SB
DUPL
485
A 527234
L8
£64
9
EPPING FOREST.
Suum cuique."
LONDON:
HARDWICKE AND BOGUE, 192, Piccadilly, W
18-8
PRICE ONE SHILLING.

ورج
SB
485
28

E64
ARTES
1837
LIBRARY VERITAS
SCIENTIA
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
FLUNIBUS
UKUM
TUEBOR
SI-QUERIS PEKINSULAM AMⱭNAM`
CIRCUMSPICE
.......
!


EPPING FOREST.
((
Suum cuique."
LONDON:
HARDWICKE AND BOGUE, 192, Piccadilly, W
1878.
Рес Саю, мине
12-2-36
X
3
INTRODUCTION.
ད་
3
As the question of Epping Forest is at this moment prominently
before the public, it is thought that those who take an interest
in this important playground of London should be informed,
as concisely as the circumstances admit of, what that question
now is, with a view to a right judgment being formed upon
the principal point in dispute, namely, whether the deter-
mination of the House of Commons, again and again
expressed, that Epping Forest "shall be preserved as an
open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public
is to be defeated by the legalisation of proceedings, which the
Master of the Rolls, in delivering the judgment of the Court
of Chancery, described as "the taking of other persons pro-
perty without their consent and appropriating it to their own
use" (i.e. the use of the takers.)
331602
{
,
EPPING FOREST.
On the north-eastern side of London lies Waltham
Forest. Its origin is lost in obscurity, but it certainly
existed before the Norman Conquest, for a Charter
of King Edward the Confessor to the church of St.
Paul, in London, relating to a part of the Forest, is
still extant. It comprised formerly a large portion
of the County of Essex, but having been gradually
diminished by enclosures, an attempt of King Charles
the First to restore its ancient boundaries, gave rise to
much dissatisfaction, and ultimately led to its perambu-
lation, by virtue of a Commission under the Great Seal,
appointed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of
the 16th Charles the First. This perambulation has
from that time been regarded as a final and authentic
settlement of the boundaries of the Forest.
By the perambulation, Waltham Forest was
C
found to contain 60,000 acres, of which it has been
estimated that 48,000 were enclosed private pro-
perty, the remaining 12,000 being unenclosed woods
and wastes.*
Over the whole of this land the Sovereign had
Forestal Rights, enabling him to keep on the 12,000
acres of unenclosed lands, an unlimited number of
beasts of the forest, beasts of the chase, and beasts
and fowls of the warren. The beasts of the forest were
the bear, the wolf, the hart, the hind and the hare;
the beasts of the chase were the buck, the doe,
the martin, the fox and the roe; and the beasts and
fowls of the warren, were the coney, the pheasant and
the partridge. The Sovereign could have these beasts
and fowls fed not only upon the 12,000 acres of un-
enclosed lands, but upon the 48,000 acres of enclosed
lands. There is a proclamation still extant of as late a
date as the 2nd Edward VI., directed against the "un-
reasonable hedges and ditches," which prevented the
deer from feeding on enclosed lands.
In exchange and as compensation for the damage
which these animals would necessarily do to the
enclosed lands within the ambit of the Forest, the
owners and occupiers of those lands had, and still have
* As there was no plan shewing the distinction between the waste and
the enclosed land, the open waste is believed to be over estimated by 2000
acres, the careful searches of the Corporation of London having failed to dis-
cover any considerable enclosure before 1851, with the exception of Knighton
Wood, which was the subject of an information by the Attorney General.
7
a right to depasture their cattle on the open parts of
the Forest, the parts in fact which are popularly called
and known as "the Forest," though strictly forming
but a small portion of the latter.
Waltham Forest originally consisted of two divi-
sions, separated from one another by the river Roding,
and called respectively, Epping Forest and Hainault
Forest. The latter was disafforested by virtue of an
Act of Parliament passed in the year 1851, and as only
4,000 acres of the open woods and wastes were situate
in the Hainault division of the old Waltham Forest,
there remained 8,000 open acres in the Epping part
of that Forest, or more probably 6,000 only as pre-
viously explained.
It will be convenient, having thus shewn that
Hainault has disappeared from Waltham Forest, and
that the Epping part alone remains, to speak hence-
forth of the Forest by its popular name of Epping
Forest, in which as we have seen, there ought
to be 6,000 acres of open wood and waste land
still existing for the use of the Sovereign and her
subjects.
