Sitting of 5 July 1877

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading— Colonial Fortifications* (133); Saint Stephen's Green (Dublin)* (134); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Glasgow)* (135); Local Government Provisional Orders (Sewage)*(136).
Second Heading—New Forest* (123).
Committee—Reservoirs* (103).
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (112); Municipal Corporations (New Charters)* (125).
Third Heading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment* (109); Trade Marks* (106); Royal Irish Constabulary* (120), and passed.
Withdrawn—Imbecile, Lunatic, and other Afflicted Classes (Ireland) (110).

IMBECILE, LUNATIC, AND OTHER AFFLICTED CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL
(The Lord O'Sagan.)
IMBECILE, LUNATIC, AND OTHER AFFLICTED CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL

  BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said:
  788
  My Lords, the Bill which I have laid on the Table will, if it be approved by Parliament, have very important results for multitudes of our fellow-suffering countrymen, and your Lordships will bear with me while I state very briefly the motives which have led me to introduce it. So long ago as 1851 the Irish Census Commissioners addressed the Irish Government in these terms—
  "We respectfully suggest to your Excellency the propriety of taking some steps towards the education and moral improvement of idiots and imbeciles—a subject which at present engages the attention of the philanthropic both in England and on the Continent, where several establishments for the purpose have been erected, and are supported by the State, and in which the susceptibility of this class to a certain amount of education has been demonstrated."
  Ten years passed, and the suggestion had produced no result—nothing whatever was done to educate or improve these miserable people. A new Census took place, and in 1861 the Commissioners again pressed upon the Executive the same continuing necessity in precisely the same words;—but unhappily with no better effect—to the present hour no Government has paid any attention to it, and in 1877 things remain exactly as they were in 1851. A generation has passed away—the great work of charity which was urged by the Commissioners has gone on successfully abroad; and many of your Lordships may have seen the admirable institutions which have long existed in Belgium and elsewhere, redeeming unhappy children from darkness and misery, and restoring them in numbers to comparative intelligence and capacity for the business of life. In England very much has been done, and is doing, for the same noble purpose. Many admirable institutions have been established for the benefit of these unfortunate persons, and a great and good work has been accomplished. Ireland has had almost no share in this happy progress—for the first Irish Poor Law had no reference to the care of imbeciles. The Act of 1843, which provided for the deaf and dumb and blind, did not apply to those whose case is certainly not less lamentable, who have less power of self-help or self-assertion, who have far less chance of developing such capabilities of culture or enjoyment as God may have left to them, and whose miseries, from the neglect, disgust, or ill-treat-

