HC Deb 11 May 1870 vol 201 cc559-68

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

, in rising to move, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, presented a Petition from 1,400 persons interested in Cannock Chase against the second reading of the Bill. He said this Bill was a reproduction of a measure introduced on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this one (Mr. Cowper-Temple), and it prohibited the enclosure of a common situated within a certain distance of a town, the distance varying, according to the size of the town, from one mile for towns with 5,000 inhabitants to six miles for towns of 100,000 inhabitants. If this Bill passed, no portion of Cannock Chase could be enclosed, although it was notorious that there were minerals in that common which it might be very desirable to have brought to the surface. There were other commons in respect of which the same objection might be urged against the Bill. What, therefore, would be the effect on the industry of the country if this Bill were passed? Why, many mines must remain undeveloped, and the working classes—especially in the neighbourhood of commons in which minerals were found—would be the principal sufferers. At present there were many thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres kept out of cultivation which ought to be cultivated, and he trusted that the House would consider this matter before by legislation they increased the difficulty of such cultivation. There were a million acres which came within the scope of the Bill, the more thorough cultivation of which would be a matter not merely of local, but of national advantage. Under this Bill, persons who had no connection with the particular locality would have a locus standi for interference to prevent enclosure. The Bill did not extend to the commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis; but Gentlemen who had managed with discretion estates on which commons were situated objected to provisions in the Bill which applied to commons in other parts of the country. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that this question of legislation for commons ought to be left with the Government. The Under Secretary of State asked the other night for leave to introduce a Bill to deal with the general question of enclosure, and it was by the Government a Commons Bill ought to be introduced. He submitted that the measure now before the House would not only injure the property of individuals, but would injure the localities in behalf of which it was ostensibly brought forward. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. James Lowther.)