The next public document in point of date after
that which recorded the perambulation of Charles the
First, is contained in the Journals of the House of Com-
mons, under date 28th March, 1793, and is a Report
addressed to that assembly by the Commissioners ap-
pointed to cnquire into the state and condition of the
8
woods, forests, and land revenues of the Crown.* These
Commissioners stated that they found in the office of
the Surveyor General of Crown lands an ancient plan
of the Forest, delineating the bounds according to the
perambulation of the 17th of Charles the First, and
according to a computation made from the survey they
arrived at the figures given above, so that as late as
1793, we have an authentic statement relating to what
the Forest consisted of.
These Commissioners further ascertained that the
Crown had an unlimited right to keep deer in the unen-
closed woods and wastes within the perambulation, that
the owners and occupiers of lands within the bounds
of the Forest, (the 48,000 acres of enclosed land before
referred to) had a right of common of pasture for horses
and cows, and that the cattle were sent in as early in
the spring, and remained as late in the winter as the
owners chose, but that the Forest was constantly cleared
of them during the fence month, that the cattle were
marked by the Reeves of the respective parishes with
the particular forest mark for each parish, and that the
general rule was to admit one horse or two cows for
every £4 of rent. The fence month consisted of
fifteen days before old Midsummer day and fifteen
days after.
* Mr. Gardiner the Solicitor to the Department of Woods and Forests in
his examination before the Committee of 1865 on Open Spaces, says (5131)
"Those Reports, which are most elaborate reports, I take as my text book.
They are compiled with extreme accuracy, with a reference in every instance
to documentary evidence."
9
The Commissioners recommended to Parliament
the disafforestation of Hainault Forest, but not of
Epping Forest, on the ground "that it may perhaps
"be doubtful whether in a situation so near to the
"Capital, an inclosure of that part ought to be earnestly
"desired." This was more than 80 years ago, when
the population of London was a tenth ofwhat it is now.
From the date of this Report there is a long interval
until we have another public document, which is
the Report of the Royal New and Waltham Forest
Commission, presented to Parliament in 1850.
This Commission was appointed in pursuance of
the Statute, the 12 and 13 Vic., c. 81, and which was
passed in consequence of the evidence taken by Lord
Duncan's Committee of 1848, on the condition of the
Royal Forests. It will be necessary to refer to this
Report hereafter for another purpose, but it was fol-
lowed so soon by the Report of a Select Committee of
the House of Commons on the Royal Forests in
Essex, presented to that House on the 9th June,
1863, that there is no occasion to dwell upon
its contents now. The Select Committee found
that out of 8,000 acres of open wood and waste
lands which according to the report of 1793, ought
to have existed in Epping Forest, 2,000 had been
lost by enclosures.* They also found that the waste
*For the reasons given in the note in page 6, these figures are not exactly
accurate, but large enclosures had at this time been made.
10
lands of the Forest were commonable for horses and
cows, and for no other cattle, and they reported to the
House that a considerable extent of ground had
been enclosed in the Forest without any considera-
tion being paid for the forestal rights of the
Crown, and that immediate steps should be taken by
the Crown to assert its rights, and to abate such
enclosures. In a subsequent part of the Report
however, there was a contradictory recommendation
to the effect that the sanction of Parliament should
be obtained for the enclosure of the remaining portion
of the Forest, that the rights of the several parties in-
terested should be ascertained, and that provision
should be made, partly by those means and partly by
purchase, for securing an adequate portion of the
Forest for those purposes of health and recreation
for which as it had been proved to the Committee this
open space had from time immemorial been enjoyed by
the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the Me-
tropolis.
Neither of those recommendations was however
adopted, and the latter one recommending enclosure,
was so unsatisfactory to the public and to Parliament,
that another Committee of the House of Commons was
appointed in the year 1865, and brought up recom-
mendations, totally different from those made by the
previous Committee.
They are as follows :-
ii
"The Forestal Rights of the Crown over Epping
"Forest appear to be little profitable to the Crown,
"and would be far more useful to the public as a
"means of preserving open and unenclosed lands,
over which they extend, than for any pecuniary
66 profit to be derived from them.
((
"Your Committee have to report that numerous
"inclosures have taken place within the Forest of
Epping, of land over which the Crown's Forestal
66
66
Rights have not been purchased; that your
"Committee find with regret that Her Majesty's
"Government have taken no measures to assert the
66 Rights of the Crown over such lands so enclosed
"as aforesaid, and recommend that they take
"immediate steps to vindicate the Crown's Forestal
Rights over such lands, and to abate such
"inclosures.
