BEVERLEY RACECOURSE COMPANY (PASTURE OF HURN). (Hansard, 22 June 1936)

§ Mr. MUFF
I wish to raise the point of the encroachment on common land by the Beverley Racecourse Company, which has been given permission by the Minister of Agriculture so to do. I would like to bring to this honourable House the position of the aldermen and burgesses of the minster town of Beverley, and I would suggest that their rights have been seriously in- 1559 fringed by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the year 1664 the Archbishop of York of that day granted for all time about 1,000 acres of land in the district of Beverley called Westwood and also the pasture of Hum, and in doing so he laid it down distinctly that the land should be held free by the community for their pleasure, free access and recreation. This was regularised exactly 100 years ago to-day by the passing of the Beverley Common Pastures (Regulation) Act. That Act has 76 Clauses. I do not propose to enumerate them, but I wish to emphasise the fact that in the Preamble it is stated that the soil of this land shall be in the possession of the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of Beverley for ever. It also states that the operative Clause is Clause 74: provided also and be it further enacted that nothing in this Act contained shall authorise the said pasture freemen or pasture masters to exclude or deprive the public from resorting to the said common pasture for the purpose of exercises, amusement, recreation, etc., as freely as they have been heretofore permitted and accustomed to resort. In the course of time races and other amusements took place on this common land of the pasture of Hurn. They were not highly organised races—I should say jolly point-to-point meetings. As time went on a committee was appointed to organise proper horse racing, to which I have no objection on this occasion. Racing has gone on for 200 years, and the public have had free access and have been able to bring their own nags and alleged race-horses to take part in the racing. In more modern times temporary stables and stands were erected. Finally, a grand stand was erected in recent years, and in 1903 a private company was formed, consisting of eight members, with no issued shares. There are no shares issued in the company created to control this racecourse and the races which take place two days every year. The limit of liability of each of the eight directors or members is £5 each.
The Minister, in stating that he would allow these men to enclose part of the Pasture of Hum, said it was to enable them to make a profit and stave off bankruptcy, when all the time there has never been any danger of that bankruptcy taking place. Moreover, the Minister said it was to enable these people to pay 1560 £200 to the pasture masters. In every one of the 76 Sections of this Act the pasture masters are regulated, and the charges they can make are sufficient to enable them to carry on without any outside assistance.
The Minister says that these people have been carrying on at a loss. In 1903 their assets were £4,600. To-day they are over £15,000, chiefly in property, and quite recently they have spent £2,700 in buying additional property. The concession that the Minister gave them through his officials only ten days ago is worth an additional £1,000 to them, because it means the exclusion of the public from this fine Pasture of Hurn, which occupies the same position—a little bit of it—as, say, Tattenham Corner on Epsom Downs, where people have free access to see the races. The burgesses of Beverley are now excluded, though the Race Committee give a free ticket to every pasture master who has really no right to it. The Race Committee also scatter their tickets with prodigal Yorkshire hospitality among their friends in order to give them free admission. I want the Minister to reconsider his attitude. I want him to allow the burgesses to have the right to see the races for nothing, as the people have at Epsom. Their rights are protected by this Act of Parliament, Clause 76 of which says their rights are protected so long as the Act remains on the Statute Book.
I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that one member of the firm of solicitors for the company was until recently the Town Clerk of Beverley. Certainly with free tickets and with other methods they have managed to keep things sweet. The only protest was in a petition organised by a public-spirited woman. The Minister said there were only 200 signatures. Two hundred grown up people in a town like Beverley represent a not inconsiderable portion of the population. I contend that the Minister, instead of listening to this firm of solicitors and the ex town clerk, might have listened to the burgesses of Beverley. There has been the classic case of Hackney Marshes quite recently. Hackney Marshes are protected by a similar Act of Parliament to this. When the Minister of Health gave his consent to the London County Council building workmen's dwellings on Hackney Marshes, influential people in 1561 London took the matter to Court and the Lord Chief Justice said definitely that the Minister had no right to take even a portion of Hackney Marshes for dwellings. The position is this: At Epsom people can see the races for nothing, though Epsom is controlled not by an Act of Parliament but by the Lord of the Manor; we have the decision of the Lord Chief Justice in the classic case of Hackney Marshes; and I appeal to the Minister to give some concession to the burgesses of Beverley. By his action he leas given £941 last year and £1,000 this year to this company, without giving one benefit to the burgesses of Beverley. Not one copper has gone to the benefit of the rates of Beverley, the £200 has been given to the pasture masters who have no legal right to the money. I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to reconsider his decision, so that these people who have very little money shall riot have to go to law in this matter.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham)
I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) for raising this very interesting matter and for the antiquarian and historical researches in which he has engaged. I do not quarrel with them, and I would endorse what he says in regard to the antiquity of these races, which, as he rightly says, have been going on for the last 200 years. As he also correctly says, about 1767, a grandstand was erected which, to that extent, restricted the rights of the public. In 1837, another grandstand was erected, and I think about 6d. per annum was paid to the corporation by way of acknowledgement. I mention these points because they show that, for a long time, the public have had rights over this land, subject to certain users by the racecourse company.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS
Have the public had free access to these stands?

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I gather not. Certainly not. The hon. Member then raised a legal point in regard to what he says is the analogous case of the Hackney Marshes. I would point out to him, with respect, that there is no simi- 1562 larity between these two cases. In the first place, the Hackney Marshes case was a question whether the Housing Act of 1925 overrode the London Open Spaces Act, 1893, and the court held that it did not, and that the Act of 1893 still governed the situation.
In this case the Minister makes no claim to override the Act of 1836. All that the Minister does is to give consent, under the Law of Property Act, 1925. But he in no way expresses an opinion, or invalidates or validates the rights of the public under the Act of 1836. With great submission, I suggest that there is no similarity between those two cases, and I imagine that any court would distinguish one from the other without any difficulty.
In regard to the racecourse company themselves a few years ago they got permission to make an enclosure for seven days in the year. The racecourse company, according to my information, has been losing money steadily. The pasture-masters themselves have had an insufficient income to carry out their duties under the Act of 1836, so much so that, I am informed, certain trees which were cut down for fuel at the time of the coal stoppage some years ago have not yet been replaced on account of shortage of funds. Their actual income from the racecourse company at the present moment is £200 per annum. The permission to make this enclosure on seven days in the year should add substantially to the amount received by the pasture-masters, and thereby enable them to carry out their duties, which it is to the advantage of the country that they should carry out. They have to provide fencing, benches, seats for the public, and so on.
Unless my information is quite erroneous, their income is barely sufficient to enable them to carry out their existing duties, and it would be a very great advantage to the pasture-masters to have this additional income from the Racecourse Company. It would only exclude the public from the full use of this area on seven days in the year, and on the remaining 358 days the public will have the advantage of the additional revenue from the Racecourse Company. I think that, on the whole, the public will balance one advantage against the other, 1563 and will agree that the pasture-masters should be provided with an adequate income, as a result of this proposal, with which to carry out their duties and provide for the public amenities to which the public under the Act are entitled. For these reasons, I am sorry to say that 1564 the Minister cannot accede to the very well-expressed request of the hon. Member.