HL Deb 05 July 1877 vol 235 cc794-809

Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND and GORDON,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would remind their Lordships that the subject-matter of the measure had already passed through the ordeal of various inquiries and investigations in Committees of both Houses of Parliament. The principal object of the Bill was to define the mode in which the Office of Woods and Forests should exercise the powers given to it by existing Acts—namely, the Acts passed in 1691, in 1808, and in 1851—in reference mainly to the rights of the commoners, the public, and the Crown, and to amend the constitution of the Governing Body of the Forest. The area of the New Forest was at the present time something like 63,000 acres. Formerly—in the days of William the Conqueror and the Norman Kings—it had been larger; but it had since been diminished to the area he had just named. The ownership of the Forest—or, rather, those who were interested in it—might be divided into three heads. In the first place, there was the Office of Woods and Forests, representing the interests of the Crown; in the second place, there were the commoners, numbering about 1,300, and composed partly of small freeholders and labourers, whose rights had existed for hundreds of years; and then there was the public, who were interested in the preservation of the Forest as an open space for the purposes of recreation. As to the rights of the two first—the Crown and the commoners—by the 12th and 13th clauses of the Bill, the existing rights of the Crown were preserved, and if the measure passed those rights would in no way be interfered with. The clauses ran as follows:— 12. Nothing in this Act shall take away, abridge, or prejudicially affect any estate, right, title, power, claim, or privilege of Her Majesty, in, over, or to the Forest except in so far as is by this Act provided in relation to the exercise of the right of enclosure and the exercise of the right of enforcing the fence month and winter heyning during the payment of such acknowledgment as is in this Act on that behalf mentioned; and in the event of the Forest being disafforested and separate allotments being made to Her Majesty, and to the persons entitled to rights of common in or over the Forest, every estate, right, title, power, claim, and privilege of Her Majesty, in, over, or to the Forest, and the rights of the persons so entitled as aforesaid, shall respectively be estimated, valued, and allowed as they would have been if this Act had not been passed, and it is hereby declared that the right of Her Majesty, her heirs and succes- sors, to common of pasture and other rights of common over the Forest in respect of any property belonging to Her Majesty in severalty is unimpaired. 13. Nothing in this Act shall affect or prejudice any right of the Crown to any dues or sums hitherto payable by the commoners or other persons. He might add that the rights of the Crown and of the commoners had been generally estimated as being about equal. That fact was shown by an arrangement which was made when a railway was constructed through that part of the country, the money paid by the Railway Company being laid out for the mutual benefit of the Crown and the commoners. The entire subject had been considered by several Committees. One Committee of their Lordships' House sat in 1868 to inquire into the operation of the Deer Removal Act, and in their Report they recommended equitable consideration being given to the claims of the commoners. That recommendation, however, did not find general favour, either in or out of Parliament. The country was not in favour of having the main features of a Forest, which had practically remained unchanged for something like 800 years, altered in the manner suggested by the Committee. A Bill to give effect to the recommendation was introduced in 1870; but having been read a first time, it was not afterwards heard of. For several centuries there had been no dispute as to the relative rights existing in the Forest. The Crown enjoyed the' right of sporting, the commoners enjoyed the rights of which he had spoken; and only at a comparatively recent period did any difference of opinion arise. He would remind their Lordships that in 1698 an Act called the Plantation Act passed, which recited that it was necessary that an opportunity should be given of growing timber to keep up the Navy of the country, and the provisions of the Act were drawn with that view. In the year 1808 another Act was passed which superseded the former Act to a certain extent. It carefully set out that the planting under the Act should be done judiciously, and Commissioners were appointed to arbitrate between the Crown and the commoners, so that the interest of the latter might not be injuriously affected. The first real difficulty occurred after the passing of the Act of 1851, which was known as the Deer Removal Act. By that Act power was given for the first time to plant trees as distinguished from timber. The Office of Woods claimed such power of planting under that Act—and of planting fir trees totally irrespective of the rights of the commoners—that at no distant period the whole of the New Forest would have become one vast fir wood. He would leave it to their Lordships to say whether the rights of the commoners or the enjoyment of the public would in any way have been preserved if that course had been adopted. The commoners came to the conclusion that the views of the Office of Woods as regarded planting were not wholly confined to the object of improving the New Forest. They thought, in fact, from