THE EPPING FOREST BILL.
CONSIDERABLE credit is due to the Government for their Epping Forest Bill, which has now reached the House of Lords. They have had the courage to reject the recom- mendations of the Parliamentary Commission appointed to consider the subject, and to introduce a measure of a thoroughly popular character. The Forest will not be shorn of its fair dimensions to save a little additional trouble in devising an equitable scheme for its complete preservation, and the principle that on no account are the public to be deprived of open lands which can in anywise be saved for their use, is admirably enforced.
It is not without some hesitation that the Government has adopted this course. At the commencement of the Session, they were pledged to give effect to the Report of the Epping Forest Commission. This body, appointed in 1871, has done invaluable service in collecting facts and giving opportunity for the full discussion of every topic connected with the Forest. It may well be imagined that when a tract of 6,000 acres has to be dealt with, half of which has been enclosed at various times during twenty years, it is no light task simply to ascertain the boundaries of the land, to exclude enclosures which have been legalised by time, and to obtain information as to the present ownership of the several plots. When to this work is added that of ascertaining what rights of common exist over the tract, and what is their effect upon the lawful disposition of it, the materials of a very laborious investiga- tion are supplied. But the labours of the Commission did not end here. They were also directed by Parliament to settle a scheme for the disafforestation of Epping Forest and the preserva- tion of its wastelands. It is in this branch of their task that they failed to appreciate fully the public requirements. Coupled with many useful suggestions—suggestions embodied in the Government Bill—they made the fatal mistake of recommending that 750 acres of Forest land, not built upon or used in connection with dwellings, should be left in the hands of those whom they themselves had found to be illegally in possession. When the Government announced their intention of carrying this as well as the other reconnuendations of the Commis- sioners into effect, their proposal at once met with the opposi- tion which might naturally have been expected. A deputation, headed by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, waited upon the First Commis- sioner of Works, and pointed out the inconsistency of the Commissioners' proposal with the directions of the Act under which they were appointed ; the strange anomalies to which the course suggested would give rise, and the irreparable injury to the public in the loss of so large an area of recreation- ground,—the value of which was still further increased by the fact that most of it lay in the very heart of the wildest and most beautiful part of the Forest. The Corporation of London, by whose exertions the Forest had been saved, and who were, and are now, in the possession of more than half of it, as trustees for its preservation as an open space, intimated that they would be no parties to a settlement which would disappoint them to so large an extent of the fruits of their labours. One gentleman, who had long been labouring in the public interests, and who claimed also a legal status as a commoner in the Forest, took a still stronger step, removing some two miles of illegal fencing, with the avowed intention of forcing its pro- prietors into the Law Courts. Happily the Government was not deaf to these warnings. They determined to espouse the popular cause, and to preserve the great recreation-ground of the capital unimpaired in extent and beauty. This end they have attained by the present Bill, which directs all illegal enclosures to be restored to the Forest, except such as are built upon or used as gardens or curtilages of buildings, and except such small strips and corners as may be deemed un- necessary or undesirable for the public enjoyment.
