EPPING FOREST—RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 28 April 1871 vol 205 cc1852-71

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE,

in rising to move a Resolution in relation to Epping Forest, said, that although everyone had heard of it, the distance of Epping Forest from that part of London might have prevented many hon. Mem- bers of that House from becoming acquainted with the beauties of the district. There were about 7,000 acres of primeval forest land, clothed, in some parts, with fine forest trees and a very rich underwood, graced with a picturesque beauty which art could not imitate; and that district was the resort of vast numbers of people from the East of London. 50,000 might be counted during the summer on Sundays and Mondays when the weather was fine, and much larger numbers on special holidays, such as Easter Monday, when hundreds of thousands roamed in freedom and gladness, enjoying themselves in its pleasant glades. It was most gratifying to witness multitudes of the working classes, who had escaped for a day from the smoky atmosphere and the dreary expanse of bricks and dust and dirt called the Eastend of London with parties of children, imbibing health and enjoying themselves intensely in innocent and health-giving pastimes. It was impossible to doubt that a large number of Londoners were benefited in respect of morality, health, and education by their enjoyment of Epping Forest; for health was promoted by pure air and by exercise, morality by innocent recreation taken by the whole family together, and by amusement free from pernicious excitement and degrading associations; while the educational value of the Forest might be illustrated by the increased interest it gave to the weavers of Spitalfields in the cultivation of flowers; and in Bethnal Green alone there were no fewer than eight entomological societies, consisting of working men, who found in the Forest opportunities of pursuing the study that was agreeable to them, and who had there discovered new and beautiful species of butterflies. There was risk in delay. A part of this national playground of considerable beauty, called High Beech Wood, was now threatened with danger, for the trees had received, by order of the lord of the manor, a mark which intimated to the public that he was about to exercise the right which he claimed of cutting down those trees, and that he intended to destroy the beauty of the district, and to prevent the public from deriving enjoyment from it. The encroachments which had already been made showed the danger that arose from leaving the question of right to the area of the Forest undecided. It ap- peared by the Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners, made in 1793, that the Forest then consisted of 9,000 acres of land: a later examination showed that the area had been reduced in 1850 to 7,000 acres, and he did not think that the open area could be estimated now at more than 5,000 acres; and of that, the portion over which the Crown retained its rights did not exceed 3,000 acres. The question might be considered one of public policy, as affecting the health and happiness of the inhabitants of the metropolis. Last year, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), the House unanimously adopted an Address to Her Majesty— Praying that She will take such measures as in Her judgment she may deem most expedient in order that Epping Forest may be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment and recreation of the public. The Prime Minister, on that occasion, entered into the views of those who impressed upon him the importance of endeavouring to secure the Forest, and a Bill was introduced in July of last year; but it was faulty both in principle and detail, for it was a Bill for inclosing the Forest, giving 2,400 acres up to be sold, or to be appropriated by the lords of the manors and others—thus permanently depriving the public of their use and advantages, and leaving only 600 acres for the permanent enjoyment of the public; whereas what was required was a Bill for preserving the Forest. That Bill might have been acceptable to the resident gentry, and more particularly to those who had already made inclosures without the assent of the Crown; but it was not acceptable to those who desired that this large open space should be secured for evermore for the benefit of the public. He admitted that contributions could not have been obtained from metropolitan funds to carry out the objects of such a Bill; but if the Bill had been one for the preservation of the Forest, it would have been proper that compensation for the surrender of rights should be made out of metropolitan funds, and he believed there would be no difficulty on the part of the metropolitan authorities in providing the funds that would be necessary. The City of London had been in the habit of contributing liberally to objects which had in view the benefit of the population of the metropolis, and the Corporation of the City possessed a charter entitling the citizens of London to hunt in the Forest. But if the City would not take up this question, he thought it might very fairly be dealt with by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Metropolitan Board of Works had recently given great satisfaction throughout London by undertaking to buy up for £45,000—a sum the payment of which was to be spread over 20 years, and which would thus be almost imperceptible to the ratepayers—the rights of the lord of the manor of Hampstead Heath. The pecuniary rights of the lord of the manor of Wimbledon and Wandsworth Commons were to be bought by two contiguous parishes, in order to maintain an open space in perpetuity. The only objection which could be raised to his proposal was, that Epping Forest was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Works; but this circumstance need not be a serious obstacle, because if the people residing within the metropolitan area went beyond it for their recreation, it would be quite legitimate to expend funds derived from them in order to secure to them the benefits of the Forest, even although it might