LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE ON EPPING FOREST.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—The letter of "A Resident" in Epping Forest, in your last week's impression, commenting on a recent article on the Forest, raises some interesting questions with reference to the scheme which has been propounded by the Corporation of London for the management of the Forest, and as the same subject has been discussed in a pamphlet very widely circulated by a society which calls itself the "Epping Forest Landowners' Protection Society," but which is really constituted of persons who are illegally in possession of land taken from the Forest, I will ask your permission to say a few words on this important subject.
The scheme of the Corporation for dealing with the Forest is based on the following principles :- 1. That all the modern enclosures which were declared to be illegal by the recent decision of the Master of the Rolls shall be thrown back again into the Forest. This will affect about 2,000 acres, which, restored to the 3,000 acres not encroached upon, will give a total area of 5,000 acres, extending in a somewhat irregular area from Stratford to Epping.
2. That the ratepayers of London shall not be burdened by heavy payments by way of purchase for the use of that which they have for centuries freely enjoyed, bui that as enclosure is practically now impossible, the scheme shall relate to management only, leaving unaffected as far as possible all existing rights, whether those of the Crown, of lords of manors, or of the commoners.
3. That those enclosures not included in the recent suit which consist for the most part of villa-holdings, where persons have purchased from the original enclosers, and have built possibly under the full belief that they had a good title, shall not be thrown backinto the Forest, but that their owners shall be subject to a rent-charge calculated on the unimproved value of the land taken from the Forest, and that the proceeds of this fund shall go in aid of the expense of managing the Forest.
4. That the Forest shall, so far as possible, be kept in its wild and virgin state, preserved from nuisances and wrong-doers, but not reduced to the condition of a prim or cultivated park.
With these principles I entirely concur. They are in con- formity with the views laid down by a Parliamentary Committee, with reference to all the other numerous Commons round Lon- don, and afterwards embodied in the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, and have been applied to several commons, such as Black- heath, Hayes, Hackney Downs, and others.
I may also remark, with reference especially to the attempt which is being made by interested persons to effect a compromise which shall at once greatly reduce the area of the Forest and leave in the hands of wrong-doers a large part of their spoil, that there is no absolute necessity for a scheme, so far as the public is concerned. The public has already attained what it desired, the Court of Chancery has declared all enclosures made of late years 'by lords of manors to be illegal, and those claiming under them can be in no better position. In a short time, the fences of all the larger enclosures will be removed by order of the Court, and thenceforward enclosures will be wholly impossible ; for the effect of the decision is that the Forest waste is one great common, and that all the owners of land within the ancient limits of the legal Forest, extending for many miles beyond the waste with -which it is identified in popular language, have rights-of- common there. Enclosure, therefore, without the sanction of Parliament, for the future, is wholly impossible. A scheme is required not as a means of keeping the Forest open,—it is -desirable only for the purpose of preventing nuisances, of preserving order, regulating customs, and lastly, of quieting the title of those who have built houses and other buildings upon land which was taken from the Forest. No scheme will be acceptable to the public or Parliament which will either curtail the now legally ascertained limits of the Forest, or which will throw any burthen upon ratepayers for the needless purchase of valueless rights ; and any such scheme would undoubtedly be opposed, if propounded. It is mainly in the interests of lords of manors and of the villa-holders that a scheme should pass, and they are not in a position to bargain with the City and with the public,—they are only in the position of petitioners for tender treatment.
"A Resident" makes these objections to the scheme :-1. That it provides in no way for the representation of freeholders in the management of the Forest. Your correspondent, however, should recollect that but for the exertions of the City, it would -not now be a question of managing the Forest, but whether any Forest remained to be managed.
A very few only of the residents and freeholders in the Forest 'have contributed towards its preservation, nor can I blame persons or not undertaking the almost herculean task of conducting a suit against the wrong-doers, which it needed the City purse properly to direct ; but it must be remembered that the task would never have assumed such formidable proportions, if the richer residents and landowners of the Forest had some years ago as- serted the rights of themselves and their poorer neighbours, at -the risk of offending their friends in possession of manors. It remains a fact that it is the action of the City which has saved the parts of the Forest still open, and made it possible to regain en- closures the existence of which was fatal to the preservation of the Forest in its integrity. Moreover, it is an ordinary principle that 'taxation and representation should go together. The City is ready to provide any money that may be necessary for the main- tenance of the Forest, and I am not aware that residents in the Forest have expressed their willingness to be taxed. Until -they do, I cannot see what claim they have to administer the -Forest funds.
Another objection is that the scheme provides no means for recouping to the lords of manors the sums which some of them gave a few years ago for the Crown rights of forest over their wastes. The question,—What was the legal effect of such pur- chase, and what was the value of the rights purchased? is of some difficulty, and the claim of these persons would seem to be rather against the Crown than against the City. The sale of these rights has frequently been protested against in Parliament.
The last objection is that the City propose to restock part of the Forest with deer. Of the legal right of the Crown to maintain deer in those parts where the Crown rights have not 'been disposed of there can be no doubt. Some few deer still remain there. The maintenance of deer would seem to be con- sonant with the general principles of the scheme, which is based on a restoration of ancient rights and customs. Deer are con- sidered a great attraction and beauty to such parka as Richmond and Bushey on the West of London, and to many a nobleman's residence ; why should not the East of London have the benefit of the like attraction, the more so, if the City is prepared to undertake the cost and trouble of maintaining and guarding the deer?
I will not further dwell upon many other objections raised to the scheme by the Epping Landowners' Committee, objections which appear to have been drawn up in total oblivion that the Master of the Rolls and the Epping Forest Commissioners have decided against their claims of right, and that they are only trespassers upon land which never properly belonged to them. They run great danger in opposing any reasonable scheme, for if no scheme be passed, their houses and gardens would be un- saleable for want of title. They are not in the position they were in before the recent decision ; they have no claim of right. They can only claim forbearance, which, I have no doubt, they will re- ceive, if they are moderate in their demands and confine them- selves to their own case. If they defeat a well-considered scheme, they will be the first to suffer.
I will conclude by saying that, for my part, I hope the scheme of the Corporation will be accepted in its integrity. The City is willing to undertake the responsibility of managing the Forest, and we cannot do better than confide the care of this glorious open space to those by whose exertions it has been re- covered and secured for the people of this metropolis.—.I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
