§ Field Gardens and Recreation Grounds.
§ Clause 18 (Situation of allotments for recreation grounds and field gardens).
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREproposed an Amendment requiring that in all schemes for inclosure there should be appropriated for the purposes of recreation or of field gardens an allotment of not less that one-tenth of the whole common to be inclosed. The object of the Amendment was to provide that when inclosure took place greater regard should be had to the interests of the poor. Hitherto, since the passing of the Act of 1845, the provision for the allotment of garden and recreation grounds for the labouring poor had been of the most niggardly description. The agricultural labourer whose cottage was in the neighbourhood of a common practically enjoyed the right of turbary and the right of turning out his cow, his donkey, or his geese upon the common, although in strict law the right of common, being only appurtenant to land, belonged to the owner of the cottage, of which the labourer might be only a weekly tenant. Parliament, therefore, had thought that their practical enjoyment of those rights entitled the agricultural population to consideration when a common was inclosed; and, accordingly, under the Act of 1845, power was given to set out garden allotments of not more than a quarter of an acre each. If the Commissioners in carrying out the Act had not made sufficient reservation for garden allotments and recreation grounds, he admitted that the House was as responsible for that as the Commissioners themselves were. But in the Committee which sat in 1869 on that subject the Commissioners explained the principles on which they made garden allotments. They stated, for example, that they made no such allotments where the cottages were already supplied with gardens, and they did not take into consideration the possible increase of labouring men. Now, he maintained that where 1557 the agricultural poor had practically enjoyed rights of common it was unjust to tell them, when the common was about to be inclosed, that they were to have nothing, because they had already got a small bit of land attached to their cottages. It was only fair and reasonable that some allotment should be made to them. The same argument applied to recreation grounds. Hitherto miserably insufficient bits of land had been set out by the Commissioners for that purpose, one or two fenced-in acres being offered as the equivalent for the right of ranging over the whole common. As to recreation grounds, that Bill went somewhat beyond the Act of 1845, because it removed restrictions and left greater discretion with the Commissioners. But their acts for the future might be judged of by their acts in the past. It was most desirable that some limit should be laid down, especially as in future there was to be no appeal to the House for the amendment of the inclosure scheme, and the House could only accept or reject it. The Government in 1871 therefore laid down in their Inclosure Bill a limit up to which those reservations for allotment gardens and recreation grounds should be made; they thought that one-tenth of the common about to be inclosed should be so reserved, but that the reservation should not exceed 50 acres. The clause so amended was approved of by the House of Lords, and he would submit to the Home Secretary whether it would not be wise to act generously with regard to this matter, particularly as the labouring classes believed that the protection proposed to be given to them was insufficient. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 16, line 4, after the word "appropriated," to insert the words "and the Inclosure Commissioners shall require, and in their Provisional Order for the inclosure of the waste lands of any manor specify as one of the terms and conditions of the inclosure thereof, the appropriation free of all charge for the purpose of a recreation ground or recreation grounds, or a field garden or field gardens, or partly for one purpose and partly for the other, of an allotment not less in extent than one-tenth part of the whole of such waste lands; and whenever the waste lands of a manor proposed to be enclosed shall exceed five hundred acres it shall be open to the Commissioners to make such allotment as they shall think fit, having regard to the special circumstances of the neighbourhood, provided only that no such allotment shall
1558
be more than one-tenth of the said waste lands, nor of less extent than fifty acres: Provided always, That notwithstanding anything in the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1868, contained, it shall not be necessary to drain and level more than twelve acres of any allotment or allotments for the purpose of a recreation ground or recreation grounds."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmust ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. He considered that each scheme ought to be considered by itself and upon its own merits, and, therefore, that no maximum or minimum should be fixed with respect to the reservation of recreation grounds. If a tenth were fixed upon as a limit the result would be that in the case of the larger commons the recreation grounds would be much greater than the requirements of the population, while in the case of the smaller commons, which were generally situated in populous districts, the quantity reserved would be too small. He believed the fact that Parliament would have the power of throwing out an inclosure scheme would be strongly in favour of those who did not want commons to be inclosed. By throwing out one or two schemes in which sufficient provision was not made for the public and the labouring poor the House would effectually prevent the bringing forward of schemes which did not come up to the approved standard. The hon. Member thought that nothing was done by this Bill for the labouring poor, but he denied the accuracy of that view. They had done a great deal for the poor. They had provided for the expense of clearing all the allotment grounds, which, instead of being handed over to the cottagers in a rough state, would be placed in a fit and proper condition at the expense of those to whom the commons belonged. They were also given other advantages; but the main ground on which he resisted the Amendment was that every case ought to be considered on its own merits, and that the Committee ought not to be tied down by any hard-and-fast rule.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEobserved, that although each scheme was to be determined on its own merits, it might so happen that when a scheme came before the Commissioners some member might approve of the whole of it, except that the recreation ground set out was insufficient, and he would consider himself incurring a grave responsibility if he insisted in throwing out the 1559 whole scheme on that ground. A power of amendment ought therefore to be given.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) in his regard for the labouring poor, forgot that in a great number of cases there were no labouring poor to enjoy the extensive reservation of these commons which he would secure for them. If the Committee looked at the Bill as a whole they would see that under the present system there were common wardens and proprietors whose interest it was to see that no injury was done to the commons; but in future if large spaces were set out where there was no corresponding population, there would be no one practically to look after its management; it would become a "no man's land," and the source of all sorts of evil. In his opinion the special circumstances of each common ought to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners when they laid down their scheme for its inclosure.