perpetuity in certain instances, as opposed to the advantage of
cultivating every available acre, have thus been distinctly recognised.
But the proportion and situation of such uninclosed land remains to be
determined, and will be decided by Parliament in the course of the next
year or two.
Mr. Cross's Act prescribes that the application for regulation or
inclosure shall be made to the Inclosure Commissioners (who were
appointed under the Act of 1845), the Commissioners are to hold a
local inquiry, and then prepare a scheme which is to be submitted to
a committee of the House. The scheme, when approved by the committee,
comes before the House for confirmation. It may prove unfortunate that
agents originally selected to administer an Act having for its main
object _inclosure_--_i.e._ the dividing of the land among separate
owners--should have been chosen to carry out one specially intended, as
Mr. Cross explained, to facilitate _regulation_--_i.e._ the preserving
of the land open for the use of all.
So great has been the tendency to inclose that, out of 414,000 acres
available for allotments, recreative-grounds, &c., under the Act of
1845, only 4,000 had actually been thus allotted; whilst in 1869,
out of 6,916 acres proposed to be inclosed, such were the views of
the Commissioners, that they considered nine acres to be adequate
reservation for public purposes--viz. three for recreation, and
six for field-gardens. And the four schemes hitherto submitted to
Parliament under the new Act contained a provision for only seventeen
acres to be reserved for recreation and sixty-five for field-gardens
out of 6,000 to be inclosed. The lords of the manors subsequently
offered two more in each case, if opposition in committee were
withdrawn. The offer was accepted by the committee, but the attempt
to pass the Bill at the fag end of the session was most fortunately
frustrated.
There is yet time, therefore, for consideration whether regulation
would not meet the requirements of some of these cases rather than
inclosure; and in some of them, or at least those parts of them
which are commons or waste lands of manors strictly speaking, as
distinguished from commonable lands, it would seem that if ever
regulating schemes are to be adopted in rural districts, these are
cases most suitable for them.
One of the commons recommended for inclosure--Riccall Dam--is pasture
land, and will never be available for growing corn, as it is subject to
floods. It is close to the village, and is constantly used for cricket.
The chief objection to its present condition is that the existing
rights of turning out cattle upon it are improperly used, an evil which
it is admitted could be remedied by regulation. If such an open space
is to be inclosed, it is difficult to conceive what rural common, in
the opinion of the Inclosure Commissioners, would be a fit subject for
regulation.
The conviction is forced upon us that, unless the Inclosure
Commissioners insist upon regulation wherever it is practicable, there
will be little prospect of this part of the recent Act having a fair
trial. Those who are pecuniarily interested in the commons--the lords
of the manors and the commoners--will, as a rule, prefer inclosure to
regulation, and the bias of the Commissioners will probably be in the
same direction; and if the option rests only with them there is little
doubt which course will be preferred.
It behoves, then, the Commissioners to carry out the intentions of Mr.
Cross, and to refuse inclosure in any case where regulation may be
applicable, and not to act only upon the instance and preferment of
those interested. The failure so far of the regulating clauses of the
Act of 1876 bears out the views of those who opposed the Act, and who,
while conceding the good intents of the promoters, pointed out that
the regulating clauses were so hampered by the necessity of consents
that they practically presented no alternative to inclosure, and who
predicted that few, if any, schemes would ever come before Parliament
under this part of the Act.
It has been shown that in all probability thirty-seven schemes for
inclosure come before Parliament next session. Many thousands of acres
now open will be subjected to inclosure under these schemes, and they
will form the precedent for dealing with others in the future. They
will come before Parliament; but the evidence in each case is heard
only by a small committee; and there are but few outside that committee
who will notice or care anything about each scheme as it successively
comes forward. And yet, if the schemes are all carried out, England
will have next year from this cause alone thirty-seven fewer open
spaces than she has hitherto possessed. A great deal of this land might
be saved if public attention were aroused, and aroused in time. On the
next two or three years the fate of our commons will mainly depend. For
seven years past, pending legislation, it has been possible to resist
all schemes for inclosure; but since the passing of the Act of 1876
postponement of action is no longer possible, and each scheme must be
dealt with immediately, and on its own merits.
There is danger lest, as the schemes may relate each to a small area,
and may not come before the public simultaneously, the gravity of the
issue may not be generally perceived. It is no less a one than what
proportion of the soil of England--of its commons, charts, and forests,
its scars, fells, and moorlands--shall be retained to be used in common
by her people as open unappropriated space both now and in the time to
come.
Such, however, has been the growth of public opinion, that we may
assume that Parliament would not sanction the inclosure of a common
in the near neighbourhood of any large and populous town. But there
seems some danger lest our legislators and the public should not duly
consider how rapid is the growth of many towns, and that some which are
not large and closely packed now may in a few years become so, and may
need commons in their vicinity; nor how in many places suburb stretches
beyond suburb as year succeeds year, and thus the town approaches
the commons which once were rural. Increased facilities of swift and
inexpensive travelling, and the opening of new lines of railway, make
many a common once out of reach of the dwellers in town practically
easy of access.