the proceedings of the Department, that the Office of Woods was actuated by some desire to depreciate the rights of the commoners in case of disafforestation;—and he admitted that from the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1854 the commoners did not appear to have been so very far wrong. Mr. Cumber batch, the Deputy Surveyor of the Forest, in a letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner, dated the 31st of December, 1853, spoke of the power acquired under the Crown by the Deer Removal Act as follows:— If this were done"—that is, large areas at once taken for planting—"nearly the whole of the land fit to grow oak timber in the New Forest that is not covered with growing plantations or already enclosed for the purpose of planting would he enclosed," and "much would become self-sown; exclusive of other advantages, by so doing all the best pasture would be taken from the commoners, and the value of their rights of pasture would thus be materially diminished, which would be of importance to the Crown in the event of any such rights being commuted. In 1854, Mr. Cumber batch was examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and, in reply to Mr. E. Denison, said— There are several requirements in the New Forest; one is, that land should be cleared for planting; and another is that as much land as possible should be kept covered with timber— because whenever we come to a general enclosure the more land is covered with timber, the greater allotment the Crown will get, and therefore I think the policy of the Crown is to keep as much land as possible covered with timber. In 1875, Mr. Howard, the Chief Commissioner of Woods, when under exa- mination before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, was asked, with respect to the letter of Mr. Cumber batch, whether he thought it a fair policy to adopt towards the commoners, to which he replied that— He thought it was good advice for the deputy surveyor to give to his employers; but he had better have done it vivâ voce." The Chief Commissioner would, therefore, not have made known the views so expressed by the deputy surveyor. Mr. Howard was afterwards asked whether he was disposed to repudiate that policy; to which he answered—"No, I do not repudiate it; I only say it had better not have been printed." Now, he (the Duke of Richmond) might almost rest his case upon that statement; but further on, in answer to another Member of the Committee, Mr. Howard, said that the policy of Mr. Cumber batch, in a worldly point of view, was right, and ought to be adopted. But what was to become, in that case, of the unfortunate commoners he (the Duke of Richmond) did not know. The Office of Woods claim to have planted 16,000 acres of the New Forest with trees, which made that space valueless to the commoners. In 1870 representations were made to the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1851, who were asked to mediate between the Office of Woods and the commoners. The latter complained that their interests had been unjustly dealt with. The Commissioners agreed in that view, and accordingly they declined to sanction the arrangements proposed. They had a meeting on the 14th of September, 1870, at which they came to this determination, and they had never met since; so that the operation of the Act of 1851 had come to a deadlock. In 1871 a Resolution was agreed to by the House of Commons that, pending legislation, no further enclosures should be allowed. A Select Committee was appointed by the other House in 1875. It was one in which both Houses would feel confidence, and it sat 14 days. The Committee examined Mr. Howard, the Chief Commissioner of Woods; Mr. Watson, solicitor; Mr. Cumber batch, the deputy surveyor; Mr. Clutton, the Crown Surveyor of Timber, &c. They inquired very fully into the interests of the commoners and the public, and they agreed to a Report. The Committee had two courses open to them—the alternative of disafforesting, which had commended itself to the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1868, and the less violent remedy of endeavouring to reconcile conflicting interests by doing what was just and fair to all parties. The last was the recommendation they adopted in their Report, and the Bill was absolutely and entirely identical with the Report, as far as a Bill could follow the Report of a Committee. The Committee of the House of Commons recommended— That powers of enclosure conferred by statute shall be exercised only on that area which has hitherto been taken in at various times, and been either kept or thrown out under the Acts 9 & 10 Will. III., c. 36, 48 Geo. III., c. 72, and the Deer Removal Act, 1851. That the Crown should retain the power of keeping 16,000 acres of growing timber and trees planted under the Acts of William III and 1851 at all times under enclosure; and that the Crown be entitled to enclose and throw out at will any portion of the area over which the powers of planting are to be exercised, with a view to its unrestricted use in such manner as may be deemed expedient for the most profitable growth of timber and trees; but that the rolling power over the open portion of the forest not now planted or enclosed under the Acts William III or 1851 should cease. That a nominal quit-rent be charged by the Crown to the commoners for the exercise of the right of common during fence month and winter heyning; provision may be made, if possible, for the payment of such quitrent by some body representative of the commoners. That the Verderers Court be re-constituted, so as to better represent the commoners, and to have power to