not be within the taxable area. He believed that the parishes contiguous to the Forest might also contribute towards defraying the expense. But though the Government would obtain the co-operation of the metropolis in any measures tending to the desired result, yet on account of the rights of the Crown in the Forest the initiative must rest with the Government. It was one of the blessings derived from the powers and privileges of Monarchy that London had been made more habitable, more healthy, and more enjoyable than it would have otherwise been; and when he walked through Hyde Park, he lifted up his heart and blessed King Henry VIII.; the sagacious acquisition of the Park by that Monarch had saved it from being converted into streets and squares. To the operations of the rights and property of the Crown we also owed the preservation of St. James's Park, the Green Park, the Regent's Park, Battersea Park, and Victoria Park. The rights of the Sovereign as lord of Epping Forest did not extend to felling timber, but was mainly the right of taking recreation over the lands granted to the lords of the manor. It was a right antecedent to, and paramount over, all others. Even in Saxon and Norman times the use of a forest in promoting the health and good temper of the Sovereign and his companions was recognized. This right of the Sovereign could not, in the nature of things, be exercised by him alone, but must have been shared by some of his subjects. Hunting could not be a solitary amusement, and this paramount right of taking recreation at Epping, which had been transferred to the nation with other hereditary rights, ought to be adapted to altered circumstances. This right of recreation might be used in more rational and harmless ways than hunting deer. These rights had never produced revenue; but in 1854 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, finding it very troublesome to prevent attempts at encroachment in defiances of the rights of the Crown, abandoned the exercise of those rights, and converted them into cash. It was doubtful whether selling these rights was a proper use of them. They were established for other purposes than revenue; they were fully designed to be used in the liberal and generous spirit which was to be expected from the head of the nation. This plan was not originated, however, by the present Commissioners, but by Mr. Kennedy, one of their predecessors. The House of Commons, on consideration, determined that this was an improper use of the forestal rights, and passed a Resolution that the Crown rights ought not to be sold. Two Select Committees, which sat in 1863 and in 1865, confirmed that view. A Bill was afterwards passed transferring the management of Epping Forest from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Commissioners of Works, and he regretted that the New Forest was not also removed from the management of the Office of Woods. Thus the mode adopted by the Commissioners of selling the forestal rights for £5 an acre had been condemned by the House of Commons, by two Select Committees, and by the statute which deprived them of the power of doing it again. That measure was a very good one so far as it went; but it did nothing to remedy the bad policy which led to the sale of the forestal rights. He would suggest four sources of income, which might be obtained to meet the sum of money neces- sary to buy out the rights that must be extinguished. There were the existing forestal rights, estimated in the Bill of last year at 600 acres; there was the sum of £15,795, obtained by the sale of the Crown's forestal rights, which had been condemned by Parliament. This money should be restored by Parliament to the forestal purposes. There was the contribution that might be obtained from the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works; and there were rates from the parishes in which this Forest was situated. These suggestions, as to the means by which the necessary funds might be obtained, formed a Budget which he would take the liberty of presenting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fertility of invention and the powers of finance of his right hon. Friend might enable him to frame a better Budget; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow himself to indulge feelings of sympathy and commiseration, he would be able to find means by which a Bill might be introduced in the next Session of Parliament to confer a boon upon multitudes of the working poor in the East of London, similar to that which had been secured in regard to Hampstead Heath, and Wandsworth and Wimbledon Commons. He proposed, therefore, that the House should re-affirm the substance of the Address they presented to Her Majesty last year, because he wished it to be seen that neither the House nor the Government had lost any of their earnestness, and that the absence of any Bill on the subject this year must not be taken as evidence of change of purpose on the part of the House, or the Executive. The marking of certain trees at High Beech was no doubt intended as a test of what the House intended to do in regard to the question. He hoped it would be so regarded by those who had authority on the question, and that a friendly arrangement might be come to whereby the Forest should be secured for the advantage of the people without the interests of any person being prejudicially interfered with. He wished to be clearly understood that he had no desire to fetter the discretion of the Government in regard to the details of their Bill; and that he had moved in the matter simply to obtain from the House an affirmation of the principle that the whole Forest, and not a number of small patches here and there, ought to be preserved for the recreation of the people. As it was of importance that they should preserve to the public a considerable portion of the wild open scenery which constituted the special charm of Epping Forest, and was more attractive than any artificial park or garden, he trusted that the Government would feel no difficulty in acceding to his proposition. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

