HC Deb 08 August 1876 vol 231 cc821-31
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

rose to move, as an Amendment, that— The action of the War Office with reference to Plumstead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis. The hon. Baronet began by quoting as a precedent for the discussion even of general grievances on the Appropriation Bill, that of 7th August, 1875, when the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had asked for the release of the Fenian prisoners. The grievance that he (Sir Charles Dilke) had to put before the House was of an urgent nature, and he had exhausted all other means of obtaining discussion upon it since it had been placed in his hands by his constituents—the jury of the Court Leet of the manor of Fulham. Moreover, this was a case properly to be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill, inasmuch as it concerned money Votes in the Estimates, for the War Office called on the nation to pay annual rent to the commoners of Fulham and to the Lord of Plumstead. The hon. Baronet then went on:—I confess I think that I have so strong a case that the Home Secretary, after all his declarations of this Session, ought to help me against the War Office. I say 'War Office,' and not 'Secretary of State for War,' because some of the steps taken in this matter were taken by the late Government, and have only been continued and extended by the Government now in office. It may be remembered that in 1874 I asked the Secretary of State for War, whether steps were being taken by the War Office of a nature calculated to limit the use of Wormholt Common, or Wormwood Scrubbs, by the commoners or by the public. He replied that the common in question had long been used by the troops for drill. In order to secure the property it had been purchased, subject to the rights of the commoners. Negotiations were now going on with the commoners for the purpose of buying out their rights and giving them adequate compensation. There was no necessity at present to put in force the provisions of the Defence Act; but, if the commoners vexatiously interfered with the use of the place for drilling troops, it might be necessary to put those provisions in operation. As to the common being lost to the public, the object of the purchase was to keep it open."—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 230.] With regard to this last remark, why, if the War Office want to keep the common open, should they buy up and extinguish all rights in it except their own? Why not have these rights existing? Why convert the common into freehold property? With regard, too, to an earlier portion of the answer, what is this 'vexatious interference' which is expected from the commoners? Their position has been all along a very intelligible one. They have begged only to be let alone. I may add that I was astounded at the admission of the Secretary of State that the putting in force of the Defence Act against the commoners of the manor of Fulham had been contemplated for one instant. The Defence Act is purely an Act for the defence of the Realm against the King's enemies. The Preamble recites the finding of the Fortifications Commissioners in favour of the building of fresh forts. It cannot be for a moment contended by any man who reads it that Parliament meant the War Office to compulsorily acquire under the Defence Act lands for the drilling of troops. Yet the War Office has threatened, and still threatens, to take this monstrous step. The War Office purchased for the sum of £28,000, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their rights, as lords of the manor, over 140 acres of the common. Now, the lord of the manor of Fulham never had the right to break ground, and being prohibited from digging gravel, I venture to assert that the lord's rights were not worth purchasing, not worth one single penny. The sum of £28,000, paid for these rights by the War Office, has been thrown away! Not only thrown away! Worse than thrown away! The effect of a payment of this kind is to greatly raise the price of lords' rights in the case of all commons in the neighbourhood of London, and to force the Metropolitan Board, as representing the ratepayers of London, to pay unfair prices for the lords' rights in the case of all commons that they may wish, in the interest of the metropolis, to acquire. Wormholt Common is leased by the commoners to the War Office as a drill ground. It has long been much so used, without its use by the commoners' cattle and by the public being prevented. I really do not know why the Crown wants to acquire the freehold. The War Office, two years ago, offered a low price to the commoners for their rights. Now, the commoners do not want to sell at all, but if they are made to sell they want to get a proper price. This they ask, as I shall presently explain, not in their own interest, but in that of the poor. The present revenue from the common is between £400 and £500 a-year. Part of this is received from the War Office, under the lease to which I have just made allusion, £100 a-year comes from various Volunteer corps, £150 a-year is derived from the grazing rights, but this sum is not a real rent, and does not in the least represent the value of the rights, but something more like one-tenth only of the value. The grazing is a privilege of the commoners, and the sums received are