MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 22 May 1868)

§ VISCOUNT EVERSLEY
presented a Petition of Persons having Rights of Common over the New Forest and others: That the Report of the Commissioner in charge of the Royal Forests to the Lords of the Treasury (laid before the House on; the 28th of February last) may be referred to a Select Committee, said, that by various recent Acts the rights of the Crown and of the Commoners in respect of the game, timber, pasturage, and other forestal rights in the New Forest had been dealt with; and as regarded the Commoners, the petitioners complained that by these Acts the rights they possessed from time immemorial had been unduly abridged and prejudiced, and they therefore prayed for inquiry into the matter. He therefore moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
said, he would recall to their Lordships the circumstances under which the Act of 1851 was brought forward. It had been frequently complained in the House of Commons that the Royal forests were not properly managed; and it was alleged, in especial, that the New Forest, which had been transferred to the public, was so managed—or rather so ill-managed—as to be of no public benefit. The matter was inquired into by a Committee, and also by a Commission, who reported that the existence of deer in the Forest was demoralizing to the community, giving rise to 695 the existence of a number of poachers and deer-stealers, while they were of no advantage to the Crown. In consequence, in the year 1851, he (the Duke of Somerset), being then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, introduced a Bill (the Deer Removal Act), authorizing the removal of the deer and the inclosure, in lieu, of 14,000 acres for the Crown. The measure was very carefully inquired into by a Select Committee, and by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and in consequence of the statements which were made by gentlemen connected with the Forest, he agreed to reduce the number of acres to be appropriated by the Crown to 10,000. In that form the Bill passed. Complaints were now made that the plantation of the Forest had been injurious to the rights of pasturage, and it was said that the foresters did not know that that would be the result. Well, he could only say that their own knowledge and observation ought to have made them aware what would happen. Again, their complaints were inconsistent; for, while they called on the Government to drain the land, they said that the drains prevented the cattle from passing from one part of the Forest to another. The object of the Act of 1851 was to make the land more valuable, and in this it had been perfectly successful. The Act had been carried out as was proposed, and had operated very beneficially.

EARL NELSON
wished to make an appeal for an inquiry, not so much on the part of the landowners, as of the poor foresters, who had been seriously injured by the action of the Act of 1851. There were few real paupers in the New Forest, for in fact the forest labourer generally held five or ten acres of land; be was able to keep his cow and his pony, and with his turn-out he was placed above the position of most of the agricultural labourers of the kingdom. Inquiry was needed, because it was plainly seen that numbers of these agricultural labourers would be utterly ruined unless something was done. By other inclosures additional employment was provided, and until the waste land was broken up there was no real damage done to the peasant's right of turning out his cattle; but, in this instance, the inclosure opened no new fields of employment, and the foresters' turn-out of cattle was practically ruined. It was a mistake to suppose that the deer were an unmitigated evil, for they kept down the growth of holly and gorse 696 during the winter, and improved the pasturage; whereas now whole tracts of country were overrun by the underwood, and in the inclosures lately thrown out the rides where alone pasture was to be found were destroyed by the additional traffic through the Forest caused by making new plantations. The understanding, when the Act passed, was, that the land to be inclosed should be taken from the distant parts of the Forest, and not from the best parts; and it was a great grievance to the small holders he had named to find that large tracts of land were proposed for inclosure close to their dwellings. In time the whole Forest would become one vast wood, and it was absurd that in the 19th century such a barbarism should be permitted for the sake of growing timber for the navy, which would not come to maturity for 200 or 300 years, when, most likely, no timber would be required.

THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM
said, that the question as to whether the Act of 1851 was a proper settlement of the matters connected with the Forest, and whether that Act was one which should be continued in its present form or be modified, was one which it appeared to him might be advantageously discussed in a Select Committee. The interests of the Crown and the public were slightly at variance with those of the Commoners; and the question now was, whether the Act of 1851, should, after seventeen years' experience, be modified in some way, if allowed to remain intact. All the statements made that night seemed to point strongly to the necessity of defining the interests in the Forest. The Act of 1851 effected a great improvement on the former management of the Forest; but the result of its working might, he repeated, be advantageously inquired into, and he therefore had no objection to the appointment of the Committee moved for.

D. Somerset	L. Portman
E. Devon	L. Stanley of Alderley
E. Doncaster	L. Belper
E. Romney	L. Northbrook
E. Nelson	L. Fitzwalter
V. Eversley