoke)
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. (Morpeth) Palmerston, Viscount
Patten, Col. W.
Haliburton, T. C. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. (Tamworth)
Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.
Henniker, Lord Peel, rt. hon. F. (Bury)
Herbert, rt. hon. A. A. Pinney, Col.
Hodgson, R. (Tynem.) Potter, E.
Hutt, rt. hon. W. Puller, C. W. G.
Johnstone, J. J. H. (Dumf.) Ricardo, O.
Russell, A. (Tavistock)
Kinglake, J. A. (Roches.) Sheridan, R. B. (Dorch.)
Leighton, Sir B. Spooner, R.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C. Warner, E.
Lowe, rt. hon. R. White, L. (Kiddermin.)
Mackinnon, W. A. (Lymington) Willoughby, Sir H.
Winnington, Sir T. E.
MacKinnon, W. A.(Rye) Wood, W. (London)
Malins, R. Woods, H. (Wigan)
Marshall, W. Wyvill, M.
Martin, P. W. (Roches.)
Milnes, R. M. TELLERS.
Montgomery, Sir G. Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen,
Morgan, O.(Monmouth.)
Nicol, W. Mr. Brand
Packe, Col. (Lincoln.S.)
NOES.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Hadfield, G.
Ayrton, A. S. Hamilton, Lord Claud (Tyrone)
Aytoun, R. S.
Bazley, T. Hamilton, Major (Linlithgow)
Beecroft, G. S.
Bowyer, Sir G. Hanbury, R.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Hardy, G.(Leominster)
Brooks, R. Hay, Sir J. C. D.
Butt, I. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Buxton, C. Hennessy, J. P.
Caird, J. Hill, hon. R. C.
Cairns, Sir H. M'Calmont Hopwood, J. T.
Ingham, R.
Clifford, C. C. (I. W.) Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Clifton, Sir R. J. Knatchbull.W. F. (Somerset E.)
Cobbett, J. M.
Collins, T. Laird. J. (Birkenhead)
Cox, W. Langton, W. H. G.
Dickson, Colonel Lawson, W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Leader, N. P.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Lennox, Lord G. G. (Lym.)
Douglas, Sir. C.
Doulton, F. Lewis, H. (Marylebone)
Duff, M. E. G. (Elgin) Lindsay, W. S. (Sund.)
Dunne, Col. (Queen's Co.) Locke, J.
Longfield, R.
Egerton, E. C. (Macclesfield) Maguire, J. F.
Miles, Sir W.
Elphinstone, Sir J. D. Miller, W. (Leith)
Enfield, Viscount Mills, J. R. (Wycombe)
Ewart, W. (Dumfries, &c Montagu, Lord R.
Morris, D.
Forster, W. E. (Bradford) Mundy, W.
Mure, D.
French, Colonel Murray, W.
Gard, R. S. North, F. (Hastings)
Garnett, W. J. Northcote, Sir S. H.
George, J. O'Conor Don, The
Goldsmid, Sir. F. H. Packe, C. W. (Leic. S.)
Gordon, C. W. Paget, C. (Nottingham)
Gore, J. R. O. (Salop N.) Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.
Palk, Sir L.
Gore, W. R. O. (Leitrim) Parker, Major W.
Paull, H.
Gray. Capt. (Bolton) Peel, rt. hon. Gen.(Huntingdon)
Griffith, C. D.
Powell, F. S. (Cam. Bo.) Thynne, Lord E.(Frome)
Ridley, Sir M. W. Tite, W.
Robertson, H. (Shrews.) Torrens, R.
Roebuck, J. A. Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Rowley, hon. R. T. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Russell, H. (Beds) Turner, C. (Lancas. S.)
Sidney, T. Upton, hon. Gen.
Smith, J. B. (Stockport) Walcott, Admiral
Smith, A. (Truro) Walsh, Sir J.
Smollett, P. B. Walter, J.
Stanley, Lord (King's Lynn) Weguelin, T. M.
White, J. (Brighton)
Stansfeld, J. Williams, W. (Lambeth)
Steel, J. Wyld, J.
Stuart, Col. (Cardiff) Wynn, C. W. W. (Mont.)
Stracey, Sir H.
Sykes, Col. W. H. TELLERS.
Taylor, Col. (Dublin C.) Mr. Peacocke
Taylor, P. A. (Leicest.) Captain Jervis
Forward to