only intended to check abuse and regulate the use of the privilege. If the grazing were to be let by the commoners to outsiders, not having rights of common, a vastly greater rent would be received. The commoners think that they have not only been harshly dealt with as to terms, but also as to the language in which the offers of the War Office have been made. After my Motion was placed upon the Paper the commoners were offered the sum of £10,000, and told that 'they need not expect one penny more,' as though their object was to extort money from the Crown. The commoners, I am entitled from my interviews with them to state, do not want the money. Their anxious wish is to be let alone in the exercise of their undoubted rights, and to spend their income in the future as they spend it now, not upon themselves, but upon the poor. But I look at this question not from the point of view of the commoners so much as from that of the metropolitan public. Pay the commoners what you will; I contend that you have acted most unwisely in paying £28,000 for the worthless rights of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and I would ask who advised the payment of that sum? Moreover, I ask, also, why do you wish to acquire the freehold at all, and what security have we that the common will not be built on. Your word? Yes; but how about your successors in 10 or 20 years? Nothing but the promise of a special Act of Parliament will suffice. Again, I hear that the commoners, frightened by your threats of putting the Defence Act in force, are withdrawing their opposition to a sale, taking less than their rights are worth. Who suffers? Not the commoners, but the Waste Lands Almshouse! Not the commoners, but the poor! I cannot see how the Alms-house, at present supported out of the revenues of the common, is to be kept alive. I have a list of the tenants of that Almshouse, from which I find that they are persons of exceedingly advanced age; indeed, there are 11 of them over 80, who, as far as I can see, will be turned into the streets if the commoners' rights are extinguished in this way. I come now to the equally shameful action of the War Office in the case of the east end common of Plumstead. This common and Bostall Heath contain together about 160 acres. Up to 1859, though troops were drilled there, the common was largely used for the purpose of recreation by the inhabitants of Woolwich, and used also by the commoners of the manor in the exercise of their rights of common. In 1859, Queen's College, Oxford, to which the manor belongs, began a high-handed course of action, with the view to crush the freeholders and build upon the common. In 1866 a suit was instituted in Chancery, at great cost, praying that the College might be restrained from inclosing. This suit was heard in 1870, when judgment was given against the College. That judgment was appealed against, and was confirmed by the Lord Chancellor in 1871. On this latter occasion the Lord Chancellor concluded his decision with the following memorable words:— The inquiry has been occasioned by a highhanded assertion on the part of the College, who seem simply to have said to those who have been exercising their rights for 200 years, 'You will be in a difficulty to prove that you have exercised them, so we will put you to that proof by taking possession of your property.' Now, that is what it really is when you come to an in closure done against those who have so long exercised the right to which I am thankful to be able to afford a legal origin. After this happy decision we really thought that our money had not been spent in vain. Nothing took place until the end of 1873, when it was proposed to prepare a scheme for the management of the common in the interest of the inhabitants of the metropolis. It was then suddenly discovered that there was a lease, just made, from Queen's College to the War Office. We were forced to abandon our scheme. But what is the value of this lease? Who advised it? Queen's College could lease only what it had. What rights has it to lease to the War Office that can be worth to the War Office between £300 and £400 a-year rent? On the other hand, what of the poor commoners? What compensation have they received for their rights established at great cost in the suit? What of the unfortunate public? The common was always used for military drill, but since 1873 it has been cut to pieces and the turf entirely destroyed by artillery. It is now a very fair copy of the African Sahara. Had Queen's College the right as against the commoners to cut the turf to pieces by the use of artillery? Why, an injunction would have stopped such a course at once if it had been tried. But last week, when an injunction against the War Office was applied for, the Judge said—"Even if the Crown could commit a trespass, a subject could not sue for it." Is that Star Chamber doctrine still good law? May the artillery come and knock my private garden to pieces, and I be without the ordinary remedies of law? The whole of the advantages gained by the freeholders of the manor at a very heavy cost by the Chancery suit have been lost by the action of the War Office. Now, two years ago I asked the Secretary of State for War under what title the artillery cut to pieces the common. He replied that— The artillery enjoyed the same right to practice on Plumstead Common which had been enjoyed since 1745."