11:1..b, LAND DEDICATION BILL.
TTA.VE the public any legitimate interest in the posses- sions of private owners ? The answer alike of the law and of common-sense is clear enough. A man's own is that with which he may do what he likes. If any one else has a share in its control, to that extent he is only a part owner. B has no right to dictate to A how he shall manage his property ; why, then, should the whole alphabet in the shape of the public be any more favoured ? Yet when law and common-sense have had their say, there remains an undefined discontent in the public which has just had judgment given against it. It feels that its claims have in some sort been underrated. Stonehenge is private property ; but what if the owner chose to break up the stones and use them for mending the roads? Westminster Abbey is the property of the Dean and Chapter; but what if these dignitaries proposed to replace it by an edifice more in harmony with modern taste as shown in the neighbouring Aquarium ? It is true that in the one case the ownership is individual, whereas in the other it is corporate, and the law has always made a large distinction between the two. But even where the ownership is individual the wanton destruction of an object of national interest would probably be prevented if the owner's intention became known in time. There are other cases in which the loss to the public would be as great as in that of buildings. Richmond Hill, of which so much has lately been heard, is one of these. There is no question here of ownership, for it is not the Hill that is threatened, but the view from it, and there can hardly be property in a view. But the action of the owners of land below the Hill might be destructive of this view. If they cover the foreground with villas the beauty of the landscape would be gone, and though the public has no legal right to prevent them from doing this, it will sustain a perfectly real injury if it is done. There is a sense, no doubt, in which this result follows upon every utilisation of land by its owner. Half of Hindhead was lost to the larger public when a smaller public took to building houses on its western slope. But this larger public is on the whole reasonable, and. it does not require that land shall remain waste in order to gratify its taste for the picturesque. It is only occasionally, when some very special beauty is threatened, that people wake up to the possible losses they may sustain, and to their present inability to avert them.
This is one side of the question, and the side which more often escapes notice. The other side, the side of the private owner, is very much more in evidence, and stands in no need of defenders. We have, however, to bear in mind that the community has no prescriptive right to commit robbery. If it covets the property of a private person, there is only one way in which it can legitimately gratify its desire. There is doubtless a, difference in this respect between the community and the individual. Both can only get what they want by purchase, but the indi- vidual must find a willing seller, while for the community there is such a thing as compulsory purchase. The public interest in private property is so far recognised that if the public is prepared to pay a reasonable price for what it wants, it is sometimes permitted to take it even against the owner's will. In the United States this principle has been carried out in the purchase of the National Park, and if our authorities, whether Imperial or municipal, had been ready to spend money on a great scale, all the finest scenery in the country might have been for ever protected against injury, if not specifically devoted to public use. Unfortunately, there is no general disposition to do any- thing of this heroic kind. We grieve over the destruction of woods, the enclosure of mountains, the building over of heaths ; but we do nothing more than grieve. Another generation will see most of the mischief done, and will perhaps wonder that a generation which might have pre- vented it took no trouble to do so. If the Government had. been armed with adequate powers of purchase, and had exercised a wise discretion in the choice of the districts in which they should be exercised. England would present a very different appearance from what it does now. Nor as yet is there much sign of any wish to alter this state of things. The dwellers in our cities feel more and more their need of some place to which they can go to enjoy the country and forget the town ; they mourn over the destruction which is continually overtaking their favourite resorts ; they curse the builder and. all his works. But it never occurs to them that State or municipal purchase of spots chosen for their beauty is the proper remedy for the growing vulgarisation of the finest scenery. They prefer to vent their wrath on the owner for presuming to sell his own land. It may, indeed, be objected that the cost of such pur- chases would-be more than the most liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer could be expected to provide. But there would be no need of absolute purchase. There are whole tracts, whole districts, in wIftch there is no present conflict between private and public interests. The land belongs to a private owner, but the use he makes of it in no way interferes with other people's enjoyment of it. The downs that feed his sheep please the eyes and exercise the limbs of the passers-by ; the woods in which his timber is matur- ing yield them shade and rest ; even the heather over which he shoots need not be closed to them if he is content with moderate sport. It is not the actual but the possible use of his land that constitutes the danger to the public, and all that would be needed to protect them against this danger would be the purchase here and there of these possible future rights.
A Bill has been introduced into the House of Commons which, though it aims at very much less than a system of State or municipal purchase, is yet a step in the same direction. Its object as described in the Memorandum is to "facilitate the preservation of the more beautiful and interesting features of the country" by enabling a land- owner "without parting with his ownership" to ensure that the character of a particular tract of land "may not be seriously altered or its charm destroyed." Any owner, whether in fee or for life, and any body corporate, may, if the Bill becomes law, declare by deed that land containing any natural feature or object of interest shall remain , unaltered, or that it shall not be built upon, or that the public shall have access to it for purposes of recreation, or that it shall be placed under the guardianship of trustees. The land to which the deed refers shall be held subject to the use thus created, but in all other respects it will remain in the possession and enjoyment of its owner. There are ample provisions in the Bill for guarding the interests of the successors of a tenant for life who has executed such a deed. If the trustees of a, settlement are of opinion that this dedication of the land. toa semi-public use" is prejudicial to the interests of the successors in title," they may require the owner to pay them "the equivalent of the diminution in the value of the land caused by the declaration." No objection, therefore, can be raised to the Bill on the score of any invasion of the rights of property. It is the owner, and the owner only, who can set in motion the machinery created by it. It is his desire to preserve "a. striking point of view, a waterfall or a glen, the site of an old abbey or castle, or a park" that is the motive for executing the deed, and if his execution of it entails any disadvantage on his successors in title the trustees of the settlement have power to make him pay compensation. The only doubt is how far owners will be inclined to avail themselves of the powers given them by the Bill. As regards one of the commonest forms of injury to the public —the sale of a. beautiful tract of land for building—we fear that the amount of compensation that might be demanded by the trustees would commonly prevent owners from guarding against this by a deed. But the Bill is at least a recognition that conflicts between public and private interests often arise, and that it will be well to give the owner the means of avoiding such conflicts where he is anxious to do so. One provision, we think, might be added with advantage. The owner who uses his powers under the Bill will be dedicating land to public uses, and land so dedicated ought not to be liable to Death-duties. In regard to that particular part of his estate the owner has divested himself of a portion of his rights for the public benefit, and as in this way lie has made his contribu- tion to the community, the community has in equity nothing more to demand of land so dedicated.
Previous page
