MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 2 April 1869)

§ MR. KNATCHBULL- HUGESSEN
said, he would beg to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the proposed enclosure of Wisley Common. The object was to ascertain whether there were any circumstances which should exempt this common from coming under the jurisdiction of the Inclosure Commissioners in the same way as commons ordinarily did?

§ MR. T. CHAMBERS
said, he must oppose the Motion, because he objected to the consideration of the subject at all. 126 On a former occasion this common had been specially exempted from an Inclosure Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works, which in this matter represented the interests of London contended that, at all events for the present, the matter should stand over, as there was a growing feeling that within a reasonable distance of the metropolis existing open spaces should remain unenclosed. The.state of things had materially changed since the Inclosure Commission was appointed, and it was now desirable in many cases to act on the opposite principle to that on which it had proceeded, and instead of inclosing to leave open spaces.

MR. BRUCE
said, that the course taken on the present occasion was that ordinarily adopted whenever objection was made to include any particular common in a general Inclosure Bill. The fullest notice of inquiry had been given, and the Commissioners considered the enclosure necessary. If the circumstances required further investigation, they would receive it at the hands of the Select Committee. Rapid as the growth of the metropolis undoubtedly was, it was scarcely to be supposed that it would soon reach a district of nineteen miles from London, and where, moreover, there was at present more unenclosed than enclosed land. The Government were willing to enter into any reasonable agreement with regard to the constitution of the Committee, or to leave its appointment to the Committee of Selection.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE
said, the forms of the Act had certainly been complied with, but it was a mistake to suppose that the public had received notice that Wisley Common was to be enclosed. The proposal had taken the inhabitants of Kingston and the adjacent district completely by surprise. He hoped the House would reject the proposal, and allow the parties to come forward again, if so inclined, and make out their case. The common was situated in a most beautiful part of the country; it would never be converted into agricultural land; but it was, no doubt, perfectly possible that a railway might be brought through it, and then it might be turned into building land. The House, he thought, should mark its sense of the impropriety of attempting to enclose commons unnecessarily.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought too much credit could not be given to metropolitan Members for their zeal in endeavouring to secure for the metropolis the advantage of fresh air; but he was sure they would only wish to attain this end by just and fair means. A fixed and well-understood system had been established by law for the regulation of enclosures, and parties setting this machinery in motion were put to considerable expenses, in return for which Parliament incurred something like an obligation to see that the system established by its authority was not interfered with. It would be a sweeping proposition to lay down that no common within nineteen miles of the metropolis should be enclosed, yet it would be necessary to go that length to justify the course which was now recommended. If it were alleged that insufficient notice had been given, that defect would be cured by the reference to the Select Committee. But any change of system, or of policy by the House with regard to enclosures near the metropolis ought to be adopted prudently and carefully, and not avowed suddenly and with haste with reference to an isolated proposal. However strong the feelings of hon. Members might be, something was due to the general principles of justice.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he wished to point out that the House was not suddenly expressing any new view as to enclosures near the metropolis. This was the third time that objection had been urged to the principle which they were now asked to adopt; and, in a Select Committee not very favourable to the preservation of open spaces, the proposition to restrict enclosures within twenty miles of the metropolis was defeated by a very small majority—he believed of only 1.

MR.
LOCKE said, he doubted the accuracy of the recollection of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the course taken in doubtful cases. He remembered several instances in which proposals for enclosures, instead of being referred to a Select Committee, were struck out of the Schedule without compunction. Petitions had been presented from all quarters against this Wisley Common proposition. It was clear that Wisley Common was a condemned place, and the House was asked to send the question of its enclosure be- 128 fore a Select Committee, which would have the effect of putting those who objected to its enclosure—not wishing to be suffocated in this metropolis—to considerable expense and trouble. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made a great mistake in asking them to leave the question in the hands of the Inclosure Commissioners, because that body could only inquire whether or not the Lord of the Manor, and other parties interested had agreed to the enclosure, while the rights of the public were never taken into consideration by it. This common had been omitted from the Schedule, and there the matter had better rest.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) would press his objection. They were getting into a habit of referring everything to a Committee. That was a very expensive proceeding, and ought not to be countenanced. The House itself was perfectly competent to say whether it was right that Wisley Common should not be enclosed. The method proposed to be adopted in the present case was a novelty, and he knew of cases where places had been dropped out of the Schedule, and no Committee subsequently appointed to consider them. When the Government informed those opposed to the enclosure of this common that it would be dropped out of the Schedule not a word was said about referring the question to a Select Committee.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL- HUGESSEN
said, he felt bound to state, in answer to the observations of the hon. Member who had last spoken, that when he had informed the deputation who waited upon him upon the subject of this common—not that the common would be dropped out of the Schedule—but that, understanding from them that a public opinion existed against its enclosure, he would postpone the Bill for some days, in order to give them an opportunity of making evident the existence of such public opinion; and, if they succeeded, he would take care that no enclosure should take place without an opportunity for full consideration subsequently; in answer to a Question in that House, he had stated that he had heard sufficient to induce him to leave Wisley Common out of the Schedule with a view to farther inquiry, and that he thought the House would probably prefer that such 129 inquiry should be conducted before a Select Committee. From the evidence which he heard, he fancied there were proprietary rights which, in the absence of a public feeling on the subject, would justify the enclosure of the common. What had been said showed that further inquiry was necessary. If hon. Members objected to the present system of enclosure they should bring in a Bill to alter it; but after persons interested in an enclosure had performed all that was required of them in the Act of Parliament; and after he, as responsible for the Bill, had gone so far as to introduce what was called "a novelty," in order that no injustice to the public might possibly occur, it was hardly fair to step in at that stage of the proceedings and actually deny the inquiry which had been granted in order to satisfy those who now wished to refuse it.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he wanted to know how the poor people residing near Wisley Common were able to afford to come up to London and plead their cause against this enclosure before a Committee of the House of Commons. It was bitter irony to tell them to do so. He would appeal to the Government to give way, and let the ground be open to the people.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, it was the duty of the House to confirm the Report of the Inclosure Commissioners, unless a Select Committee over-ruled the Commissioners' decision. It was the usual practice of the House, when private rights of property were involved, to have an investigation of the matter by a Select Committee before the House decided upon it.

§ MR. MORLEY
said, he felt compelled to say there was a growing determination on the part of hon. Members of this House to prevent the enclosure of these commons, and if the original clause which was inserted in the Act of Parliament for the enclosure of Wisley Common had not been taken out by the Government itself, the House, he believed, would have struck it out. He held that, without further inquiry, it was perfectly competent for the House to say whether this common should be enclosed or not. He hoped his hon. and, learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers) would persevere in his opposition to the Motion; and; if he did, he (Mr. Morley) should certainly 130 feel it his duty to vote against the Government.