—[3 Hansard, ccxxi. 1145.] Now, I venture to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. If he rests his right on prescription, why does he pay between £300 and £400 a-year to Queen's College for a lease? If he rests it on the lease of 1873, why did he talk to me about ' the same right which had been enjoyed since 1745?' He might as well have said 'since the flood.' If it is a Parliamentary expression—no more disingenuous answer was ever made. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman himself of the offence. It was a clerk who wrote the reply for him, of course. I remember—it was before I was in the House, but I have read of it—when a Secretary of State for War rose in his place to give an answer to a Question about an escort. He read from the clerk's paper in his hand—'The escort consisted of 20 rank and file;' 'that is,' he added, 'of 40 men.' No doubt it is better for Ministers to avoid the errors and to say what they are told to say by clerks; but, in this case, the reply which I received was not a proper one. I am told that, since my Motion has been placed upon the Paper, the War Office has proposed a compromise. I shall be glad to hear what the details of the compromise may be. In that which I have heard talked of, the cloven foot again appears. It is suggested that the War Office should give up half the common, but acquire, by means of the Defence Act, the whole of the rights over the rest. This is a fatal policy which we cannot possibly allow in the case of any common, without taking steps to test the right of the War Office to put the Defence Act in force for purposes of this kind. I can only warn the Secretary of State that in acquiring any property of the kind he should acquire it by a special Act of Parliament, rather than by straining the Defence Act to include cases which it never was meant to meet.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the action of the War Office with reference to Plum stead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. BOORD

wished to say a very few words in support of the Amendment. He complimented the hon. Baronet on the very lucid statement he had laid before the House, and also on the ingenious method he had chosen to escape from an embarrassing situation. He had succeeded in showing that the late Government were greatly to blame in this matter, and to make their fault appear less he had attempted to throw a still greater responsibility on the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. However that might be, the fact remained that by. Lord Chancellor Hatherley's decision it was evident that there were commoners, and that those commoners had, and exercised, rights of the usual description. But how were they situated now? It was impossible for them to use their rights in consequence of the action of the War Department. The condition of the common had been correctly described by the hon. Baronet as that of a desert. But behind the commoners there was a still more important body—the public—which was represented in that locality chiefly by the operatives employed in the Royal Arsenal. He (Mr. Boord) would not contend for one moment that the public as such had any clearly defined legal right of user of the common; but the desirability of preserving open spaces for public recreation being universally admitted, it was convenient to regard the rights of the commoners as a means to that end. An arrangement had been proposed by an able member of the Woolwich Local Board (Mr. Lloyd), and he trusted that it would receive due consideration at the hands of the Secretary of State for War. He would not occupy the time of the House by following the hon. Baronet through the details of his argument, but would simply appeal to his right hon. Friend to consider this matter fairly, and see if some arrangement could not be made whereby those who toiled in the arsenal might have the opportunity for the recreation they so much needed.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, the hon. Member for Chelsea had taken a somewhat unusual course upon this question, because he had asked the House to come to a conclusion on the subject without placing any documentary evidence before them, and his Motion, if passed, would practically be a Vote of Censure not only on the present, but also on the past Government. He believed, however, that the hon. Baronet did not intend to press his Motion to a division, and that his real object was merely to elicit information on the subject, which he should be very happy to give him. The hon. Baronet had said that he (Mr. Hardy) had given a disingenuous answer when he spoke of the common having been used by the Artillery since the year 1740. Well, in reply to that, he could only say that he did not think that the Crown was bound any more than a private individual to disclose the nature of its title, especially at a time when other persons were seeking to set its rights aside, and that in this respect it was entitled to an equal protection of the law with a private owner. He would only make a few remarks as to the course taken with respect to these commons. With regard to Plumstead Common the facts stood thus:—Since 1740 the Crown had, without leave or licence from any person, used the common for practising the evolutions of artillery. His predecessor in office (Lord Cardwell) thought, however, it