  789
  ment of those around them, are incomparably greater. This began to be felt in England, and the Act of 1862 enabled the Guardians of the Poor to send to certified schools not only the blind and deaf, but also "lame, deformed, or idiotic persons." That Act does not extend to Ireland, and its beneficent provisions are to this hour denied her. What powers were given by the Act of 1843 have been admirably utilised. Voluntary institutions, amply endowed by voluntary benevolence, have been aided by the State, and Europe does not contain any establishments more efficiently worked for the blind and the deaf and dumb. On the same principles our reformatories and industrial schools have been made fruitful of immense advantage; and there is no sort of reason why, by the same agencies, asylums for imbeciles should not have been created with the same great results. But those agencies have not been provided; and whilst in this regard the rest of the world has been moving on, Ireland has remained where she was a quarter of a century ago. Fortunately, the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland distinguish imbeciles from lunatics in their statistical returns—a practice which the Commissioners and lunatic asylums in England would do well to follow, and I am, therefore, enabled to state to your Lordships the actual number and respective positions at the end of 1874. On the 31st December in that year there were in Ireland 8,151 imbeciles and idiots, of whom 1,740 were in workhouses, 638 were in asylums, and 5,773 were at large and utterly uncared for. The beneficence of a good physician, Dr. Stewart, who has devoted the earnings of his life to the maintenance of an institution for idiots, provides more or less for 43, many of whom are supported in it by their relatives; but there remain nearly 6,000, some 71 per cent of the whole, whose education and moral improvement are as entirely disregarded as when the Commissioners made their appeal in 1851. Crowds of them are homeless wanderers, exposed to all extremities of want and suffering, miserable in themselves, and a nuisance to that society which too often treats them with contumely and insult. Is not this a reproach to our humanity and a scandal to our civilization? Only 10 per cent of lunatics are so neglected in Ireland—
  790
  perhaps, unhappily, because they are feared by their fellow-men, whilst the poor imbeciles may safely be despised and left to pine and perish, and the minority, who are received into the asylum and the workhouse, ought not to be there. The imbecile and the lunatic should never be associated.
  "It has long been our opinion," say the English Commissioners in Lunacy in 1865, "as the result of extended experience and observation, that the association of idiot children with lunatics is very objectionable and injurious to them, and upon our visits to country asylums we have frequently suggested arrangements for their separate treatment and instruction. It is always to us a painful thing to see idiot children, whose mental faculties and physical powers and habits are capable of much development and improvement, wandering without object or special care about the wards of a lunatic asylum. The benefits to be derived even in idiot cases apparently hopeless from a distinctive system, and from persevering endeavours to develop the dormant powers, physical and intellectual, are now so fully established that any argument upon the subject would be superfluous."
  And the workhouse is for the imbecile, I need not say, a still worse abode than the asylum. It affords him no chance of training or development. It makes him the subject of ill-treatment and annoyance from those on whom his presence exerts a painful and demoralizing influence. In this state of things I offer to your Lordships a Bill which for the first time aims to carry out the suggestions of 1851 and 1861. It will secure for Ireland the advantage of English legislation, which has been so long enjoyed by the people of this country, and supply the machinery and the means for improving the condition of the thousands whose pitiable condition appeals to all our generous sympathies. I shall not argue that it is the right of those wretched people to be dealt with, as human beings, considerately and kindly, or that it is the duty of the Legislature to see that they are so dealt with. Until a recent period all who were afflicted with mental alienation or mental weakness suffered grievously from popular prejudice and ignorance — sometimes from gross neglect, sometimes from grosser cruelty; but better times have come, and humaner counsels have prevailed. We know that the lunatic's best possibility of cure is not from the dark cell or the iron chain, and that the imbecile is often capable of intellectual application, and of some, though limited

