§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether, in view of the fact that it has now been declared impossible to carry out the terms of the arrangement embodied in the New Forest Deer Removal Act, 1851, whereby the Crown was empowered to enclose 10,000 acres of the forest in consideration of the removal of the deer from, and the extinguishment of the right of the Crown to keep deer in, the forest, and seeing that a number of deer are now kept by the Crown in the forest contrary to the terms of such arrangement, the 10,000 acres so enclosed will be restored to the open forest, the consideration for such right of enclosure having failed?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEBefore the Act of 1851 the Crown had the right to enclose at any one time up to 6,000 acres of the Waste of the New Forest for the growth of timber; the enclosures were, however, to be thrown open again when the trees were past danger of browsing by cattle, and a similar area could be enclosed elsewhere from the Wastes. By that Act the Crown was given power to enclose an 686 additional 10,000 acres. After 5,036 acres had been enclosed under it, the New Forest Act of 1877 was passed, which provided that the Crown's right to enclose should be exercised only on lands then enclosed or previously enclosed. Only about 11,781 acres out of the 16,000 acres allowed by law are enclosed at the present time. Deer are not kept in the New Forest by the Crown, though a certain number of wild deer have found their way into it again from private lands. Much is done by the Crown to kill them down. The effect on the pasturage of the browsing of the few deer now in the forest is very trifling. There is no intention to make any alteration in the present state of the law as to the area that may be enclosed, or to throw open any of the existing enclosures. The hon. Member will see, however, that the full additional area of 10,000 acres referred to in the Act of 1851 has not up to the present been taken from the open forest, as is suggested in his question.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODAs the right of the Crown to keep deer in the Forest is absolutely extinguished by the New Forest Deer Removal Act, 1851, may I ask in whom the property of any deer in the Forest is now vested?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs the hon. Member is a barrister and I am not, I must leave him to answer that question.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTIs it not a fact that the sale of the timber of the Crown in these plantations helps to pay for the upkeep and administration of the forest?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes, that is undoubtedly the fact; but I do not see how it arises out of this question.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes, undoubtedly, more have been killed.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether he is aware that Mr. H. Cumber-batch, the then deputy surveyor of the New Forest, stated in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords 687 on the Deer Removal Act, 1851, which reported in July, 1868, that in the year 1849 there were about 2,000 deer in the forest; whether there are the same means of estimating the number of deer in the forest now as there were then; and whether he will cause the number to be estimated, distinguishing red and fallow deer?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe circumstances existing at the date when Mr. Cumber-batch gave the evidence referred to in the question as to the number of deer in the New Forest were wholly different from those now prevailing. At that time there was a considerable staff of keepers, whose duty it was to attend to the deer, and they were kept in practically a tame state and regularly fed in winter in paddocks adjoining the lodges, where it was not difficult to count them. The small number of deer now in the forest are wild, and they live mostly in plantations, where they are not easily seen and where it is impossible to count them. The deputy surveyor reports that he is unable to give anything like an accurate estimate of their numbers.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTSo far as the deer are seen, do they not add to the attractiveness of the forest, and therefore to its value as a national playground?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am afraid I could not take upon myself to say what everybody's feelings are when they visit the forest.
§ Mr. WATTWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is open to anybody to go down and capture these deer?
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked how many deer were killed in the New Forest last year by hunting and by shooting, respectively; what is the average annual number of deer killed by such means respectively; who has the disposal of the venison of deer so killed; and how the same is actually disposed of?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe number of deer killed in the New Forest during the year 1909–10 by hunting with hounds was forty-four and by Crown officers 139. The average numbers killed annually during the last ten years by hounds were forty-one and by Crown officers seventy-six, making a yearly total of 117. The master of the deerhounds deals as he thinks proper with the deer killed by the hounds which are 688 worthless as venison. The Deputy-Surveyor has the disposal of deer killed by Crown officers and the venison is distributed among all Crown labourers and Crown servants; among all poor pensioners of the Crown, among the sick and poor of the villages in the forest, among union workhouses, local hospitals, including those at Southampton and some at Bournemouth, generally among all those in the neighbourhood who are heard of as being in need, and to whom it would be welcome, and to local residents. It has little money value.
Captain FABERIs it not a fact that all the deer killed by this hunt are given away to the poor, and that more have been killed this year—fifty-three — than for years past?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf the hon. Gentleman had paid attention to the answer I gave he would have seen all those facts are stated.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODMay I ask whether the Crown now grants licences—I do not mean for pecuniary consideration, but licences—to hunt deer in the forest?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have not all the details of the Crown administration at my fingers' ends, but I shall be very glad, if the hon. Member is interested, to make inquiries?