regulate the exercise of the commoners' rights over the Forest, and to appoint officers to prevent encroachments upon them. That all the rights of the Crown reserved under the Acts of William III and 1851, except as it is herein suggested that they should be modified, be maintained. Those were the provisions which the Government had introduced into the present Bill. There were some other points with regard to the "winter heyning" and the fence month, into which it was unnecessary to enter. The Bill also provided a new constitution for the Court of Verderers. The present measure was introduced into the other House of Parliament, where it was referred to a Select Committee. The Committee only sat for one day, and only a single division occurred on one of the provisions of the Bill, the numbers being eight to one in favour of the Bill. The Amendment of which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had given Notice went to destroy the Bill altogether. What the noble Duke meant was disafforestation, which he advocated some years ago. If the Bill did not pass, matters would revert to the status quo which had existed ever since the Resolution of the House of Commons in 1871 that, pending legislation, nothing should be done. If, however, nothing was to be done, it seemed to him that the position of affairs in the New Forest would be very bad. He trusted that their Lordships would pass a Bill which carried into effect the recommendations of the House of Commons Committee, and under which the rights of the commoners would be protected, while the rights of the Crown would be in no way-interfered with. He now asked their Lordships to give this Bill a second reading.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord President.)

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,

in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day three months, said, that he rose to oppose this Bill as injurious to the rights of the Crown:— it was a Bill, in fact, to take away the property of the Crown, and transfer it to the commoners and the electors of Southampton. He would first ask their Lordships to remember what were the rights of the Crown with regard to the New Forest. The Crown had practically a right to 63,000 acres of land in the New Forest; it had forestal rights; and it had also 2,000 acres which were the absolute property of the Crown, and were held altogether separately. The right with which they were now dealing was the right of the Crown to these 63,000 acres. He would ask their Lordships to consider what were the rights of the Crown separately from the Act of 1851—because, by the present Bill, they were about to repeal altogether the Act of 1851. Previous to that Act the Crown had an absolute right to the soil—it had a right to keep an unlimited stock of deer —the number shortly before the Act was passed had been about 8,000—and, in fact, the Crown had a right to stock the Forest with deer to any extent, and the rights of the commoners were quite subordinate to that right. The Crown had also an exclusive right to the Forest during six months of the year—the five months of "winter heyning" and the fence month. During half the year, therefore, the rights of the commoners were in abeyance, and their cattle, pigs, and whatever stock they had were sent away. The Crown had also the "rolling right," that is, the right of planting 6,000 acres; and when any part of that area was covered with trees high enough to be secure from injury by deer or by commoners' cattle, the Crown had a right to inclose as many acres as it then threw open. On the other hand, the commoners had the right of pasture, concurrent with the Crown's rights, during six months of the year; they had also a right to a certain amount of timber for fuel, but not for sale, and the right to cut turf under consent of the verderers; but all those rights were subordinate to the rights of the Crown. About 1840 the House of Commons entertained a notion that the property of the Crown might be made much more valuable, and they accordingly appointed a Committee to inquire into the different forests of the Crown. The Committee considered the New Forest in 1848 and 1849, and made certain recommendations. In the year 1850 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the state of the New Forest and the means of improving it. It inquired under the presidency of Lord Portman; and it reported that the first thing to do was to get rid of the deer, as it was impossible to improve the Forest so long as they were retained; and, moreover, that deer were the cause of demoralization of the surrounding population, owing to the poaching to which it gave rise. In 1850, when the Commission reported, Her Majesty had done him the honour of appointing him to the Office of Woods, which was at that time a Parliamentary Office, and he had to consider how the recommendation of the Commission regarding the deer could be carried into effect. He looked to see what had been done in previous times. He found that in 1786 there had been a very careful inquiry, followed by legislation. Following the precedent of a Bill introduced by the Government in the year 1792, he proposed to abolish the right of the Crown to maintain deer, and to inclose 20,000 acres as a set-off. This was in accordance with measures formerly adopted in other Royal forests. A Bill to that effect passed the second reading, and was referred to a Select Committee, by which it was approved. But some persons representing the commoners and landowners of the New Forest came to him and said he had taken too much land in consideration of abolishing the deer. Meetings