And there is a reason why even the still more distant rural commons
should if possible be saved from inclosure. Every year, in many country
neighbourhoods, population is increasing, and houses for letting are
being built; more and more the field-paths by the river-side are
being closed, and the walks through the cornfields or bright upland
meadows are being shut. The hedge through the many gaps of which it was
easy once to step into the roadside-wood and to gather primroses in
thousands is now stoutly repaired, and new boards are put up warning
trespassers that they "will be prosecuted." In self-defence the
landowners erect barriers and warn off the public wherever that public
becomes numerous. The field shut up for hay in the remote country has
so small a chance of being trampled on, that the farmer, hospitably
or carelessly, leaves the gate unlocked; but as the neat little rows
of lodging-houses come to be built near it, or as substantial villas
multiply in the neighbourhood, and the buttercups tempt the more
numerous little children to run in among the tall grass near the path,
or the great boughs of may induce the big boys to make long trampled
tracks beside the hedge, the farmer is obliged to lock his gate, put up
his notices, or, if "right of way" exist, erect a fence which should
leave the narrowest admissible pathway for the public. So it is, so it
will be, year by year increasingly, with all private property. It is
not only the artisan who, on his day's holiday, will depend more and
more on the common or public park; the professional man, the shopkeeper
who is able to take a house or lodgings for a few weeks in August or
September for his family, will also depend more and more each year on
finding some neighbourhood where there is a heath, or forest, or moor
which is public. He does not take his wife and children away only to
breathe fresher air, nor is the small lodging-house garden all they
want to spend the day in. To walk merely along the roads, if these
roads pass between parks or fields barricaded from entrance, frets the
human love of freedom which makes us want to wander farther, to escape
the dusty prescribed track, to break away over the hills, or pause in
the meadow by the pool or the river, or gather the flowers in the wood.
The more these are and must be closed, the more intensely precious does
the common or forest, safe for ever from inclosure, become. It is not
only the suburban common, it is the rural also which is of value to us
as a people.
Nor does the allotment scheme, admirable as it is in giving the
landless classes a share in our common soil, in the least degree
meet the need for beauty. Under all the schemes for inclosing rural
commons, it is probable that henceforward provision will be made
for field-gardens. This is excellent. But do not let it be supposed
that such allotments compensate for the entire loss of all open
unappropriated land.
It is, moreover, possible that allotments might, as time goes on,
be provided from quite other sources than our commons. The very
considerable area held in trust for charitable purposes may well
furnish ground for the purpose. Moreover, future changes which should
facilitate the transfer of land, and should enable men to buy or rent
it in small quantities, would meet the demand for allotments. Such
changes might easily be effected when Englishmen come to the conclusion
that small gardens are desirable for the people. If the allotments
are not made now we may still hope for them in the future; but if we
lose our open spaces now, shall we ever recover them? Think of the
cost of purchasing them back! Think of the compulsory powers to compel
sale of contiguous plots! Think of the impossibility of breaking them
ever again into uneven surface of woodland, dingle, or old quarry, or
getting the forest trees on them again; and pause before you barter
them for a few cultivated gardens, rented at high rates to a small
group of men--valuable as field-gardens in themselves maybe.
Note, too, by-the-way, what is done in giving them. For allotments,
working-men will pay four or five times the agricultural value and
have done so, under the old Inclosure Acts. That proves them to be
appreciated. Under the recent Act the amount of payment is limited. But
is it not strange to take away free enjoyment from many, and to offer
in exchange, at any money payment, a privilege to the few?
We have mentioned the schemes of inclosure now coming before the
Legislature, but besides these there is another extensive process of
inclosure going on for which the Legislature is not responsible. It is
that which is silently pursued by lords of manors, without any distinct
legal settlement of rights. They _may_ be taking only their due; they
may be taking more. In some cases they are offering to the commoners,
or to the poor, where lands are left for their benefit, gifts of money
or land or coals, in lieu of their old rights of cutting fuel or
turning out a cow. Perhaps the coals are quite equivalent to the value
of the fuel to the individual cottager; but they depend often on the
will of squire or lord, are administered by churchwardens to the needy,
and become a form of dole instead of a birthright. Again, all land in
England is increasing in value. Why should the ignorant agricultural
labourer be induced, by the gift of a few poles of land, to part with
the valuable inheritance of his descendants? Why should the lord absorb
to himself alone the "unearned increment of the land?" It ought not
to be left to any private person to make such terms with his tenants,
still less ought he to be allowed to decide, by high-handed erection of
fence, how much is his and how much is theirs. Yet there are numbers
of such inclosures silently going on throughout England in districts
where there is no one powerful enough, rich enough, or with knowledge
enough to carry the matter into a court of law, or watch effectually
that justice be done. Such suits are very costly; the law in such cases
is often complicated; a large amount is needed to secure the plaintiff
against loss should he not have costs awarded him; and landowners,
knowing that these difficulties prevent their being opposed when they
inclose the tempting ground adjoining their park, and give a little bit
of it to all neighbours likely to be troublesome, too often exercise a
power which there is no one at hand to prevent.