  791
  enjoyment. There is no longer a difference of opinion on these points—a large experience has made them plain and indisputable—the imbecile may be made industrious and happy. In the Grafton Street Institution and others to which I have referred, there are children who in other circumstances would have been thought incapable of thinking with regard to this life or the next, but who, by means of the care bestowed upon them in these institutions, have developed considerable intelligence, taken an interest in the industry in which they are employed, and are capable even of religious instruction. No one who has seen the children in the Royal Albert Asylum can have the smallest doubt that they are capable of becoming industrious and intelligent, and, above all, are capable of an enjoyment such as, but for an exercise of the charity I ask your Lordships to exercise, they never could have had in this world. But on these grounds only I do not base my appeal for those changes which will equalize English and Irish law and take away a great shame from Ireland. I shall say, in words which are not more felicitous and expressive than true in thought and generous in feeling—
  "It is much, in an industrial point of view, to be able to turn idlers into workers, more especially when those idlers are not only themselves incapable of labour, but, by the necessity of being looked after, the keeping other persons from what might be useful and productive employment. But it is still more important, as I think, to assert, as we do by our care of these unfortunate persons, the principle that a human being is to be respected and valued as such, not for his capacity of productive labour, not merely for the sharpness of his wits, not because there is anything about him which is pleasant to see or which it is agreeable to have to do with; but simply because he is a member of the human race, born on English soil, and, therefore, in that double capacity has a claim upon us as a human being and an Englishman."
  My Lords, these are the weighty words of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has done immense service to the cause of these imbeciles of England. On behalf of those of Ireland I press the same urgent claim, on the same high grounds which he has taken, and I am sure your Lordships will not regret it. You have already accepted unanimously an elaborate measure for the regulation of the practice in lunacy of the Irish Court of Chancery, which I had the good fortune
  792
  to carry through this House some years ago. It has worked admirably, and will be still more useful in the future for the protection of lunatics having property, great or small, over whom the Lord Chancellor has proper jurisdiction. The more numerous lunatics of a lower class are well taxed for in our direct asylums, which are liberally endowed and wisely managed, and if the Legislature will aid by its sanction and support the object of this Bill much good will be accomplished, and a great work of charity and mercy made complete.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would not have offered any opposition to the Bill, if he could see that it would be carried out in a proper and legitimate manner, as was done in England; but so far as he could understand the provisions of the Bill, its operation would differ from that of the Act for England. It did not seem to him that imbeciles would be cared for under the provisions of this Bill as they were here. He could not find any provision in the Bill for that close inspection and those minute returns which were required under the Act for England. He thought no paupers or other persons should be sent to any institution without strict inquiry. The Committee or Commission to which the noble and learned Lord referred recommended, as he understood, that these institutions should be made public institutions. Last year an Act was passed for the removal of harmless lunatics first of all to a poor-house, and he should have thought that Act applied to imbeciles, and that they could be sent to a properly certified house. The English Act gave a right of entrance to institutions of this sort to every guardian, overseer, and medical officer; but, so far as he could see, that was not provided for in this Bill. He thought this Bill would be a step towards doing away with public institutions, and after a little while sending the poor as well as the imbecile into private institutions which would not be at all under public supervision, as he thought they ought to be. He did not think the Bill could be amended in Committee without being completely taken to pieces, and, therefore, he moved that

  793
  the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  LORD INCHIQULNsaid, he would support the Bill, and thought the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) was entitled to all praise for having brought this subject under their Lordships' attention. In a recent Report of the Charity Organization Society it was especially recommended that this class of imbeciles and idiots should not be placed in the same house nor be subject to the same control with the more dangerous class of lunatics; and it was evident that by mixing the different classes much injury might be done to the former. Much of the lunacy of Ireland was due to the adulteration of drink. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government, even if they could not see their way to supporting the Bill, would deem the subject worthy of investigation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEYhoped their Lordships would not give their assent to the second reading of this Bill, He shared in the sympathy of his noble and learned Friend for the afflicted; but he thought that the 5,700 imbeciles now at large in Ireland were much happier in the pure air of Heaven than they would be if shut up, and that the noble and learned Lord had not made out his case; for he said that in Ireland a distinction was drawn between lunatics and imbeciles, and that they were not placed in contact, which was bad for them, whilst in England they were placed together; and so long as so many lunatics were at large in this country who were dangerous to the interests of England, the 5,700 imbeciles in Ireland, who were quite harmless, might be left at large. Though the imbeciles in Ireland were at large, they were not necessarily neglected, and this Bill would strike a blow at one of the best traits in the Irish character, for the poor in Ireland were remarkable for their kindness and good treatment of imbeciles. Moreover, their Lordships would remember that the Party which passed the Disestablishment of the Irish Church intended to apply the surplus of the Church funds to lunatic asylums; and it appeared to him that there might be a desire now
  794
  to swell the number of lunatics and afflicted in order to justify such an application of the surplus. But however that might be, he thought that if the country should decide upon such an application of the surplus, it would be better to wait till then, instead of raising more money for this purpose by taxation.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that though it might be as well that some such measure as this should be adopted by Parliament, it seemed to him that the Bill before their Lordships was open to several objections. He objected on the ground of the additional burdens it would cast upon the ratepayers, and doubted whether it was within the competence of their Lordships to entertain the taxation clauses. He objected also to the arbitrary power of arrest given to the police in respect of lunatics found.
  THE DUKE OF EICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there could be no doubt that the subject which had been brought before the House by the noble and learned Lord was one of great importance; but there were two reasons why he thought it would be inexpedient to press the Bill at the present time. In the first place, the Government, fully alive to the magnitude and interest of the question, proposed to issue a Commission to inquire thoroughly into the whole matter; and, in the second place, even if that were not the case, he did not think it would be advisable to embark upon a measure of this kind at so advanced a period of the Session, more especially when it was remembered that there was a Committee of the other House sitting at the present moment upon the whole of the Lunacy Laws of the country.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that after the assurance of the noble Duke he should not ask their Lordships to proceed further with his Bill.
  Then the said Amendment, original Motion, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