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, he thought that if the House went into Committee upon this Bill, it would be shown that the objections of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther) either did not apply or else that they might be met by slight alterations in the various clauses. The real question now before the House was, whether they would affirm the principle of the Bill, which was intended to prevent the inhabitants of towns being deprived of the enjoyment of waste grounds which they had possessed from time immemorial. The Bill proposed to provide a sort of local government for neglected commons, under which they would be properly drained and preserved, for the enjoyment of the public and preventing disorderly conduct. The Act of 1845 had not operated for the public advantage, but had merely contributed to the success of the attempts that had been made to deprive the public of the enjoyment of the open places in the neighbourhood of towns. When a barren sand or accumulation of gravel became, from its growing proximity to an increasing town, like a mine of gold, the persons interested in the land, as lord of the manor and as commoners, were interested in getting the space enclosed; though one object of the Inclosure Acts was to preserve such places for public recreation. It had become absolutely necessary that the crowded centres of civilization should have open places in their vicinity, to which the poor might go for exercise and recreation, without the fear of being warned off as trespassers.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the principles stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) were doubtless gratifying to the entire House, but the difficulty in this case was that the Bill which he supported did not carry those principles into effect. The Bill, in the first place, defined what commons were, but the scheme and the purport of the Bill were not defined in any way. The Bill merely said that a scheme might be prepared by the inhabitants of a district with respect to the common; but it did not say anything as to what the character of the scheme should be. The Bill offered no security for the permanence of the proposed local government of the commons affected by it. In the case of the ratepayers refusing to pay for the management of the land, it would be left totally without management, and its condition would be far worse than it was under the present law. If the House assented to the second reading of the Bill, he would move that it should be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to its being altered and improved in such a manner as to carry out the views they all had at heart, although it would be preferable if the Government were to bring in a measure dealing with the subject in a comprehensive manner.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, that if it was the general custom of persons representing a Government on such occasions as the present, to endeavour to please all parties, he feared that he was about to deviate from that custom, inasmuch as he must differ in some respects from all three of the hon. Members who had already addressed the House. He would first deal with the proposal of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He would say at once that he thought the matter had gone beyond the point at which reference to a Select Committee might have been necessary or desirable, and that, in his opinion, the House was quite competent to decide the question for itself. Then he must also say that he could not agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for York. (Mr. J. Lowther), to throw out the Bill upon the second reading. There were several reasons why he should object to such a course: one reason was his unwillingness to treat with disrespect a Bill upon this subject which proceeded from a Gentleman of so much experience, and one whose opinion upon these matters was so much entitled to respect as his right hon. Friend, and a still more important reason was that, so far as he understood the principle of the Bill, he was prepared, on the part of the Government, to give his vote in favour of that principle at the present stage of the measure. He understood the main principle of the Bill to be this—that Parliament believed that commons in the vicinity of towns and crowded districts should be dealt with in some manner different from that in which ordinary rural enclosures were treated, that the feelings and interests of the inhabitants of such localities should be consulted, and that legislative interference should prevent their being deprived of the open spaces from which they derived so much advantage. He could not help subscribing most heartily to such a proposition. He was prepared to state, on the part of the Government, that they would consider this question of public rights in land liable to enclosure in a broad and com- prehensive spirit, and as an indication of this intention he would support the second reading. At the same time, he was bound to tell his right hon. Friend that he should be sorry to see the details of his Bill become law, inasmuch as he found much of them that was objectionable. In the first place, this Bill would positively prevent the enclosure of any suburban commons. But although he quite agreed that, as a rule, these enclosures should be avoided and prevented, it by no means followed that this rule was without exception, and its operation might in many cases be attended with great inconvenience. Take the case of the town of Nottingham. There was a time—not long ago—when the extension of that town was prevented by the impossibility of acquiring land for building purposes. Until the commons around the town were enclosed, and rights of severalty established, no one of course would venture to build, because whilst common rights existed, the title of no individual to any particular spot of ground could be secured. The consequence was that the poorer classes, who wished to acquire cottages near the town, could not do so, but were driven into the rural districts, far from their work, and thus much inconvenience was occasioned. There were other towns also—Stamford was a case in point—to which the same observations would apply. The commons round Stamford were actually in one of the ordinary Inclosure Bills which had been presented by the Commissioners during the present year, and public inconvenience would probably occur if enclosure was absolutely refused. For this and other reasons, therefore, he thought it contrary to sound policy and to the interests of the poorer classes themselves to lay down such an absolute rule against enclosures as that which appeared to be contemplated by his right hon. Friend. Moreover, he was by no means sure that the Metropolitan Commons Act—of which this Bill was an extension—had had sufficient trial since its passing in 1866 to admit of its wider application. The Select Committee which sat upon this subject last year reported in these words— Sufficient time has not elapsed since the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act to enable such a fair judgment of its working to be formed as would justify your Committee in recommending the application of its provisions to a wider area than that to which it at present applies. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the applications for "schemes" which had been made under that Act. Well, eight such applications had been made; but seven of them had at present not been arranged, in consequence of disputes and local differences, and as the eighth had only recently received sanction, it was impossible to judge accurately as to the good or ill-working of the Bill. But one witness—Mr. Scott—before the general Enclosure Committee last year stated that he thought the objection made by one of the Enclosure Commissioners to this Act, that there had only been seven applications under it, was "its best recommendation." That was the key to much of the support given to the present Bill—that people thought it would prevent these enclosures altogether, and this was further than he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was prepared to go. He regretted very much that the lateness of the hour at which he had introduced the Government Enclosure Bill the other night had prevented him from making any statement upon the subject; but he now proposed to briefly state the points in that Bill which would bear upon the measure then under discussion, and to sketch out the alternative plan which he would prefer to that of his right hon. Friend. The Government Bill was based upon this idea and proposition—that if lords of manors and others, being desirous to enclose commons, came to Parliament in order to obtain a cheap and secure title and greater facilities of enclosure, they should, in return for such advantages received from Parliament, give something to the public of which Parliament was the representative—therefore Government proposed that instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Enclosure