were held; and after some time it was agreed, instead of taking 20,000 acres, to limit himself to 10,000 acres, which, with 6,000 previously taken under the Act of 1698, extended the rights of the Crown to 16,000 acres, and a Bill to that effect was passed in 1851. At that time the rights of the commoners had not been clearly ascertained. A Commission was appointed to ascertain those rights, and a considerable sum of money was spent. A small portion of the Forest was under the Bill agreed to be sold to defray that expense. When that was done it was not thought that in establishing 1,000 or 1,200 men in perfect rights of common they were giving them a great interest in resisting the rights of the Crown. Before that the commoners had not the same interest; but when they saw that they had real rights entered in a book they could combine together, and they combined accordingly, saying that their rights were much injured. Some of them were electors for South Hampshire, and as soon as they got that right they used it for the purpose of increasing their rights. The Act of 1851 reserved the rights of the Crown, providing that nothing contained in it should tend to take away, alter, or affect any of the rights or privileges whatsoever of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, in, over, and upon the Forest other than the right of keeping deer there. The Act left all the other rights of the Crown, save that of keeping deer, untouched in any way. Therefore, the rights of winter heyning and the exclusive right over the Forest for six months remained vested in the Crown. That was the decision of the Commission which sat and considered the subject. In 1868 they had a Committee of that House. It was quite true that it proposed to disafforest the Forest to a certain extent. If another arrangement were to be made, he saw no other way than to give some of the property to the Crown in severalty, and so separate the rights of the Crown altogether from those of the commoners. It was quite clear that a joint occupation of common was injudicious, and must be the subject of continual disputes. The Committee of 1868 said, and said truly, that the interests of the Crown and those of the commoners were at variance, and that there must be a perpetual struggle between those conflicting interests. The Committee were of opinion that the right course was to appoint a Commission for alloting some portion of the Forest to the Crown in fee, free from all common rights. That was proposed by the Committee in 1868. It was, he confessed, with reluctance that he agreed to that Report, and he did so because he saw no other mode of settling the dispute between the Crown and the commoners. Well, what was proposed to be done by this Bill of 1877? It repealed the Act of 1851; it declared that the Crown was to have a right over no more than about 16,000 or 17,000 acres, while the commoners were to have the other 45,000 acres. That was a very unfair division. The forestal rights of the Crown were taken away; the exclusive rights for six months were also taken away; and the Crown was clearly placed in a much worse position than it occupied before the Act of 1851, when it had the right of keeping deer. By one of the clauses of the present Bill it was provided that in consideration of a payment to Her Majesty on behalf of the commoners of the sum of 20s. on or before the 14th of January the rights of Her Majesty to the winter heyning and the fence month were all to cease. When he looked at that he naturally said to himself—"Here the Crown's right for the six months is valued at £1 sterling." Well, what was the right of the commoners valued at? The commoners' right was not an exclusive right, but was concurrent with the right of the Crown; but the Bill put the right of the commoners as worth 45,000 acres, while that of the Crown was valued at £1. That he thought a most unjust arrangement. Then as to the constitution of the Court of Verderers—the verderers were to be seven in number, six to be elective, and the Crown was to appoint only one. The verderers were not to take an oath to do justice; and that was well, because they must do what was expected of them, and there was to be no justice for the Crown. The electors were to be, not the commoners only, but all persons whose names were on the list of Parliamentary voters of any' parish within the perambulation of the Forest. With regard to the Committee of 1877, it was true that Bill had been referred to a Select Committee—the Committee sat exactly one day. It took no evidence; it did not hear anyone on the part of the Crown; nobody represented the Crown. It was the same as in the case of the Committee of 1875, where nobody represented the Crown. The Crown used to be represented by the Commission of Woods in the House of Commons; but now it was not represented. They were told by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that the Forest was ill-managed and that the commoners had been injured; but was that a reason for taking away the Crown's rights of property? Ought they not to take another course? Ought they not to effect some adjustment between the rights of the Crown and the rights of the commoners? The Bill would take property from the Crown and put the Crown in a much worse position than it was in before. He asked, therefore, that the Bill should not be read a second time until they had had a Committee or a Commission to consider in what way the Crown could have equivalent rights for those which had been taken away.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Duke of Somerset.