MR. HOLMS,

in seconding the Motion, remarked that if the Government accepted it, they would win the gratitude of the vast working population at the East-end of London, to whom Epping Forest was what the sea-side was to their wealthier neighbours. These people had a feeling, which was not without foundation, that the Crown had not protected their rights in the past as they ought to have done. Now that the metropolis was extending so rapidly, it was of great importance that they should have secured, to them in perpetuity the advantages that such a fine open space as the Forest afforded. It was a spot much frequented, and especially by Sunday School children, when they were taken out for their annual excursion or holiday. He must say the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had looked upon the question in a cold unsympathizing manner, as a means, in fact, of obtaining revenue, and not in the interest of the people in the locality in which the Forest was situated. If the population of the metropolis went on increasing in the ratio that had marked the present century up to the present, these open spaces would grow increasingly important, and, therefore, he trusted the Government would concur in the object aimed at by the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that measures be adopted, in accordance with the humble Address presented to Her Majesty in February 1870, for preserving as an open space accessible to Her Majesty's subjects for purposes of health and recreation, those parts of Epping Forest which have not been enclosed with the assent of the Crown or by legal authority,"—(Mr. Cowper Temple,) —instead thereof.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) in speaking of the great advantages to the inhabitants of the metropolis to be derived from open spaces, and thus eliciting the sympathies of all who heard him, had forgotten there were other points which should not be lost sight of, in connection with this subject, in addition to those brought forward in the preceding speeches. He agreed with all the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple) had said of the beauties of the space referred to, and thought that every lover of the beautiful or picturesque must desire to keep it open. It was true that large numbers of persons from the metropolis occasionally repaired to Epping Forest; but the area of their visits was, he was grieved to say, limited to the neighbourhood of the different places of entertainment to be found in and near to the Forest, and evidence given before a Committee on which he had had the honour to serve, while eliciting that fact, had also furnished undubitable evidence that, for that reason, the main portion of the Forest was not so generally resorted to as was supposed. Further, the rights of property in the Forest ought not to be lost sight of. Then, as to the question of compensation—a very grave matter, for the lords of the manors of Epping Forest possessed manorial rights exactly similar to those exercised in other parts of the country, and it would be unjust to deprive them of those rights, simply because Epping was within a dozen miles of the metropolis. If that idea should be entertained, the compensation which would be required would amount to a very large sum—a sum which on good authority might be stated as something like £200,000. The parishes most affected would certainly oppose the imposition of any rate for the purpose of levying this money, for they were against the policy of preserving the Forest as an open space. Indeed, the inhabitants of those parishes would, he believed, infinitely prefer to see a large portion of the Forest brought under agriculture, for the result would be to increase their employment and their wages. In that case they would have to look for assistance from the Government, or to a rate raised by the Metropolitan Board of Works. To such a rate there would, he thought, fairly be a claim, because Epping Forest was essentially a recreation ground for the metropolis, and it did seem fair that London should be called upon to provide a portion, of the funds required. It was probably true that the lords of the manors had intended to cut down some of the timber for the purpose of asserting their manorial rights, for from what had occurred last year they had foreseen that their manorial rights might in future legislation, to a certain extent, be ignored. What had been done, however, had been done only with the object of testing their right, and not with any hostile feeling. He should be glad to have some assurance from the Government that they would be prepared to introduce a measure which, founded upon mutual concession, would be satisfactory to all parties. He thought that, while the lords of the manors should be required to give up some of their rights, the Government should, on their part, surrender their forestal privileges, and that some means should be devised for levying a rate for the satisfaction of the claims of the commoners. He believed that if such an arrangement were made, the people living in the neighbourhood would be benefited by a portion of the land being thrown into cultivation, while the public would derive as much advantage as they could avail themselves of by the preservation of the remainder for their benefit.