66
"Your Committee entirely concur in the first
"alternative presented by the Report of 1863, and
"apply it to all Royal Forests within the Metro-
"politan area, viz.:-That the Forestal Rights of
"the Crown should be vigilantly maintained
"without regard to the question of cost, for the
66 6
purpose of preventing all future inclosures, and
"to preserve the Forest in its present extent and
"wild unenclosed condition.' "
In the meanwhile, however, and before even the
appointment of the Committee of 1863, the Forest
12
had been rapidly disappearing. The Earl of
Mornington, who was hereditary Lord Warden of
the Forest, and as such bound to protect the rights
of the Crown, was also the owner of several Manors
within the Forest, viz.: Wanstead, Aldersbrooke,
Ruckholts and Woodford, the Forest Lands of which
he was desirous of enclosing and turning into his
private property. Having nominated his own Solicitor
to be Steward of the Verderers Court, which was the
ancient Forestal Court, appointed to protect as well
the Crown as the commoners, and to abate enclosures,
two also out of the four Verderers being Lords of Ma-
nors, interested in and making enclosures, and always
voting against any proceedings being taken to throw
them out, the whole forestal machinery for abating
enclosures came to an end. Lord Mornington then
proceeded to enclose the waste lands in his Manors as
fast as persons were willing to take them, and
finding how easy the process was, and that no steps.
were taken by the Crown or the commoners to
prevent what was going on, his Lordship proceeded
to grant to a Trustce for himself in the Manor
of Wanstead 170 acres of open Forest land, in the
Manor of Woodford 230 acres, and in the Manor of
Ruckholts 38 acres.
Having thus, in defiance both of law and right,
turned these open public lands into private property,
Lord Mornington sold the land thus cnclosed, or granted
13
1
ور نکر
it upon building leases, reserving the rents to himself.
His example was soon followed in other Manors,
and things had reached such a pitch in the year
1871, that 3,000 of the 6,000 acres which the
Committee of 1863 had found to be then remain-
ing, were actually enclosed with fences, and the
commoners and the public alike excluded from them.*
It must not be supposed however that these
unlawful proceedings had been going on without
objection or challenge. An Alderman of the City
of London, the late Mr. Copeland, M.P., fortunately
for the public, resided in one of the Forest
parishes (Walthamstow), and he was also Master
Keeper of Walthamstow Walk, one of the walks
or divisions into which, under the Forest laws, the
Forest was divided. As early as the year 1842,
which was about the time that serious enclosures
began to be made, both Mr. Alderman Copeland and
Colonel Palmer of Nazing Park, who was, and still
is one of the Verderers of the Forest, protested against
the legality of these enclosures. Indeed Colonel Pal-
mer for 30 years never ceased to employ his pen and
his tongue in protesting against the enclosures. He
circulated addresses to the freeholders of the County;
he wrote letters to the Ministers of the Crown, and
f
Į
* It would interrupt the narrative to set it out here, but in the Appendix
will be found an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1850,
giving an authentic account of the collapse of the Forest Courts which
enabled these illegal enclosures to take place.
14
to the local newspapers, and he took every step which
a man could take to challenge and object to the un-
lawful enclosures. Public meetings also were held in
the Forest; their proceedings were reported in the local
newspapers; committees were appointed, and ulti-
mately at a Court of Attachments, (which is the legal
name of the Verderers Court) held on the 28th
February, 1843, a whole string of presentments was
made by the Officers of the Forest on the subject
of the unlawful enclosures which were then going on.
The Court of Attachments being a public legal tri-
bunal, its proceedings were regularly reported in the
local newspapers, and every person residing in the Forest
or its neighbourhood was made aware of the challenge
that had been thrown down against the unlawful course
which Lord Mornington had initiated, and which the
other Lords of Manors had followed. For the reason
before-mentioned, namely, that Lord Mornington him-
self was Lord Warden of the Forest, no steps were
taken to throw open these unlawful enclosures. Lord
Mornington claimed to sit as a Member of the Court,
and appointed his own Solicitor, Mr. Cutts, to bę
Steward of the Court. Two out of the four Verderers
were also Lords of Manors in alliance with Lord
Mornington, and the consequence was that whenever
any motion was made to give effect to the presentments
the Verderers were equally divided, moreover the
Steward or Clerk of the Court actually appeared in
15
Court as the advocate and Solicitor of the en-
closers, and in the result, as the action of the Court
of Attachments was completely paralysed, the farce
of holding the Courts at all came to an end, and they
accordingly ceased to be held. The other Lords gaining
courage by the success of Lord Mornington's pro-
ceedings, the Forest as before stated had, by the year
1871, dwindled down to 3,000 instead of 6,000 acres,
and this once magnificent recreation ground appeared
to be threatened with early and complete destruction.