The counter-difficulty which overcame the Commissioners, that of providing compensation to the owners of illegal enclosures who might have paid a substantial price for them, the Government has met by the expedient, much favoured of late years, of referring the whole question to an Arbitrator, not to be bound by strict rules of law or equity, but to determine according to his view of justice and fairness in each case. There is much, no doubt, to be said against this course in many cases, but the present certainly seems to be one in which it may well be taken. All legal questions have been disposed of. But there is left a task of great nicety. It re- mains to be determined what is a suitable garden or curtilage to a large house—such an appendage as would give it a fair, in- habitable value ; what has to be paid by a vast number of persons who own or occupy houses and gardens unlawfully enclosed, to remove the stigma of illegality from their titles ; and what has to be paid to the owners of those illegal en- closures which have still to be restored to the Forest. The Commissioners laid down certain rules on these subjects, but left the details to be worked out under the machinery pro- vided by the Lands Clauses Acts for assessing compensation. The result would have been endless litigation,—litigation which would have been carried on entirely at the expense of the Corpora- tion, and in which probably the most inconsistent and startling results would have been obtained. The writer of a recent pamphlet on the subject estimates that there would have been in all something like 2,000 compensation cases to be tried, the average expense of which would not have been much less than 1500 each, and though possibly some saving might have been effected by selecting test cases, yet the Corporation must have relied on the forbearance of its opponents even for this reason- able concession. Under the Bill, the position will be different. An Arbitrator in whom general confidence is reposed, and who has plenary powers of settlement, may, on the one hand, im- mensely cut down the time and expense of such investigations, by classifying the cases with which he has to deal ; while, on the other, he can make allowance for exceptional circumstances, in a way which would be impossible for a Jury or Umpire acting within the limits of well-known practice.
The pending Bill vests the preserved and regained Forest in the Corporation of London. That body is to appoint twelve of its members to serve as a Committee of Management, on which are also to sit four representatives of the Commoners in the Forest. Expression for opinion outside the Corporation is thus secured, while that body is further bound by the most distinct trust to hold the Forest for the public benefit. On the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, some desire was ex- pressed to add to the managing body other representatives of London, and the Members for some of the Parliamentary boroughs were mentioned. No convenient mode of attaining the object could, however, be found, and a suggestion that the Metropolitan Board of Works should nominate four members of the Managing Committee was negatived by an overwhelming majority. The Metropolitan Board had the opportunity of preserving the Forest before the Corporation interested them- selves in the matter. It deliberately declined, and a short time afterwards suggested one of those nefarious schemes of partition which brought so much discredit on the late Government. The Corporation, moreover, are the administrators of a Fund dedicated by Parliament to the preservation of Open Spaces, the City of London Grain Duty. This fund they were, at the instance of the Metropolitan Board, prohibited from applying within the Metropolis, as defined by the Act of Parliament which con- stituted the Board, and within which that body exercises certain functions. Epping Forest is situate entirely without that district, and while the Board, if asked to share in its manage- ment, would be undertaking novel duties, the Corporation is properly carrying out a trust imposed upon them by Parliament; and it is difficult to see why, if they are fit to be trusted with the control of the fund which has (mainly) been devoted to the rescue of the Forest, they are not fit to be trusted with the administration of the Open Space acquired by its expenditure. As to the fancy that the popular voice could make itself heard more easily through representatives of the Metropolitan Board than through nominees of the Corporation, it is only necessary to look at the constitution of the Board to estimate the sug- gestion at its true value. Ratepayers in the Metropolis elect the several parish Vestries ; these bodies elect representatives to form District Boards ; and District Boards elect from amongst themselves the Metropolitan Board. The Metro- politan Board, it was suggested, should choose four repre- sentatives on the Committee of Management of the Forest. The amount of control exercisable by any ratepayer or section of ratepayers on the last-named Committee, through this wonderful process of repeated representation, it is beyond the power of the imagination definitely to conceive. Far more likely is it that popular views should find a voice in the Court of Common Council, in which the Forest will be vested, and which will have the nomination of a preponderating majority on the Managing Committee.
The importance of Epping Forest as a lung of the Capital was recognised as long since as 1793, by the Commissioners then appointed to survey the Crown Lands. Eight years ago
half the open woodland which existed at the end of the last century had been enclosed, and when Mr. Fawcett succeeded in carrying an Address to the Crown on the subject, it was gravely proposed by the Government of the day to give up two-thirds of what remained, and to leave the public less than a thousand acres. The Forest
which will this Session be presented to London will lack only some three or four hundred acres of its original area, and of
this quantity the greater part will contribute a revenue for the management of the vast recreation-ground. The rescue of this noble ornament of the Metropolis from such imminent danger of destruction, is probably without parallel in the history of land-holding in England.
Previous page