MR. A. JOHNSTON

said, he did not see any reason why the commons rights should be extinguished or compensated at all. On the contrary, if it were kept open for the public and drained, the herbage of the remainder would, be much improved to the benefit of the commoners, whose rights would remain precisely as they now are. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had, he feared, put forward an estimate of the price of purchasing the rights of the lords of the manors, which was rather calculated to frighten the House. To pay £200,000 for those rights would be to estimate their value at the rate of £66 an acre, when the sale of the rights of Chingford Manor—the only one which had taken place—reached only £4 15s. an acre. While giving that as an instance, he was far from saying that the manorial rights could be purchased over the whole Forest at the same rate; but between £4 15s. and £66 an acre there was a considerable margin. The Government had always told them that they administered the Crown lands, solely with the view of obtaining from them, for the benefit of the State, the largest amount of Revenue possible, without considering one iota the convenience of the people residing in their neighbourhood. But he thought that there should be some proportion between the price to be paid, the benefit to be gained, and the number of people who would enjoy it, and that when they could benefit one-tenth of the whole population of the country for an infinitesimal outlay, it should not be grudged. When they had formerly asked Government to forego its rights, the reply was, that their doing so would be equivalent to making the East-end of London a large grant of the public money, to which the whole North of England would object. He did not believe that such would be the case, or that a single hon. Member of any of the large boroughs in the North of England would get up in his place and oppose it. Some time ago, when he was concerned in the presentation of a memorial to Mr. Layard on this subject, he asked for the signatures of as many northern Members as he was acquainted with, and in no single instance was refused. It was objected by lawyers that the public had no right over these open spaces, whatever the rights of the people in the neighbourhood might be, and that might be true strictly and legally; but they had, nevertheless, he maintained, the prescription of immemorial usage in their favour, of which they ought not to be deprived. Two Bills introduced this Session proposed to deal with interests that no one, not even those most concerned, dared to assert were legal, and yet any proposal to deal with them, without compensation, was denounced as confiscation, and undoubtedly compensation would be given. In this case, the right of the public was still stronger; but as the public in questions of this sort had no organization and no paid secretaries, they must submit to be shorn unless the House interfered for their protection, and defended their right in this matter, for it was a right, whatever lawyers might choose to say. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that as a Londoner, and in default of local knowledge, he could consider the matter only as a question of public policy and as a ratepayers' question; and, considering the matter in this way, he had come to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Government, and all concerned, to deal with it in a thoroughly liberal and far-sighted manner, carrying out the old policy which had secured to the people of the metropolis the public parks. The question touched the health of London, and it was satisfactory to know that so many of the representatives of large towns, who, some assumed, although the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Johnston) had proved the contrary, would be against Imperial action in the matter, had signed a Memorial in its favour. He congratulated the hon. Member on having got rid of the provincial spectre which used invariably to be brought in to frighten them, whenever they commenced a movement on subjects kindred to the one under discussion. It was reasonable that Parliament should not grudge some proportion of the cost of retaining the open spaces of the metropolis for the people, since London was to the whole country as the heart or brain to the man. Regarding the question as a Londoner, he saw the West and South-west characterized by broad streets, squares, and gardens, while the East and North-east were characterized by narrow thoroughfares and houses closely packed, with scanty yards and unsavoury factories adjoining them. The great Parks of the West-end had long been consecrated to the public; Richmond Park was a noble breathing ground; Kew had not very long ago been virtually thrown open as a public park; and Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Hampstead, Commons secured for the public by the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, with the Parliamentary Park of Battersea, all contributed, almost exclusively, to the enjoyment of the western portion of the town, which even in the absence of recreation grounds would be better able to help itself than the poorer districts of the East, which had nothing but Victoria Park and the threatened Epping Forest. Besides that, there was the great fact that during this century the population of London had increased from 1,000,000, to 3,000,000, while the Census just taken would, perhaps, show that the population approached to 4,000,000. These considerations proved that on grounds of public necessity, and even of public morality, Epping should be saved for the people. He did not wish to lay the burden on any particular party. No doubt the Metropolitan Board of Works and the adjoining parishes would contribute each their fair share towards that object; but he would urge upon the Government not to pursue the narrow-minded policy which had gone far to ruin the New Forest; that miserable policy against which all men of taste and generosity were crying "Shame!" Let Epping Forest be saved, if it were only to compensate the matchmakers for the fright the Government had given them. Let them be told that ex luce they should have this lucellum of Epping Forest. Such a message would conciliate them far more completely than the most astute lecture upon abstract political economy. Let the Government give the matchmakers the lucus, in return for the lux; and the House the assurance that the promises of last year would be liberally fulfilled, and that the question would not longer be allowed to rest in abeyance.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, the difficulty had arisen through the Government having allowed the Crown Commissioners to exceed their duty by selling the forestal rights of the Crown. If the Government asserted that the Commissioners had that right, then the Government was equally to blame in allowing that alleged right to be exercised without consulting that House upon the subject, or affording any opportunity for an expression of opinion upon the question. He condemned that policy of the Government which put the acquisition of a few shillings before all other considerations, and he reminded Her Majesty's Ministers that they were not only the representatives of the Crown, but the representatives of the life interest of the public. The Crown Lands Commissioners had always attempted to deprive the public of their rights of recreation, and they had pursued the same course with respect to Epping Forest; he hoped that, since what had already been taken away from the Forest could not be restored, the Government would take care that the inhabitants of the East-end of London should continue to have those means of enjoyment which they now possessed, and which their forefathers had enjoyed for centuries.