The Metropolitan Board of Works, stirred up by
the Report of the Committee of 1863, had it is true
been dallying with the subject since 1864. Mr. F.
Peel the then Secretary to the Treasury, by letter of
the 14th June in that year, invited the Metropolitan
Board of Works to take the question into considera-
tion, and offered to cede to that Board the rights
of the Crown then remaining in Epping Forest; and
although Mr. George Burney, long a labourer in the
field for the preservation of Epping Forest, had
earnestly begged that Board to accept so important a
trust it resolved on the 18th October, 1864, that
it could not advantageously intervene, being disinclined
to do so, for the reason that the area to be dealt with
was wholly beyond its jurisdiction.
In the year 1865, the Commons Preservation
Society was founded by Members of Parliament and
other gentlemen taking an interest in the health and
16
well-doing of the people, and they not only called public
attention to the encroachments in Epping Forest, but
the Lord of the Manor of Loughton having in 1864 and
the following year, made arrangements for the inclosure
of no less than 1300 acres belonging to him in the
Forest, they supported two labourers of Loughton, in
asserting their rights as commoners in this land by a
Bill in Chancery. The effect of this suit, in which a
veritable village Hampden, named Willingale, was the
Plaintiff, was to preserve nearly 1000 acres in its
primitive condition, and as the Bill was registered as a
lis pendens, it gave notice to, and bound those who
chose in defiance of it, to cut down the trees upon and
enclose the other 300 acres to which it also applied.
On the 23rd December, 1869, the Metropolitan Board
further resolved, after an interview with Mr. Layard
then First Commissioner of Works, that it could not
charge itself with any payments in compensation of
manorial or proprietary rights.
In this condition of things, Mr. Fawcett, M.P., in
the month of February, 1870, carried an address to
the Crown praying Her Majesty "to take such
66
measures as in her judgment she might deem most
"expedient, in order that Epping Forest might be
"preserved as an open space for the recreation and
"enjoyment of the public."
Her Majesty expressed her concurrence with the
desire of the House of Commons, that open spaces in
17
the neighbourhood of the Metropolis should be
preserved for the enjoyment of her people, and
promised carefully to consider in what manner effect
could be given to this address.
Of
The result of the consideration given to this subject
by Her Majesty's Ministers, was shown in an unexpect-
ed form. Mr. Ayrton, who had succeeded Mr. Layard
at the Office of Works, brought in a Bill in the course
of the same Session (1870), which proceeded to settle
the Forest question in a very summary manner.
the 6,000 acres no less that 5,000 were by this Bill
to be given up to the Lords of Manors, 600 only to
be dedicated to the public use and to be vested in the
Metropolitan Board-that Board to be at liberty, out
of public taxation, to purchase 400 acres more if it
thought fit. As soon as the nature of the Government
proposals became known, Mr. Fawcett, gave notice to
move as an amendment to the second reading of the Bill
"that in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient
"to sanction any scheme which would reduce the
"area of the land to which the public have still
"access in Epping Forest." It became, however,
unnecessary to move this amendment, as the Standing
Orders Committee fortunately decided that the Bill
could not be proceeded with. Indeed the storm
which the knowledge of its contents created was so
great that Her Majesty's Government introduced no
B
18
further Bill on the subject, neither in that nor the
succeeding session, but left matters as they were, where-
upon on the 28th April, 1871, Mr. Cowper-Temple
moved and carried against the Government on a division
by 197 votes to 96, the following motion, "That it is
"expedient that measures be adopted in accordance
"with the humble address presented to Her Majesty
"in February, 1870, for preserving as open spaces.
"accessible to Her Majesty's subjects for purposes
"of health and recreation those parts of Epping
"Forest which have not been enclosed with the assent
"of the Crown or by legal authority."
About this time, another important actor ap-
peared upon the scene. The Corporation of London
had long had a traditional connection with Epping
Forest. The citizens of London had claimed to hunt
in that forest, and had hunted there for many centuries.
This ancient body found the Epping Forest question
deserted by every public authority, except the House
of Commons and the Commons Preservation Society.
The Metropolitan Board of Works had from 1864 to
1871 consumed a large quantity of paper, much
ink, and many pens upon the subject, but had taken no
step to rescue what was left of it, or restore what had
been filched from it. The House of Commons had
thrice determined that Epping Forest should be pre-
served for the inhabitants of this immense metropolis.
