PART I.—LAW AS TO THE REGULATION AND INCLOSURE OF COMMONS. (Hansard, 14 July 1876)

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,
after explaining that the last section of the clause stated that The population of any town for the purposes of this Act shall be reckoned upon the last published census for the time being, and distances shall be measured in a direct line from the outer boundary of the town to the nearest point of the suburban common, moved an Amendment to substitute "four" miles for "six" as the limit of 1428 distance, and to leave out ("outer boundary of the town") and insert— ("Town hall, or if there shall be no town hall, then from the cathedral or church if there shall be only one church, or if there be more churches than one, then from the principal market place of such town.")

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he understood the object of the noble Duke in proposing the Amendment was that there should be some definite point laid down in the Bill from which the measurement should be taken, so as to remove uncertainty. He agreed that that was desirable; but he was not altogether satisfied with the words suggested by the noble Duke, which might possibly be improved. If the noble Duke would now withdraw the Amendment he would consider the matter before the Report.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
remarked that the Metropolitan Commons Act was much more stringent than that clause, because it did not allow any common within 15 miles from the centre of London to be inclosed. He did not know why other towns were to be treated on a different principle. The Bill had been announced as a compromise on this question; but if the advantages conferred by the Bill were to be taken away little by little, the Government might be able to carry their measure, but it would not be accepted as a compromise, and the whole question would be re-opened.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
observed that the case of the Metropolis in respect of commons was altogether exceptional.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
pointed out that the one question before the Committee was whether they should have a constantly shifting boundary or one fixed central point in a town from which to measure the six miles.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, that if the boundary of the borough was to be deemed the boundary of the town, it was only reasonable that there should be some better definition of the boundary than that given in the Bill. Some municipal boroughs had their boundaries quite in the country. For instance, a small river in his deer park was the boundary of a small borough several miles distant. He would himself be quite unaffected by the Act, but he thought that there should be some better 1429 definition of what was to be deemed the "boundary" of a town; and it would be well there should be a different distance fixed for a large town of 500,000, from what there should be for a small of 5,000 inhabitants.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
suggested that this proposal was well worthy consideration.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
said, that after what had been said, he would leave the matter to the consideration of the Government.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he desired to propose an Amendment to put a stop to an evil which had been long prevalent. It constantly happened that when a common adjoined a town persons were tempted to inclose small pieces from time to time without any right whatever. As no person was entitled to resist such encroachments but the commoners themselves, and the process was exceedingly expensive, practically no one interfered. He might point out a notable instance in Epping Forest, where thousands of acres had been inclosed, during many years, without any right whatever; and but for the accident that the City of London had acquired rights as commoners, and had the spirit and the funds to interfere, that beautiful district would have been lost to the public. He thought it but reasonable that some authority—the urban authority—should be empowered to come forward to protect the rights of the public. He therefore proposed to insert in the clause after the 7th sub-section the words— In the case of a suburban common it shall be lawful for any urban sanitary authority which would be entitled under this Act to receive notice of an application for an inclosure to apply, if it shall think fit, to the county court within whose jurisdiction such common is situate for an order or injunction under the provisions of Section 30 of this Act. This Amendment would not interfere with rights of lords and commoners to inclose their commons by agreement among themselves, but it would give the urban sanitary authority the right to interfere to prevent inclosures which were simply illegal.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he could not consent to the Amendment, which would set up a 1430 new right of property. The Government, in introducing this Bill, stated its principle was to preserve all existing rights of property, and did not seek to confer any right on the public which they did not enjoy at the present moment. The Amendment, moreover, would enable an urban authority to contest the right of a private individual at the expense of public funds, and that, he thought, would be undesirable and unjust.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
supported the Amendment, which he thought desirable, in order to prevent the encroachment by individuals on public rights. It seemed to him to lie within the scope of the Bill, and would only slightly add to the power which the Bill conferred on urban authorities.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the Amendment was foreign to the principle of the Bill. Whilst he fully recognized the high honour that was due to the Corporation of London for what they had done in connection with Epping Forest, he could not sanction the general principle that private rights should be contested by means of public funds.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
moved, at end of clause, to insert— When part only of a common is situate within the aforesaid distance from a town, such part shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a common separate and distinct from the part situated without and beyond such distance.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
moved to omit the clause.

§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND
asked what the clause really meant.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, the clause was not in the Bill as originally introduced, but had been inserted in the passage of the Bill through the other House. He would look into the matter before the bringing up of the Report.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
moved, after Clause 20, to insert new clause— After the passing of this Act in all commons where rights of turbary exist it shall not be lawful for any person to skim or pare off the surface soil of such common, whether the peat in such common be exhausted or not.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Duke. The fundamental principle of the Bill was the preservation as far as possible of existing rights, and, therefore, if persons had a right to pare a common that right must not be interfered with.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
also opposed the Amendment on the ground that the right of turbary was one of the most ancient rights known to the law.