MR. SAMUDA

said, that fortunately, while the interest taken in this question could not be overrated, the difficulties were not so great as they appeared to be, for the inhabitants of the East-end would be perfectly contented to have reserved to them those acres that had not been inclosed. During the last 15 or 16 years, every green field in the eastern parts of the metropolis had been imperceptibly absorbed by building operations. The deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer about 18 months ago, explained to the right hon. Gentleman that Epping Forest had been materially reduced, in a manner quite inconsistent with the wants of the neighbourhood, and they would have been contented if they could have obtained from the right hon. Gentleman a promise that the practice of inclosing should be discontinued. It was then also pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that 4,000 out of 7,000 of the remaining acres had been disposed of for £18,000, and all the Committees that had inquired into the matter were thoroughly satisfied that the existing encroachment was not justified, and that further ones ought not to be permitted. The deputation referred at the same time to the promise made by the Prime Minister in that House, which led them to imagine they might thoroughly depend upon the Forest being in future retained for their use; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer attached very little weight to it, and he was understood to say that the promise so given was only intended to gratify and satisfy the public. This Forest was the only open space now remaining in that part of London, and he hoped the Government would not look with disfavour on a proposal which would cost them nothing, while it would be a great boon to a large number of poor people.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought it would conduce to hon. Members coming to a conclusion on the subject, if they emancipated themselves from the ancient history of the question, because for five years the care of this Forest and the rights of the Crown had been transferred from the Woods and Forests Department to the Board of Works. He understood the right hon. Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) to suggest that a certain sum of £15,000 which had been received for forestal rights should be expended in making a pleasure ground for the people of the East-end. In doing that, he did not understand the right hon. Member for South Hampshire to make any further demand on the Crown, but that the City of London, the Board of Works, and the adjacent parishes might with that sum raise sufficient to buy up the rights of the lords of the manors.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, he contended that the Vote of Parliament, carrying money that had been derived from the Forest, should be applied thereto.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes; that the money obtained 12 years ago and the compound interest ought to be so applied. That position was not tenable, because the property sold was part of the domains of the Crown, and as such the property of the people at large, and was not confined to the locality, who had no claim on the amount. The object was, no doubt, a very good one, and the Crown ought to do everything in its power to assist in giving effect to the project, with this reservation—that it did not violate any duty it owed to the remainder of Her Majesty's subjects. What was the present position of the question? In February, 1870, the House passed a Resolution, requesting the Government to do all they could to save Epping Forest for the use of the people. The Government took the matter into their most serious consideration, and towards the end of the Session they produced a Bill which would have done much more than was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire. They entered into negotiations with the lords of the manors, who consented to freely surrender their rights over 1,000 acres for the use of the people of the East-end, who had no legal rights in the matter. That land was worth £100 per acre; but, taking it at £60 per acre, the Government had obtained land worth £60,000, instead of expending the £15,000 which his right hon. Friend had in view; unfortunately, the Bill was stopped in its progress in consequence of its clashing with the Standing Orders. The plan of the Bill was to sell 400 acres of that land, in order to extinguish the rights of the commoners who could not be deprived of those rights without compensation, thus leaving 600 acres for the use of the public in perpetuity. It would doubtless have been better if the City of London or the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the parishes adjacent to the Forest, or all those bodies together, had found the money required for that purpose, or if they could have obtained the sum from those excellent people who spent 20 times that amount of money in pauperizing and degrading the people by giving foolish and reckless charity. In that way, the 1,000 acres might have been secured, not all in one place, but in those spots which were most agreeable; but, as it was, 600 acres had been secured, and that result he contended was much more than his right hon. Friend asked for, because the Government had defrayed the cost of the Commissions which had to be appointed to determine the rights of the lords and commoners. They had also surrendered the remaining forestal rights of the Crown without compensation, in addition to which they were willing to pay the cost of the Bill passing through this House, and the expenses of the Commissioners who would set out the allotments. To raise the sum of money which was required would be a much better beginning than to ask the Government for £15,000, to which, he contended, there was no claim whatever. The Government, he thought, had fairly redeemed the pledge they gave to the House to do what they could, by bringing forward a Bill which was a measure of conciliation; and, if the House desired it, the Government were quite willing to regard that Bill as a basis for future proceedings. It might be better that 1,000 acres should be made over to the public, and that could be done if the funds were raised to compensate the commoners. It was said that the Government had not done what they ought to do in the matter; but they had to consider the interests of the great mass of the people of this country, who might not unnaturally entertain the opinion that a large and rich metropolis like London was able to pay for any ground which it might require for the recreation of its inhabitants, and ought not to take the money out of the pockets of the nation generally to any considerable extent for that purpose. That being the view taken by the Government, he was afraid he could not agree to the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire. He was informed that those parts of Epping Forest to which it related amounted to 3,500 acres, and it would not, he thought, be right in the interests of the public to pledge the House to such a large outlay as £350,000, which would be the sum required for their purchase. The Government, however, were at the same time willing to do everything in their power to bring about a satisfactory solution of the question.