Even the metropolitan commons, which might have been thought to be
already secured by the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866, are not
absolutely safe. No one now would apply for leave to inclose one of
these _in toto_, but there is hardly a company advocating a scheme for
a reservoir or sewage farm, sidings for a railway or what not, that
does not cast longing eyes on the cheap common land, one little bit of
which it is supposed will hardly be missed. Accordingly, application is
made to Parliament for compulsory power to take a small portion. So our
metropolitan commons even may be nibbled away, and polluted and spoilt
by the proximity of objectionable buildings or works. No less than five
such schemes came before the public in 1877 affecting Barnes, Mitcham,
and Hampstead.
The reader will perceive from what has been said that three distinct
dangers threaten our common land:--
1st. That due use should not be made of the powers given by the Act
of last year, to promote regulation rather than inclosure, and that
in the separate schemes about to be presented to Parliament no weight
whatever should be given to the growing importance of wild open spaces
free to all.
2nd. That illegal inclosure should take place unnoticed, or be
unopposed, for want of legal knowledge or money to organise resistance.
3rd. That the commons already protected by the Metropolitan Commons
Act should be injured by the action of bodies applying for compulsory
powers of purchase for small portions of them.
It remains only to consider what can be done to meet these three
dangers.
First. Let the public take care that they thoroughly understand the
bearings of every scheme submitted to Parliament. Let due notice be
taken that the proportion of land allotted to the public be adequate,
and that the situation of it be well selected. Much depends also
on its character. To revert to the parallel of the disposition of
land made by the owner of an estate, who certainly would not place
his kitchen-garden in the loveliest part of his park, do not let the
Nation surrender forest or hillside, but, preserving them intact,
apportion for purposes of cultivation the less beautiful, flatter,
and probably more productive ground. Let the public watch how many of
the schemes brought forward relate to regulation, not inclosure. Mr.
Cross announced, as we have said, that his Bill was intended to promote
regulation; let us watch that its intention is thoroughly fulfilled.
The machinery of the Act to regulate commons being now provided, it
remains for those who care for open space to see that it is not used to
promote inclosure.
Second. The high-handed inclosures for which no Parliamentary sanction
is sought, are more difficult to meet. The expense of opposing is
considerable; the legal questions complicated. Few individuals can
deal with the problem single-handed. Here again, however, happily,
the machinery exists ready to our hands. The Commons Preservation
Society[10] was founded twelve years ago with the express object of
watching over the interests of the public in the remaining commons
of England in Parliament and in the courts of law. How much this was
needed will be seen when we consider that about 5,000,000 acres have
been inclosed since the reign of Queen Anne, and that there remain only
1,524,648 acres of open land, according to the Domesday-book, for all
present and future needs. The Committee of this Society gives advice
(free from all cost), to those who wish to consult them respecting
the course to be adopted when open spaces in their neighbourhood are
threatened with inclosure. If the neighbourhood is poor, and legal
resistance is the only way to meet the difficulty, the society will, to
the best of its means, aid with money and influence.
It appears to me that the objects of this Society are so important and
far-reaching that it ought to be a large national union, every one
joining it as members and supporting it to the utmost of their power.
It is not a question which ought longer to be left to a comparatively
few zealous men; it ought to be supported by, and its machinery used
by, everyone who cares to keep the common land open. If legal decisions
are to be arrived at, if landowners are to be made to feel that
they will be called to account for any inclosures made by them, the
matter cannot be left in the hands of individuals, and it is only by
combination, and under good legal advice, that the undertakings can be
rightly and wisely begun and brought to a successful issue.
To meet the third danger--that arising from attempts to obtain
compulsory power to purchase small portions of the metropolitan commons
supposed to be protected under the Act of 1866--it is important
(equally as in the case of rural commons) to watch each scheme that
may be brought forward, and thus to let Parliament see that the matter
is one about which the Nation cares. The schemes previously referred
to, relating to commons at Barnes, Mitcham, and Hampstead, were only
defeated by strenuous public opposition. Under these schemes it was
actually proposed to take four acres of Barnes Common for a sewage
farm, and to widen the railway that crosses it by additional sidings
and coal depôts; to cut up Mitcham Common with additional lines of
railway, and to take 100 acres of it for sewage purposes, and to
surround and partly undermine Hampstead Heath with a railway provided
with three or four stations situated on some of its prettiest spots!