But the Government would have nothing to do with it,
19
the last address to the Crown having been carried
against and in spite of Ministers. In this crisis of
its fate the Corporation of London stepped into the
arena and determined to use its best endeavours
and all its resources to preserve Epping Forest for
the people.
On the 21st May, 1871, or within a month after
Mr. Cowper-Temple's motion for the address to the
Crown had been carried, the Court of Common Council
of the City of London unanimously resolved that it
would take such steps as were in its power to save Ep-
ping Forest.* It required, of course, some time to see
how this could be done effectively. The subject was
new to it and to its officers, and it dealt with a vast
tract of land, and with intricate and obscure legal
questions. But the Common Council was not long in
making up its mind.
its mind. In the cases of Berkhampstead
Common, Plumstead Common, and Tooting Common,
an appeal to courts of law had been successful in
preserving these open spaces against enclosures, and
the facts having been carefully ascertained, and the
whole question as carefully studied, with the aid of
the experience of the Commons Preservation Society,
a Bill in Chancery was filed on the 14th August, 1871,
by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London,
(the nominees of the Corporation), against every
*The notice of motion which resulted in this resolution, was given by
Mr. Bedford, as early as the 3rd of May, or within a week of the resolution
of the House of Commons.
B 2
}
20
Lord of a Manor in Epping Forest who had made en-
closures, and against two persons claiming to hold
enclosed lands by purchase from Lords of Manors,
these two cases being chosen as representative cases
to test the legality of all other enclosures held by persons
in a similar position. The right which the Plaintiffs
in that suit asserted was that they were owners and
occupiers of about 200 acres of land within the ancient
limits of the forest, and that they were entitled in res-
pect of that ownership and occupation to a right of
common of pasture over all the wastes of the Forest,
and that any enclosures which had been made within
twenty years preceding the date of the filing of that
Bill were unlawful as against the Plaintiffs, and all
other owners and occupiers of lands within the Forest.
Whether in consequence of this spirited procedure
of the Corporation, or in consequence of the address
to the Crown carried in the House of Commons it is
not necessary to enquire, but a Bill was brought into
Parliament on the 5th July, in the same Session of
1871, appointing certain Commissioners to enquire
into the enclosures in Epping Forest, and to report what
steps should be taken for preserving that Forest for the
use of the public. It was to say the least, strange
that the preamble of the bill should recite the address
of 1870, and that no action should have been taken
upon
that address until the Corporation had vigorously
taken up the subject fifteen months afterwards.
21
About this time also an application was made to the
Lord Chancellor to issue a writ for completing, by the
election of the freeholders of Essex, the necessary num-
ber of Verderers, one only being then living. The writ
was issued, and three new Verderers were appointed.
As soon as the new Verderers held their first
Court, the Corporation handed in a long string of
presentments against the unlawful enclosures in the
Forest, comprising something like 3000 acres.
The Bill appointing Commissioners had meanwhile
been proceeding through Parliament, and Mr. Charles
Wood, one of the Assistant Enclosure Commissioners,
Mr. J. W. Perry-Watlington, Mr. H. F. Barclay, and
Mr. John Locke were appointed the Commissioners.
Mr. Locke's name was not in the Bill as originally
introduced, but was added by the House.
An attempt was made in the next Session of Par-
liament, by Mr. Ayrton, to stop the legal proceedings
which the Corporation of London were then vigour-
ously prosecuting. The Corporation had to fight this
question before a Select Committee of the House of
Lords, which, whilst restraining all other legal proceed-
ings about Epping Forest until the Commissioners had
made their Report, allowed the hands of the Corpora-
tion to be free as far as the proceedings in Chancery
were concerned.
These proceedings came to an end on the 10th
November, 1874, when, after a hearing extending over
22
twenty-two days, before the Master of the Rolls, the
Court made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs,
declaring they had the right which they claimed, and
practically ordering all the unlawful enclosures
made within twenty years to be thrown open.
The effect of this decision was, that so far as the
Lords of Manors and the two owners, and occupiers
of enclosed lands claiming by purchase from the
Lords who were made parties to the suit as repre-
sentative cases were concerned, all their enclosures
were thrown open, and in the result there are at this
moment some 5,000 acres of the Forest open, in place of
the 3,000 which was the quantity when the Cor-
poration took the matter up.
The Commissioners had in the meanwhile been
holding many sittings, and had taken much evidence,
not only as to the actual land of which the Forest con-
sisted and as to the unlawful enclosures therein, so as
to be able to prepare and publish an accurate map
and survey of the Forest, but also as to the rights in
Epping Forest.