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Duke who has just sat down; and I am quite sure your Lordships are persuaded — as I am persuaded — that nothing would have led him to make the proposal he has done but a sense that the arrangement which Parliament is asked to sanction by this Bill is in itself an unfair arrangement, and one that ought not to be assented to. The noble Duke has asked your Lordships to consider what was the position of the Crown and of the commoners in the New Forest in 1851, when the Act was passed. The noble Duke says, that, in the first place, the Crown had the right of putting an unlimited stock of deer in the Forest; that, in the second place, it had the right of excluding the commoners during the winter months; and that, in the third place, it had the right of planting 16,000 acres with timber. Now, with regard to this unlimited right of putting deer upon the Forest, we all know that the term "unlimited" maybe applied in point of law; but in point of practice it has no meaning whatever. There is no power of an unlimited quantity in the New Forest, any more than in any other forest; and every person knew that the right of the Crown was limited by the capacity to maintain deer in winter, and that the limit was as practical as if had been denned by Act of Parliament. Therefore it is perfectly absurd—if the noble Duke will excuse me for saying so —for some lawyers who have spoken on this subject to talk about the unlimited right of the Crown to place deer upon the New Forest in thousands and thousands. As the New Forest had a limited capacity of sustaining deer in the winter, the Crown, in order to save the lives of the deer, had the right of preventing commoners feeding their beasts in the New Forest during the winter months. That was the original right of the Crown, and it continued for 300 years. The Crown was owner of the fee simple of the Forest; but the Crown owned the Forest as lord of the manor, subject to the rights of the commoners over the Forest. As to the right of planting 16,000 acres with timber, that was a right which had its origin described in the Act of Parliament which secured it. The Preamble of the Act of 1698 declared the expediency of providing a sufficiency of timber for the supply of the Royal Navy, and in order to secure that supply the Crown was authorized to enclose, within a period of 20 years, 6,000 acres and plant them with timber. Therefore, the object of the Act was not to adjust the rights between the Crown and the commoners—to take something from the one side, and to give an equivalent to the other—but to promote a great public purpose—to give facility for the growth of timber for the Navy. From that time the commoners themselves derived very great and substantial benefit. When the trees were of age, the enclosure was to be thrown up; but for years before the timber was measured, the commoners had the benefit of the shade of the trees and the right of taking the bark of the trees—a most valuable right. Now, on the other hand, the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) makes light of the rights of the commoners; but I find that by a valuation taken by officers of the Crown themselves in 1849, the interests of the commoners in the New Forest were computed to be from one-half to two-thirds of the value of the Forest; while Mr. Clutton, an eminent land surveyor, acquainted with the district, estimated them at less than one-half. I now come to what the noble Duke calls the bargain of 1851. The noble Duke speaks of that arrangement as though it had been a bargain between the commoners on the one hand and the Crown on the other. The persons to whom the noble Duke refers were those who lived upon the confines of the Forest, and who were interested and rejoiced very much in its amenities, which were of great advantage to them. It was quite true that their case was that the deer were a great inconvenience to them— that they had been compelled to fence in their property against the deer, which they alleged did considerable injury to it; and their demand was that the Crown should give up keeping those animals in the Forest. But the poor commoners did not intervene—in fact, at that time, and, indeed, for some years afterwards, it was not known who the commoners were; but it was subsequently ascertained that they consisted mainly of poor men having small properties to whom the pasturage in the Forest was of considerable value. And what was the view of the deer taken by these persons? Why, instead of being a disadvantage to them, they were of the greatest possible advantage, inasmuch as they kept down the rank herbage, the heather, and the low undergrowth, which, if allowed to grow, ruins the pasturage. But now that the deer have been removed the pasturage is very much worse than it was. Every person who has had experience of the deer forests in the North, knows what is the result of not keeping down the rank herbage. Therefore, so far from the commoners having entered into a bargain with the Crown in 1851, I believe that they had considerable reason to complain of what was then done. But what was done in 1851? I venture to say that the arrangement made then was wrong in principle, and that when it came to be carried out in practice, the practice was worse than the principle, and that it was absolutely broken down. The principle of that arrangement was this—by way of following out the precedent which had been established with the view of promoting the growth of timber, Parliament was asked to extend the principle of that precedent to an extent that had never been contemplated by those who were responsible for it, and to sanction the enclosure of portions