One other point bearing on the question of metropolitan commons may
be noted here. Whenever the question of their inclosure has come up
before the courts of law to be tried, it has been hitherto found that
the rights of commoners have been adjudged sufficient to preserve
them from inclosure. It is therefore deeply to be regretted that
last session the Board of Works again resorted to their old practice
of purchasing these rights; they gave £5,000 for Bostal Heath, near
Woolwich. The purchase was clearly unnecessary in this case, because a
decree of the Court of Chancery exists preventing the inclosure of the
heath. The Board probably took this step from a dislike to the trouble
of defending their scheme for regulation. Such a practice must heavily
burden the ratepayers of London, already quite sufficiently taxed. And
this is done in order to secure for them that which there seems no
reason to suppose could not be secured without any such expenditure,
open spaces having already been legally preserved without purchase in
the cases of Epping, Coulsden, Berkhampstead, and others. It is an
old idea of the Metropolitan Board, and not a harmless one. In 1865,
the chairman and members of the Board proposed to make the Board the
central authority to protect and preserve commons; they asked for
large taxing powers in order to raise money sufficient to buy up all
rights of the lords of the manors and commoners, and to sell parts
of the metropolitan commons for building, in order in some degree to
recoup the ratepayers. The committee of the House of Commons which was
then considering the question rejected this scheme of the Metropolitan
Board, holding that the rights of commoners being amply sufficient to
keep the commons open, purchase was unnecessary. This opinion has since
been repeatedly confirmed by decisions in the law courts. There seems
no reason to suppose that Hampstead Heath, for which the Metropolitan
Board gave nearly £50,000, might have not been kept open without
purchase had the matter been carried to an issue. The question is an
important one as far as the ratepayers are concerned; it is also very
important as a matter of precedent. The plan of operation of any body
of men which, like the Commons Preservation Society, should examine the
rights of the public and uphold them by law, is much to be preferred
to the purchase scheme, though this may be more acceptable to large
landowners, and have more appearance of magnificence.
To sum up. It is by watchful care that every scheme under the new Act
can be well considered and wisely decided when it is brought before
Parliament; it is by steady co-operation to bring to a legal issue
every unauthorised inclosure that a share in our common land can alone
be preserved for the landless classes. Shortly--before, perhaps, as
a Nation, we awake to its importance--will this great question be
permanently decided.
In England there is a very small and continually decreasing number
of landowners. We have no peasant proprietors as in France; and few
tenants of small holdings, as in Ireland. Yet the love of being
connected with the land is innate; it deepens a man's attachment to
his native country, and adds dignity and simplicity to his character.
Each family cannot hope to own a small piece of cultivated land as in
France--no inaccessible mountain-ranges exist for our people to learn
to love as in Switzerland--but it may be that in our common-land we
are meant to learn an even deeper lesson:--something of the value of
those possessions in which each of a large community has a distinct
share, yet which each enjoys only by virtue of the share the many have
in it; in which separate right is subordinated to the good of all;
each tiny bit of which would have no value if the surface were divided
amongst the hundreds that use it, yet which when owned together and
stretching away into loveliest space of heather or forest becomes the
common possession of the neighbourhood, or even of the County and
Nation. It will give a sense of a common possession to succeeding
generations. It will give a share in his country to be inherited by the
poorest citizen. It will be a link between the many and through the
ages, binding with holy happy recollections those who together have
entered into the joys its beauty gives--men and women of different
natures, different histories, and different anticipations--into one
solemn joyful fellowship, which neither time nor outward change can
destroy--as people are bound together by any common memory, or common
cause, or common hope.
CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS.
FOOTNOTE:
[10] Offices, 1, Great College Street, Westminster.
_By the same Author._
HOMES
OF THE
LONDON POOR.
Extra fcp. 8vo, price 3s. 6d.
"The book should be carefully read by all those whose duties under Mr.
Cross's recent Bill are just now commencing."--_Medical Times._
"We offer her our hearty commendation, and we trust that her
little book will have a wide sale. It is not less interesting than
instructive."--_Builder._
"There are few who have so good a right to be heard on the matter as
the author of this volume. She has not only thought long and deeply
on the problem to be solved, but she has worked nobly to aid in its
solution.... We know nothing in literature of this kind more touching
than the simple, unaffected tale of her struggles, disappointments, and
triumphs. There is not a word of mere sentimentalism in any one of her
papers; she is clear, practical, and definite."--_Globe._
"Miss Octavia Hill has grappled successfully with one of the most
difficult and disheartening of our social problems."--_Nonconformist._
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
MACMILLAN & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.
THE SERVICE OF THE POOR. An Enquiry into the Reasons for and against
the Establishment of Religious Sisterhoods for Charitable Purposes. By
CAROLINE E. STEPHEN. Crown 8vo, 6s. 6d.