MR. GLADSTONE

expressed a hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire (Mr. Cowper-Temple) would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division. While noticing that the House itself was evidently desirous of that course being adopted, if it were agreed to, he could only say that he would still be left in a state of doubt as to what were the views of Parliament on the subject. Parliament had advisedly passed an Act making over to the Metropolitan Board of Works the duty of providing pleasure grounds, parks, and open spaces for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis; but Epping Forest became to some extent an exception to that Act, because the Crown happened to possess certain rights in it, which it was fairly asked that it should use in the best and most convenient manner for the benefit of the public. That his right hon. Friend near him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had endeavoured to do by means of the Bill which he (Mr. Gladstone) had introduced, and he might state on his part and on the part of the Government that if the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had charge of those great matters—for they were great matters—could use the rights of the Crown more economically and more beneficially in the interests of the inhabitants of London, the Government would be perfectly willing to place themselves in communication with the Board, with the view to care being taken that the rights of the Crown should be made subservient in every way which was consistent with justice to the country at large, and to those interests. It was impossible, in his opinion, to adopt a fairer course, and under the circumstances his right hon. Friend would, he hoped, not press his Resolution.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, that as it not unfrequently happened, the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they asked him for bread gave them a stone. It was very often maintained from the Treasury Bench that the Crown was entitled to deal with Crown lands on the principle on which a private landlord might act with respect to his property. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I said the very reverse.] The Minister, representing the Crown, must not, however, forget that they acted on behalf of the public in these matters; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must bear in mind, when he told the House that he was not going to give the money which the Crown got for forestal rights, which belonged to the public at large, to a particular locality, that the money was obtained by the sale of the interest of that very locality. He would venture to add that Epping Forest being a Royal Forest, none of the encroachments complained of would have been made if the Crown had chosen to exercise its rights; and, if the lords of manors had great interests there, it was only because those who had charge of the interests of the Crown had never taken care of the interests of the public as they ought to have done. It was very difficult to understand really what the Government offered as a settlement of the question; but what the House wanted was, that the Ministers of the Crown, instead of endeavouring to foist upon them another Bill of the same character as that of last year, which was so unsatisfactory that it would be useless to re-introduce it, should perform that duty which they had culpably neglected in the past, and that they should take the matter into their own hands instead of handing it over, as they proposed to do, to the Metropolitan Board of Works. There were large spaces still uninclosed over which the Crown had rights, which if they choose to assert them, would keep them open for the public benefit. That was what, as he understood, they were asked to do by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire. He recollected, he might add, having heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, whose absence from the House they had daily reason to regret, once say that the time was coming when the people of this country would have no place to walk except the dusty high roads, and he wished the spirit of that remark influenced a little more the man- ner in which questions of the kind were dealt with. Those who represented the Crown in asserting the rights of the Crown in Crown lands against the people, he was sorry to say, were deterred by no considerations; but he wished they would only be as equally astute in observing and enforcing them in favour of the people. In conclusion, he hoped the Resolution would be pressed to a Division.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he should like to suggest one alternative, which, in his opinion, the Government might advantageously adopt. He had the honour of sitting on a Committee two years ago with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who, at that time, was most sound on such questions as that before the House. There was, indeed, no man who then complained more loudly of the conduct of those by whom the Crown lands were administered. Now, if the matter were committed entirely to his right hon. Friend's hands, he had no doubt the old spirit would reanimate him, and that he would deal with it in a manner which would be conducive to the public advantage.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that if the Resolution before the House meant that these 3,000 acres of uninclosed land were to be preserved for the benefit of the East-end of London without any outlay of national money, he would willingly support it; but if it meant, as he rather feared it did mean, that it involved the expenditure of a very large sum—["No, no!"]—he would not support it. Hon. Gentlemen might cry "No, no!" but he understood the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean that the country would have to pay a large sum for this ground, and he, as a provincial Member, would therefore strongly oppose the proposal. Ever since he had had the honour of a seat in the House he had observed that when the metropolitan Members were seen to rise one after the other in support of any given Resolution, there was sure to be something under it that needed watching. It was sure to be for a free pontage over Chelsea Bridge, or some similar benefit, at the national expense. He begged to thank the Government for the jealous and watchful care with which they guarded the Exchequer against the grasping claims of the metropolitan Members and other merely local claims, and he hoped all provincial Members would support the Government in that direction.

