SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 July 1878)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it proposed the disafforestation, the preservation, and the management of certain parts of the Forest, as a place for the recreation and enjoyment of the public, and for other purposes. This question of the inclosure of Epping Forest had 1202 been before the public now for many years. It had formed the topic of debate in the other House of Parliament, and it had also been discussed—at least, some portions of it—in the Law Courts. In former days, it was considered that the inclosing of commons and open spaces was an advantage to the community at large. It was thought that it gave an increased area for labour—it was thought that by increasing those spaces it would enlarge the acreage on which food was produced for the people; but, generally speaking, it was advocated upon the ground that the more the land was inclosed the better it would be for the public in general. In 1853, the Law Officers of the Crown advised the sale of the Forest, and that the Crown should give up the rights which it possessed over something like half the forest land, amounting to about 4,000 acres. It was thought right, by these proposals, that the lords of the manor should be able to in close the land which they purchased; and having purchased the land, they considered they had bought all the rights, the common law rights, which belonged to that part of the Forest they had bought—and, that, therefore, they could not be disturbed in the possession of that which they had thus acquired. A considerable number of inclosures, therefore, were made. He found that some time after this occurred, public attention was called to the inclosures in various parts of the country, amongst others in Epping Forest, and in the year 1865, public attention having been so called to it, a Society, was formed of Members of Parliament and others, who were interested in the matter. They formed themselves into a Society, and they called themselves the "Commons' Preservation Society." The proceedings under the inclosure of Epping Forest were brought forward at a later period by Mr. Fawcett; and in February, 1870, he carried an Address to the Crown, praying— That Her Majesty will take such measures as in Her judgment she may deem most expedient, in order that Epping Forest may be preserved as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. The matter, however, was not taken up at the moment. The Government of that day took some steps, it was true, towards carrying out the views which had been expressed in that Address, passed at the 1203 instance of Mr. Fawcett; but they were taken in a manner which was not considered satisfactory by those who were interested in the question; and, accordingly, he found that in the following year, Mr. Cowper-Temple moved the House of Commons, to the effect that— It is expedient that measures be adopted, in accordance with the humble Address presented to Her Majesty in February 1870, for preserving as an open space accessible to Her Majesty's subjects, for purposes of health and recreation, those parts of Epping Forest which have not been in closed with the assent of the Crown or by legal authority. Mr. Cowper-Temple, not being satisfied with the steps taken by Mr. Ayrton, when First Commissioner of Works, carried his Motion in the House of Commons, contrary to the opinion and the wish of the Government, by a considerable majority. The Corporation of the City of London, which had been traditionally associated with the Forest, then took action in the interests of the City of London, inasmuch as the Metropolitan Board of Works declined to take any action in the matter, considering that they had no funds available for such a purpose. The Corporation came forward, and the proceedings which were taken by them under the In closure Acts were recommended by the Law Officers of the Crown. A bill was filed in Chancery by them in 1871, raising the whole question. The right which was asserted in that suit was that the Commissioners of Sewers in the City of London, suing for the Corporation, were owners and occupiers of 200 acres of land in the Forest, and were entitled, in respect of that, to the right of common pasture over all the waste lands of the Forest, and that any inclosures made within 20 years of the filing of the suit were not lawful as against the plaintiffs and other owners and occupiers of land within the Forest. The case was argued at some length, and finally the judgment of the Master of the Rolls was given, after a hearing which extended over 22 or 23 days. The judgment was in favour of the plaintiffs, his Lordship declaring that they had the rights which they claimed; and, practically, he ordered that all the illegal inclosures which had been made within the past 20 years should be laid open. The effect of the decision was that the inclosures of the lords of the manor and 1204 the two owners who were proceeded against in the suit were thrown open. There were certain portions of the Forest which had been bought and inclosed under an arrangement with persons who were assumed to have a right to confer a title to them. Upon those portions houses had been built, and pleasure-grounds laid out and inclosed. There were other portions of the ground upon which there were no buildings. Now a proposal was made that those persons who had built houses should be allowed to remain in their possession, the houses being suffered to remain, where they were, upon a certain payment being made. It was felt that those who had thus purchased and inclosed portions of the Forest, not knowing that in inclosing they were acting improperly, should be dealt with in a manner different from that in which those who had made inclosures under other circumstances should be treated. The Master of the Rolls declared—and those who took the proceedings in his Court admitted the point—that a grievance would naturally be felt by those persons who had bought land in the Forest under the belief that they were buying all the common rights in the land, and not knowing at all that the rights of the common extended over the whole of the Forest, whether the part the Crown was possessed of or any other part. The Master of the Rolls recommended that the Commissioners, who had previously been appointed by Her Majesty in answer to an Address, should form a scheme dealing with the question regarding persons who had acquired land in the Forest, as they thought equitable. The matter had been under consideration in various ways for some time; but nothing had been done up till this year—at least, no real progress had been made—and it had not been possible to bring the matter to a conclusion till the present Session. It had been decided that the Corporation of the City of London should be the Conservators of the Forest, and that some quit rents should be paid by the grantees of the lands to which he had alluded. That was the case the Government had to consider at the commencement of the Session. What should they advise in the matter, and was it one they should at once take up? It appeared that if nothing were done, the old state of 1205 things would re-commence, the restraining Act passed in 1873 being about to expire, and everyone who took an interest in the matter would have deeply deplored the recurrence of the disputes and litigation which had previously gone on to such a considerable extent. Looking at the case with all its surroundings, the Government determined to go into the matter. They had accordingly introduced a Bill to which he should ask their Lordships to give a second reading; and they had, they hoped, brought about a satisfactory compromise between the different parties affected. An Arbitrator was appointed under the Bill—a gentleman of very considerable eminence; and who would, no doubt, have great weight with those upon whose claims he would be called upon to adjudicate—Sir Arthur Hobhouse. The object of the Bill, then, "was two-fold. The Corporation of the City of London, which had come forward so magnificently to take charge of the Forest on behalf of the public, feeling that they were intimately connected with that part of the outskirts of London which included it, and that they ought to look after the amusements of the people, especially of those who lived in the East End of London, would have the control of the Forest. He was glad the requirements of so large a body of the people were thus to be considered, and that they would have much-needed facilities for obtaining recreation and fresh air, and the other advantages to be derived from open spaces in a great Metropolis like this. The second portion of the Bill was to quiet the titles of those innocent purchasers who had acquired land under professional advice, believing that they were acquiring land with a good title, and by no means imagining that the rights of commoners in distant parts of the Forest would affect their property. Such was the character of the Bill, and it would be seen from the remarks he had addressed to them that it was one of compromise. It had been very carefully considered. In the other House it had been discussed and considered at length. Great pains had been taken in order to prevent anything like injustice being done to any of the persons affected by the measure. He hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading, and that by means of it they would be able to put an end to a condition of 1206 things of which he might say that it was not creditable to our Legislature, and enable persons living in the East End of London to benefit by having within, their reach a spacious and beautiful open space.