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the country had ample opportunity of considering this point and they had decided in its favour. The Home Secretary constantly in these debates referred to the decisions of the Committees of 1869 and 1871, when they agreed with his proposals as conclusive on all controverted points. But the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was on that Committee, and took the greatest interest in its proceedings, moved a clause exactly identical with the present Amendment, which was repudiated by the Home Secretary. The Committee was entitled to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury adhered to his former views, or if not, what had led him to change them. The Home Secretary asked the Committee to place confidence in the Inclosure Commissioners, but when he saw what their recommendations were he could not do so. In one case there was a scheme for inclosing 685 acres, and out of that they only proposed to reserve for recreation two acres; and in another case there was a beggarly reservation of one acre, which was their last creditable performance! ["Where?"] In these cases there ought either to be no reservation at all, or a very different one. He found four acres was their usual allowance in the case of large allotments; but unless the House, instead of leaving it to their dis- 1560 cretion, fixed on a definite proportion, they could not be sure even of that. In the last Bill this very proposition of one tenth was passed, but in "another place" a noble Duke said that the rights of property were in danger—that it was confiscation; and the Bill was in that "other place" in that way unceremoniously rejected. The House must, therefore, distinctly assert the principle that the public and the poor had rights in these commons. He thought that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. GREGORYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down accused the Home Secretary of unfairness when he pointed out that the Report of the Committee of 1869 agreed with his proposals; but the unfairness of the hon. Member in his remarks upon the Commissioners was much more to be condemned. He quoted isolated cases, but did not give their names, which rendered it difficult to follow him. He (Mr. Gregory) thought he had found out the case of 600 acres and the beggarly two acres of reserve on which he had wasted so much scorn and indignation. At St. Dennis, where the common lands proposed to be inclosed were 636 acres, the inhabitants were 1,064, part of whom were engaged in the china and clay works, and the rest in agriculture. The two acres were set apart for an outlying hamlet for recreation, and six acres for gardens; while in St. Dennis itself every cottage had a garden varying from five perches to half an acre; and it was situated at the distance of a mile from any part of the moor, which could not be available so as to render it suitable for exercise and recreation. But the Commissioners did not consider four acres as a maximum, for on turning over the Report in his hand he had just hit on a scheme in the Potteries where the land inclosed was 31 acres, and the allotment 10 acres, or just about one-third. The reason given was that it was near two large towns, and it showed that the Commissioners had adopted and followed out the right principle—namely, that of being guided in each case by its own circumstances.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was a case where there ought not to be any inclosure at all, the common in question being in the very heart 1561 of the Potteries, and surrounded by Stoke, Burslem, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Hanley, &c. He wished to explain that in alluding to the Acts before 1845 he had by no means intended to express his approval of them. What he meant was that, on the whole, the interests of the neighbourhood were better protected before 1845 than they had been since. In his own district large reservations had been made for the poor under private Acts before 1845. The feeling against the Inclosure Commissioners had been caused by the insufficient reservations made by them; and, judging from the speeches delivered by the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, the Marquess of Salisbury, and other noble Lords, in the House of Lords, it was unlikely that they would make proper reservations in the future. Therefore, he moved the Amendment, which laid down a rule that henceforth adequate provision should be made for this purpose. He wished, however, to propose it as an addition to the clause.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 110: Majority 43.
§ Clause 19 (Amendment of law as to letting field gardens).
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved, in page 16, line 29, after "gardens," insert "not exceeding an acre each."
§ Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Application of surplus rents of recreation grounds and field gardens).
§ Mr. SHAW LEFEVREmoved, in page 17, line 27, after "neighbourhood," to insert—
The trustees of any recreation ground and the allotment wardens of any field gardens may, with the approval of the Inclosure Commissioners, sell all or any part of the allotment vested in them, and out of the proceeds of such sale purchase (by agreement or otherwise) any fit and suitable land in the same parish or neighbourhood: Provided, That the land so purchased shall be held in trust for the purposes for which the allotment so sold as aforesaid was allotted, and for no others: And Provided, That the Inclosure Commissioners shall not sanction any such sale as aforesaid unless and until it shall be proved to their satisfaction that land more suitable for the purposes for which the allotment proposed to be sold was allotted may and will be 1562 forthwith purchased; and the proceeds of any such sale shall be paid to the Inclosure Commissioners, and shall remain in their hands until such purchase of other land as aforesaid.For the purpose of any such purchase of land as aforesaid "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,"and the Acts amending the same, shall be incorporated with this Act, except the provisions relating to access to the special Act; and in construing those Acts for the purposes of this section the special Act shall be construed to mean this Act; and the promoters of the undertaking shall be construed to mean, in the case of the purchase of land for a recreation ground, the trustees of such recreation ground; and in the case of the purchase of land for field gardens, the allotment wardens of such field gardens.
§ Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (Reports to be made by managers of recreation grounds and field gardens) agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Amendment of law as to town and village greens.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. MACDONALD)moved, in page 18, line 7, after "mentioned," to insert—
But no public meeting held on such village green or recreation ground shall be deemed a public nuisance under this Act.
Mr. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should not like to accept these words. Some meetings might be very proper, but others might be very improper; and while he sympathized with the object of the proposal, he must have regard to the right of the public to have the enjoyment of these open spaces.
§ MR. DODSONthought the language of the Amendment too wide.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved it was a mistake to suppose that this clause would interfere with the right of public meeting.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;
§ Clause agreed to.
§ General Amendments.
§ Clause 23 (Substitution of Summary Jurisdiction Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43. for repealed Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 30, in certain sections of the Inclosure Acts), agreed to.
§ Clause 24 (Extension of Sec. 105. of the Inclosure Act, 1845, as to exchanges and partitions), agreed to.