HC Deb 06 July 1877 vol 235 cc921-3

Resolutions [2nd and 5th July] reported.

First Seven Resolutions agreed to.

Eighth Resolution read a second time.

MR. BOORD

, in moving to reduce the Vote by £315, said, that was the amount of one year's rent of manorial rights over Plumstead Common, due under a lease granted by the lords of the manor to the War Department in 1873. He objected to that lease, because it hindered the preservation of the common as an open space for the enjoyment of the inhabitants, and because it involved a waste of public money. After the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act in 1866, it was found impossible to proceed by a scheme under that Act on account of litigation which was then before the Courts. This was settled in 1871 by the judgment of Lord Chancellor Hatherley in favour of the commoners; but shortly afterwards, on the Metropolitan Board of Works endeavouring to promote a scheme under the Act, they found the lease that had then just been taken an insuperable obstacle, and nothing had been done in consequence up to the present time, although it was understood that negotiations were on foot. The rights of the lords were of no value whatever to the War Department, for they only extended to the minerals beneath, and not to the surface of the common. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to obtain control over the surface of the common, he must acquire the rights of the commoners. He might say there were no commoners; but that was disposed of by the judgment of the Lord Chancellor in 1871, from which he (Mr. Boord) read extracts showing that the existence of a body of commoners was abundantly proved. Their number was immaterial—one was as good as 100 for the purpose. It was not worth while to demonstrate the necessity for preserving open spaces in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, that was a subject all were agreed upon. In years gone by, it was probably possible for the military and the public to use the common simultaneously; but now, owing to the increased weight of artillery, the ground was so cut up that in winter it was a sea of mud, and in summer a waste of dust and sand. If, as he had understood the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion to contend, he had a prescriptive right of user of the common for military purposes, of what possible use could the lease be to him? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£2,986,000," in order to insert "£2,985,685,"—(Mr. Boord,)—instead thereof.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he could not see what particular interest the constituents of his hon. Friend had in this matter. The real fact was that his Predecessors had been advised that it would be an advantage to them to have the rights of the lord of the manor, and so he had taken a lease of them, just as the Government had done at Aldershot, Strensall, and other places where they exercised troops. If the commoners had any rights, let them take measures to establish them; but, hitherto, any attempts of that kind which had been made had been scouted out of Court. He hoped the House, therefore, would support what had been done in Committee. He was only acting in the public interest in what he had done, and when his hon. Friend asked what good would it do him to take a lease of the rights of the lords of the manor, his answer was, that his legal advisers told him it would do him good. An attempt had been made to invalidate those rights, but it had failed.

Question put, "That '£2,986,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 59: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 224.)

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Proceeding stood adjourned till this day.

And it being five minutes to Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.

House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.