would be better to become possessed of the rights of the lords of the manor, so as to relieve himself from any opposition on their part. He (Mr. Hardy) quite admitted that the commoners also had rights over the common, and he would go further, and concede that the population of Greenwich had acquired certain rights of recreation in regard to it which ought to be respected. Negotiations, however, were now going on which he trusted would result in a satisfactory solution for all parties of the difficulty that had arisen; but he did not think that it would be prudent or desirable to state the stage those negotiations had reached to the House at the present moment. With respect to the rights of the Crown, the Master of the Rolls had most emphatically said it was impossible to get an injunction against the Crown, because it was itself the Fountain of Justice. No doubt the surface of the common was cut up to a greater extent by the heavy artillery, which required 8 or 12 horses to each gun, than it had been by the light artillery of former years; but that was a matter that could not be helped. It was in 1873 that his predecessor had obtained- a lease, and certainly up to that time no complaint had been made by the commoners as to the use of the common. But since then not only private individuals, but the local board of Woolwich, had been anxious to come to some terms with the Government. He desired that facilities should be given for the recreation of the people; but holding the office he did he had also to look to the military requirements of the country, and he was not prepared to give up the rights which the Government had exercised unless it could be shown that he was entirely in the wrong. He declined to go into the question of the negotiations that were going on. He did not at all despair of making arrangements which would be satisfactory at once to the locality and to the Government. The Defence Act had not been put into operation with regard either to Plum-stead Common or Wormwood Scrubbs; and if any question arose as to the force of that statute it would have to be determined, not by that House, but by the ordinary Courts of Law. With regard to Wormwood Scrubbs, Lord Cardwell had purchased the rights of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as lords of the common, for the Crown, which he had paid for out of the £3,500,000 voted by Parliament under the Localization Act. If an invasion of this country ever occurred Wormwood Scrubbs might become of great importance for the erection of fortifications, and his predecessor had purchased the freehold of 54½ acres of land adjoining the Scrubbs at a cost of £24,600, in order to secure a large space for the exercise of the Cavalry, and which might ultimately be thrown open for public recreation. There was no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners or of the public over the Scrubbs, and indeed the former received a rent from the Government for the use that was made of it, which circumstance was a sufficient proof that no confiscation of their rights was intended. He wished to point out, however, that some scheme with regard to these open spaces should be adopted which would render the public use of them more advantageous and less obnoxious to the neighbourhood than was at present the case. He trusted the House would leave the whole matter in the hands of the Executive. It would be impossible for it to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he did not think it necessary to discuss this matter in a hostile spirit. The ground of complaint with respect to Plumstead Common was not so much the use of the common by the troops as its abuse. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the War Office had a right arising from long use to that common for military purposes. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: The Crown.] Well, the Crown. He should be glad to know if that right rested upon any bettor ground than the right of the public to use the common. He was afraid that it had no other basis. All that the hon. Member for Chelsea had asked of the Government was that further proceedings should not be taken in the matter until it was submitted to the decision of Parliament. The excessive use of the common had really rendered it totally unsuitable for the purpose of public recreation; and he had a memorial from people living in the neighbourhood to that effect. The public considered that the War Office was not the best authority to define the right of use of the commons as between that Department and the public. The obser- vations of the hon. Member for Chelsea had pointed to a scheme for the regulation of these commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, and the suggestion was deserving of the attention of the Government.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that the rights of the commoners would not be purchased until Parliament had considered the matter. If the Government would give that promise, and subsequently introduce a scheme of regulation, he believed that the object in view would be sufficiently met.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he had not the least objection to say this much—that he would conclude no arrangements before the beginning of next Session, so that there might be information before the House on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.