Their proceedings were very pro-
tracted, and the Commissioners did not present their
Preliminary Report to Parliament until after the
decision of the Master of the Rolls, when they were of
course obliged, as far as rights were concerned to follow
the decision of the authorized tribunals of the country.
It is as well to set out here what their actual
findings were:-
{
23
"That over those parts of the waste within the
"regard of the Forest, over which your Majesty's
"rights have not been released or conveyed, such
"rights still exist."
"That all enclosures, within the regard of the
"Forest, made since the 21st day of August, 1851,
"where your Majesty's Forestal Rights have not
"been conveyed or released, are unlawful, as against
"your Majesty and the commoners, and that where
66
your Majesty's rights have been conveyed or
"released, enclosures within the regard of the
"Forest made since the 21st day of August, 1851
(6 are unlawful as against the commoners."
"That the owners and occupiers of lands and
"tenements within the regard of the Forest, not
66 being waste of the Forest, or enclosures from waste,
"have a right of common of pasture for commonable
"cattle within the Forest, namely:-horses and neat
66 beasts, levant and couchant on their lands and
"tenements aforesaid as appurtenant thereto, over all
"the wastes of the Forest, according to the assize
"and customs of the Forest.'
The Decree of the Master of the Rolls was never
appealed from, and the time for so doing having long
since gone by, it is now the indisputable law of the
land, binding upon the Lords of Manors and all en-
closers claiming under them.
The Corporation of London being unwilling that
24
the land in Epping Forest which it had succeeded
in keeping open for ever by this Decree should be
used by the public for purposes of recreation
(although the public had really so used it from time
immemorial), without the Lords of Manors being com-
pensated for their interest in the soil, did that which
the Metropolitan Board of Works had refused to do,
viz., proceeded to acquire the proprietary rights from
those owners who were willing to sell them. By
agreement it has purchased 3,500 out of the 5,000 acres
of the soil remaining in the ownership of Lords of
Manors, and having obtained the necessary licences
from the Crown to hold those lands in mortmain,
they have been duly conveyed to the Corporation,
and, subject to the rights of the commoners, those
lands are open for public recreation for ever.
the remaining 1,500 acres are not now the pro-
perty of the Corporation, does not arise from any
fault of theirs but from the fact that the owners have
been unwilling to sell them. In purchasing the lands
already referred to, the Corporation has also repaid to
the Lords of Manors such sums as they had paid for
Her Majesty's forestal rights, relying, as to the rest
of the lands where those Forestal rights still exist,
on the belief that the Lords of the Treasury will in
due time do for the Corporation that which in the
year 1864 they offered to do for the Metropolitan
Board of Works, namely, make over to the Corpora-
That
25
tion for the public benefit the rights of Her Majesty
without payment.
So far it will have been seen, all legal questions as to
rights in the Forest were settled, by judicial decision
and the Commissioners' functions consisted principally
in registering that decision and in ascertaining with
accuracy of what the Forest consisted, and what
persons were interested in it. But there remained
one very serious question for them to exercise
an impartial judgment upon; namely, what should
become of the 1,030 acres of land in Epping
Forest, forming part of its woods and wastes,
the enclosure of which the Decree of the Master
of the Rolls had declared to be illegal, but the
ownership of which the Lords of Manors had
parted with to other persons. Now as to 270 of
these acres no difficulty really arose. They either
have houses or other buildings upon them, or are
gardens and curtilages to houses, and although, in
the exercise of their strict rights, the successful
plaintiffs in the Chancery suit, might have asked that
every enclosure, even when made by a house, should
be abated, it is obvious that such a claim would
have been unreasonable and unnecessary, and there-
fore, with the consent of the Corporation, the houses
and buildings and gardens and curtilages, were omit-
ted from the decree of the Master of the Rolls; but
as to the remaining 760 acres, the Corporation con-
26
tended before the Master of the Rolls, contended before
the Commissioners and contends to this day, that as
these acres are either still in their wild forestal state,
or are merely arable or pasture land, they must be
restored to the Forest from which they have been
filched. Practically this is the main question now
open. There were many contentions before the
Epping Forest Commissioners as to the government
of the Forest and as to the details of their scheme,
but there is but one point to which public attention
need be directed, the future of these 760 acres.