of the Forest, not for the purposes of the growth of timber, but to compensate the Crown for giving up the deer. Now, if it was intended to have compensated the Crown at all, it would have been much better to give it a specific allotment of land. Nothing could have been worse than to give the Crown a rolling right to go from part to part of the Forest and enclose land here and there and to plant firs and other trees to an enormous extent. Every person who visits the New Forest is shocked to see miles of hideous, black, unsightly fir plantations which even when they have come to maturity will scarcely repay the cost of planting, and which have absolutely ruined for ever the best pasture land in the Forest. Even if these trees were cut down at once it would be impossible, without going to an enormous expense, to restore the land for the purposes of pasture. And what has been the result of the arrangement? Why, the powers given to the Crown by the Act of 1851 could not be exercised. Under the provisions of the Act these enclosures were not to be made at the mere will of the Crown, but with the consent of the justices of the peace in the neighbourhood; and the result has been that in a large number of cases the Crown has been unable to obtain that consent. Therefore, the present position of things is this—that the Crown has, in law, a rolling right to make plantations all over the Forest, but that that right cannot be exercised. I think that the House will agree with mo that that is a position of things which ought not to be allowed to continue. Under this Bill an absolute and an incontestable right is given to the Crown to enclose over a space of 18,000 acres, which it is calculated will about compensate the Crown for the rights to enclose over other parts of the Forest which will be taken from it. The remaining rights of the Crown over the rest of the Forest are rights which will only be of value— and then of very considerable value—if ever disafforestation should be made— and these rights the Bill expressly reserves. It appears to me that the recommendation of the Committee of the other House upon which this Bill is based is a very fair settlement of this difficult question. Something must be done. Things can no longer go on as they are. The Government have no desire, as the noble Duke has said, to surrender the rights of the Crown. The Bill will enable the Crown to exercise rights which it cannot now exercise, and it will save all the rights which the Crown now possesses. What is done in regard to the fence month and the winter heyning is precisely the same course as that recommended by a Committee of your Lordships' House. Then, again, the noble Duke took objection to the Court of Verderers; but, at present, the Crown does not elect any one of the four; in future, it will elect one of seven. I trust, in these circumstances, your Lordships will not consent to the appointment of any more Committees to investigate this subject for further inquiry — it has already been submitted to every kind of inquiry—and that you will give effect to the provisions of the Bill which has come up almost unanimously from the other House, and which, in my opinion, are wise and sound.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he did not feel himself competent to enter into a legal argument with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but to the unlearned mind, it was very difficult to see that the Crown was not giving away its rights over a large portion of the Forest to the commoners. He thought it was the duty of their Lordships to prevent that sort of administration of the Crown property which would not be tolerated by any person having large estates of his own. The object in dealing with the Forest should be to preserve it in that state of wild and natural beauty which was now its peculiar charm, and it appeared to him that the Bill signally failed in this object. No provision was made for a succession of timber; and yet they complained that the Department of Woods and Forests had not acted judiciously in the plantations it had made. They were practically going to transfer the Forest from a Public Department, immediately under the control of Parliament, to the commoners of the Forest—and that was very far indeed from his idea of the means of preserving for the public that natural state of the Forest which they all desired. He could not see what objection there was to referring the matter to a Com- mittee. Their Lordships were asked to reverse the decision to which they came only nine years ago after careful consideration, and before doing that he thought they should have had an opportunity of going through the Bill by means of a Select Committee.

VISCOUNT EVERSLET

said, that after the able and exhaustive speech of the noble and learned Lord on the "Woolsack, it would be presumptuous in him to detain their Lordships by many observations on the Bill then under discussion; but he hoped he might be allowed to say that, having taken great interest in the operation of the Deer Removal Act of 1851, he readily accepted this Bill as a just and reasonable settlement of the claims of those who had rights of Common over the New Forest and the Crown, for it must not be forgotten that over and above the 18,000 acres which were to be reserved for planting, the Crown would have the benefit of all the self-sown timber grown in other parts of the Forest, which was said to be rapidly increasing in consequence of the removal of the deer.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

withdrew his Amendment.

The said Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.