Commissioners, whether allotments should be given to the labouring poor for recreation ground, one or both should be compulsorily given in every case of enclosure, and a certain specified proportion of the lands about to be enclosed set aside for this purpose. The Government, moreover, would propose that in the case of commonable lands, which, as distinguished from common lands, were not now subject to public allotments, it should be enacted that, for the future, if any public rights had been exercised over any part of these lands, enclosure should be contingent upon either the preservation of those rights, or the grant- ing of a public allotment. Then, with regard to the commons in the vicinity of towns, which were dealt with under the Bill now under discussion, Government proposed that, taking some such scale as that mentioned in the Bill, enclosures within a certain distance of places containing a certain population, should not be altogether prevented, but should not proceed without the consent of the local authority of such places. Thus it would, he hoped, be impossible that enclosures should proceed against the public feeling of localities, which ought to be consulted. If the local authority, not objecting to the enclosure, wished to secure for recreation or allotment ground a larger portion than that which would be secured by the provisions of the Government Bill, they might make their consent contingent upon their acquisition of such larger portion, for which they would pay a certain rent-charge from their total funds. But, with respect to the first allotments, given under the general Act, for which a rent-charge was now paid by the allottees, the Government Bill would provide that, for the future, those allotments should be given free of charge. There were several minor provisions in the Government Bill—which was not a long one—to which, he would not then allude. One more argument he might mention as weighing against the total prohibition of enclosures, and this was founded upon the rating aspect of the question. The pressure of local rates was now very severe; unenclosed land contributed very little to these rates, and it would be a more than doubtful policy rigorously to exclude such lands from being brought into a state of cultivation in which they would produce more, and aid in bearing the heavy weight of local taxation. He had been asked what he would do with the ordinary Enclosure Bill now before the House—this Bill affected the enclosure of 21 commons, comprising upwards of 12,600 acres of land, of which upwards of 7,000 acres were subject to allotments. This showed in some respect how large the subject really was. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) proposed to test the different provisional orders sanctioned by this Bill by the provisions of the Government Bill just introduced—to proceed with those which did not violently clash with those provisions, but not to sanction enclosures which would be opposed to the resolution of last year's Committee, that no further enclosures should be sanctioned by Parliament until certain recommendations of theirs had been adopted, and alterations in the law made, which would be found embodied in the Government Bill. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) could say much more on the question, but was anxious to curtail his observations at that hour. His hon. Friend the Member for York had referred to those gentlemen who assembled in Trafalgar Square, and, seated astride the lions, talked largely of the many thousand acres of land out of cultivation in England which ought to furnish employment for the people. He must take leave to doubt whether his hon. Friend fully and correctly appreciated the intention and scope of the arguments used by these Trafalgar Square enthusiasts. They were not demanding the enclosure of these commons as a means of adding many acres to the large estates of landowners who might be lords of manors; but that which they desired was an appropriation of these and other lands to purposes, and in a manner, which his hon. Friend would probably consider, in the very strongest sense of the word, a misappropriation. Let him give a word of advice to his hon. Friend and to other landowners. If they wished to check democratic action in these matters, and to oppose the views which were fulminated in Trafalgar Square and other similar places, the true way to do so was to deal in a large, fair, and liberal spirit with such matters as they were now discussing. He would be glad that the House should, by an unanimous vote, pass the second reading of this Bill, solely as an indication of its desire to consult the interests of the dwellers in crowded places, and to afford them fresh air and open space where such could be found. He remembered, in his own county, instances where formerly there were miles of pleasant rides for equestrians—and pleasant walks for pedestrians across green turf, where now there was nothing but dusty road. It was impossible to look back upon such a change without regret, and it must be far worse to those who dwelt habitually in narrow streets, and to whom these open spaces were invaluable. He trusted, therefore, that the, House would indicate their opinion by affirming the prin- ciple of the Bill at its present stage, and at the same time he reserved the fullest discretion to the Government to prefer its own alternative plan, and either to oppose the present Bill at a future stage, or, adopting so much of its provisions as they approved, to incorporate those provisions with their own Bill, so that the House might pass one measure upon the whole subject of enclosures.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he regretted that the Government opposed the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee, because the details of a measure of this kind must require most careful examination. It was clearly the opinion of the House last Session that that course ought to be taken with the identical measure then before it.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, this was a very important question, and while he quite concurred in the wishes of his right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. Cowper-Temple), he thought the House was placed in some difficulty by the statement made from the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman who made that statement (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had declared himself in favour of the second reading, and therefore in favour of the principle of the Bill, while at the same time he had propounded a measure which was totally at variance with the principle of the Bill. He (Colonel Barttelot) thought that the rights of property as well as the interests of large towns should be consulted. The present Bill, however, regarded the latter exclusively. Under these circumstances, he thought the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee, which could report in ample time for any legislation to be founded upon the Report this Session.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he also hoped that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. ASSHETON

said, he thought the House had overlooked one large class of property which would be affected by the Bill, and he thought it would be better to send the Bill to a Select Committee.

COLONEL CORBETT

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) whether he would consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as his answer would materially influence the course of many hon. Members.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, he could not consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that in that case he should take the decision of the House upon it.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed for Wednesday the 22nd day of June next."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)

MR. GOLDNEY

moved that it be referred to a Select Committee.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "committed" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Goldney,)—instead thereof.

MR. BRUCE

said, that an addition to the very large number of Select Committees already sitting would cause inconvenience to hon. Members, and he would recommend that the hon. Member (Mr. Goldney) should postpone his Amendment until the 22nd of June, when the Motion was made for going into Committee. In the meantime, he did not at all despair of framing clauses which would satisfy both his right hon. Friend and those who had criticized his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Cowper-Temple's) measure. The Government was clearly of opinion that the Bill should be limited so as not to bring about the enclosure of land required for the recreation of the people.

MR. GOLDNEY

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

objected.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 77: Majority 56.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed for Wednesday the 22nd day of June next.