Upon this point the recommendations of the Com-
missioners to Parliament are first, that the owners of
the land in question shall be at liberty, upon pay-
ment of nine-tenths of their agricultural value to
the Corporation, as the conservators of the Forest,
to remain in possession of them, and have their titles
quieted, and secondly, that, if the Corporation desires
to repurchase those lands for the purpose of throwing
them into the Forest, it must first obtain the con-
sent of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Works, and then pay for them at their full value.
The effect of these recommendations practically is, that
these 760 acres of land, the greater portion, if not the
whole of which, is absolutely necessary for the en-
joyment of the Forest, will remain enclosed for ever,
and be turned without delay into building land.*
*The exact quantity is reduced to 740 acres ; as to the other 20, the Cor-
poration have either come to an agreement with the owners, or have as-
certained that they have a Parliamentary title to them.
27
One moment's reflection will manifest that this
must be so. By the operations of the Corporation of
London, its legal proceedings, and its purchases,
5,000 acres of Epping Forest are kept open for ever,
never to be built upon, and it is clear that a site within
these 5,000 acres must be a favorite one for houses.
Nowhere else around this Metropolis can such a place
be found, and so soon as the scheme of the
Epping Forest Commissioners becomes law, there is
not a yard of that land which will not rapidly sell at
prices varying from £200 to £1,000 an acre, according
as it is near to, or distant from London. Briefly, the
effect of the Commissioners scheme may be said to be to
transfer about two hundred thousand pounds into the
pockets of the fortunate occupiers of lands, to which
money at this moment they have not a shadow of
title or claim, for the legal rights over those lands
are incompatible with any beneficial or profitable use
of them by their owners.
The mere statement of the proposition of the Com-
missioners should be sufficient to ensure its condemna-
tion, and it may well be asked how they could possibly
come to make such a recommendation. The answer
is not far to scek. They have laboured at
the reasons in their Report. First they state that
there was a prevalent belief that those enclosures
could take place according to the custom of the Manor,
and that the right of common was limited to the

28
tenants of each Manor. How in the face of the
Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners of 1793,
of the Report of the Commission of 1850, of the
Report of the Select Committee of 1863, of the pub-
lic proceedings of the Verderer's Courts, and of the
public meetings that were held in the Forest to
protest against the enclosures, they could as matter of
fact find that such a belief really existed, will surpass
all reasonable comprehension.
66
6
6
It is as well to quote here an extract from the
Report of the Commission of 1850. "The Crown
claims, what the Land Revenue Commissioners
(6 reported that it had, in this as in other forests,
"viz.: an unlimited right to keep deer in all the
"unenclosed woods and wastes within the perambu-
"lation, unless some parts have been disafforested
"by grants which have not come to our knowledge
"While the freeholders and others owners and
"occupiers of lands within the bounds of the forest'
"claim what the same Commissioners say that they
"had, viz. a right of common pasture for horses
"and cows over the said woods and wastes;' and it
"is clear that both these rights (as also those of the
"ordinary public, especially from the East of the
"Metropolis, who by leave of the Crown use Waltham
"Forest as a place of recreation) are liable to be
"annulled, if private individuals are to be at liberty
66
:
gradually to enclose the wastes over which such
29
"rights are exercised; and accordingly these enclo-
66
sures have repeatedly been made the subject of
"serious complaints."
When it is remembered that all the enclosures
now objected to were made since the date of this
Report, how can the existence of a bona fide belief in
their legality be possible?
The next reason the Commissioners give, is that there
arc5,000 acres left and that to throw down the enclosures,
"would work great loss and hardship to the owners
"and occupiers of those enclosures, and that if they
"had drawn any distinction between enclosures on
"which houses were built, or which were used as
"curtilages and gardens to houses and enclosures not
66
so used or between enclosures which had been
"cultivated, and those which had not, it would create
"a sense of unfairness and hardship, for they all
"alike have the same infirmity of title, and that
"although the degrees of inequality would vary, the
"principle of inequality would be there, and the
"sense of hardship likewise." But to this very
weak reasoning, which now that there is a ladies
college at Girton, would not be expected even from
the other sex, there is an obvious answer. In the
affairs of this world we must deal with the practical
and not with theories, and although it is true that the
owners of enclosures upon which houses are built, or
which are used as gardens or curtilages to houses,
30
have the like infirmity of title as the owners of
enclosures which are still agricultural land, yet
between the destruction of a house standing upon a
small plot of land, perhaps not more than a few
perches in extent, and the throwing open of an
enclosure of 64 acres of land, without a building
upon them belonging to one person (an actual case),
there is a wide difference indeed.