SIR HENRY HOARE

said, they did not want a cuttle fish to stir up the waters of this debate, so that all insight into the merits of the case might be totally obscured from the gaze of hon. Members. There was no question of the expenditure of national money involved in the case under discussion, as it was money given to the Government for a particular purpose; and he protested against the imputation which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down sought to throw on 16 or 18 metropolitan Members.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

was sorry that he could not accede to the appeal which had been made to him by the Prime Minister. An offer was made to the Metropolitan Board, in 1863, to accept the forestal rights of the Crown, and was declined, because it was thought that those rights ought to remain in the Crown.

MR. GLADSTONE

rose to address the House—["Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman has a right to explain; and that, I understand, is the purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman has risen.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, his right hon. Friend did not explain but reply, and he wished for a similar right; it has been granted in similar cases. He complained, on behalf of the Government, that this Resolution was impossible to construe. This was not a question of a small sum of money which had been received in former times by the Commissioners of Woods. If it were, let it be reduced to that, in plain terms. ["Order, Order!"] He had made an appeal to the House, which he hoped would be responded to. The question was that of the Government taking the responsibility. ["Order!"] He rose at the close of the debate, when no one else attempted to rise; his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) replied, and allegations were then made which, if made before, he should have met at the proper time. It was not improper, in such a case, for the responsible Minister of the Crown to reply to allegations which he had not had an opportunity of noticing before; and, in saying this, he should confine himself strictly to the point in question. He wished to state that as Government construed this Motion—and he did not think it could be construed in any other way—it threw on the Government the responsibility, either by itself, or by putting in motion other parties over whom it had no control whatever, of attaining the end, that all rights should be bought up and disposed of which prevented the absolute enjoyment of the remaining 3,500 acres of Epping Forest. If that was not the case, then his right hon. Friend the Member for South Hampshire should give the Government a Motion that they could understand; or, if this Motion referred simply to the limited amount that had been received by the Commissioners of Woods, let his right hon. Friend put it in intelligible terms. For himself, he was totally at a loss to know how to act upon a Resolution of this character. The Resolution involved a great expenditure of public money, against which many had loudly disclaimed; if it did not, he was at a loss to understand what it meant.

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

The House divided,:—Ayes 96; Noes 197: Majority 101:—Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it is expedient that measures be adopted, in accordance with the humble Address presented to Her Majesty in February 1870, for preserving as an open space accessible to Her Majesty's subjects for purposes of health and recreation, those parts of Epping Forest which have not been enclosed with the assent of the Crown or by legal authority.

MR. CARDWELL

said, the Amendment having been carried, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) could not bring forward his Motion. Therefore, to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion, he would move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.