NEW FOREST BILL—(No. 123.)
(The Lord President.)
NEW FOREST BILL—(No. 123.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND and GORDON,in moving that the Bill be

  795
  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-
  796
  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

  797
  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-
  798
  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

  799
  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,
  800
  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,

  801
  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
  802
  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

  803
  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 20 s. 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
  804
  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

  805
  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
  806
  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

  807
  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
  808
  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 GRANVILLEsaid, 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-

  809
  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 EVERSLETsaid, 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 SOMERSETwithdrew 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.

POOR LAW—THE BOARDING-OUT SYSTEM.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the cruelties inflicted upon two pauper children boarded out by the Nantwich Guardians to a farm labourer and his wife named Sudlow; and, whether the Poor Law Inspectors have made any reports as to the working of the boarding-out system in the case of pauper children?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was not at all sorry that the noble Lord should have put a Question upon such a very distressing case as that to which he referred. The Local Government Board had required an Inspector to report upon the case, and it appeared from the evidence that it was one of the grossest neglect. The
810
circumstances under which these children were boarded out were somewhat as follows:—It appeared that two years ago the Guardians of the Nantwich Union, contrary to the advice of the Local Government Department, came to the resolution to board out their orphan and deserted children, in order to save themselves the expense of building, or uniting with another Union in building, a suitable place for them. The Guardians, it is true, in July, 1875, prepared some rules under the Orders of the Local Government Board of 1870, in reference to boarding-out of children; and if those rules had been properly attended to, this lamentable occurrence would not have taken place. One of those rules was that no child should live more than two miles distant from the school or the church. That rule had been entirely neglected, as these children were sent to live at least 2 ½ miles away, and they never went to the school or the church. A gentleman connected with the Union, who was the only visitor in the district, requested the relieving officer to report upon the condition of the children. He did, accordingly, report for one or two quarters, and then made no further inquiry. The subject of boarding-out had undergone much inquiry by the Local Government Department. The system had been urged upon the Government, but there was some difficulty in framing the Orders. Two Orders of 1870 dealt with the matter—one Order related to boarding-out within the Union, and the other related to it without the Union. At present, there were 306 children boarded out without the Union, and 2,095 boarded out within the Union. Where they were boarded out without the Union, it was a much better system, as certain things had to be done in compliance with the regulations of the Local Government Board—for example, the parties were called upon to give an undertaking that the children should be well loked after; and they were also under the inspection of the Visiting Committee. But where the children were boarded out within the Union, the Guardians were paramount, and the Local Government Board could not interfere with the arrangements made. He might state that the subject of boarding-out was one which had much engaged the attention of the Local Government Board, and the Inspectors had been called upon to report as to the

811
soundness of the system. In some cases, the Reports were satisfactory, and in others not so; and in those cases the Guardians had been ordered to take the children back to the workhouse in order to their being properly cared for. There had been considerable difficulty in drawing up in detail the proper Orders in respect of boarding-out within the Union; but he believed that his right hon. Friend had now overcome that difficulty. He had issued an Order to all the Local Government Board Inspectors, asking for their comments upon it, and to point out whether they thought the Order would work well or not. His right hon. Friend was now waiting for the Inspectors' Reports, and as soon as he received them the Order would be put into a practical form, and it was hoped would prevent the recurrence of such a lamentable case to that to which the noble Lord had called attention.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.