The Commissioners have been so anxious to assist
the enclosers that they have not even laid down a give
and take price. If for any reasons of hardship, the
enclosers were to be considered as entitled to have the
law of the land suspended in their favor, and be al-
lowed to retain their lands against the legal decision
that they should be thrown open, surely one
standard should have been fixed, which they were
to pay, for having their titles quieted, or which the
Corporation should pay to them for the repurchase of
those lands if it wanted to throw them into the
forest; but, the Commissioners' scheme for quieting
the titles and repurchase of the land is one which
gives one price for one operation and another for the
other, full marketable value for the Corporation
wanting to throw the land open and agricultural value
for the encloser wanting to keep it as private property.
It is not a little remarkable that in their zeal for
the interest of the enclosers, and as showing how
greatly they have mistaken the purpose of their
31
appointment, the Commissioners have not even
thought it necessary to except from the operation
of their scheme, about 100 acres of land in the
Manor of Loughton, which the Lord of that Manor
when he proceeded to enclose his entire open Forest
land, allotted to the Commoners in that Manor in
extinction of their rights of common over the Forest;
so that we have this startling result, that the fortunate
owners of these 100 acres have got 100 acres of
Epping Forest allotted to them in extinction of their
rights of Common, which they are by the recommen-
dation of the Commissioners' Scheme to be permitted
to hold and deal with as building land; in other
words these persons are to put about £20,000
in their pockets, whilst these same persons as com-
moners, by the action of the Corporation of London,
have had the whole of the Forest lands thrown open
to them, and possess, and will exercise the very right
of Common, which these 100 acres were given to them.
to compensate them for the loss of!
After this statement of the monstrous conclusion
at which the Commissioners have arrived, it will not be
surprising to find that they have erred as much
in law as they have in fact. Their only commission.
to deal with questions arising in Epping Forest is
contained in the Act of Parliament by which they
were appointed. They are the creatures of that Act,
and have no authority outside of its terms, and their
32
commission was to ascertain the boundaries of the
Forest, and to enquire into the rights of common,
and having made all such enquires as would enable
them to report, they were "to settle a scheme for the
preservation and management of the waste lands
thereof," being (the very words of the Act 34 and 35
Vict. c. 93 are used), "all lands situate within the boun-
"daries of Epping Forest as ascertained by the Com-
"missioners, which have not been lawfully enclosed,
"or over which the Crown was entitled to exercise
"forestal rights." It will be seen that so far from
preserving the waste lands of the Forest they have
presented to Parliament a scheme which is entirely
ulta vires, for it proposes, not to preserve, but to retain
as enclosures no less than 740 acres, which have not
been lawfully enclosed, or nearly one-eighth of the
entire Forest. In short, the Commission of the Com-
missioners being to preserve Epping Forest, they have
not preserved a yard of it, for all that has been
preserved has been secured by the Law Courts set in
motion by the Corporation of London, and what was
within the power of the Commissioners to preserve,
they recommend should be kept enclosed!
As the House of Commons has again and again
shewn that it does not intend to be baulked in its re-
solves concerning Epping Forest, it remains to be seen
whether it will allow this Commission to interfere
with its determination.
33
Perhaps it is matter of less importance that the
proposal of the Commissioners is not only illegal, un-
justifiable as against the public, and likely to cause the
transfer of a very large sum of money from the pocket
of the public to the pockets of persons who have
no right whatever to it, but it will be so costly in its
operation as never to be put into effect. Supposing the
Corporation, who are to be the future Conservators of
the Forest, were willing to find the immense sum
required to obtain possession of the 740 acres now
under discussion. It is calculated that there are at
least 500 different plots. The process will be as
follows:-first there will be an arbitration or a jury
to ascertain what sum the encloser is to pay to
have his title quieted, viz:-9/10ths of the agri-
cultural value; then there will be an application to
the First Commissioner of Works for leave to the
Conservators to purchase the land; and lastly there
must be arbitrators or a jury to decide as to its full
marketable value which the Conservators are to pay.
Dealing only with the third and last of these steps
for the moment and allowing £500 as a very mo-
derate sum for the cost of each compensation case,
(and all those who have been engaged in such cases
well know that this sum is very often exceeded even
to the extent of £1000), it might cost a sum varying
from £70,000 to £140,000, to ascertain what should
be paid for these 740 acres, supposing there was a
C
I
34
dispute as to each of the plots. The Commissioners'
schedule has been carefully examined, and it appears
by that, that the number of enclosures, the price of
which would be in dispute, is 275, belonging to
147 different owners, but in this respect the accuracy
of the schedule as to the ownership cannot be relied
upon as it may turn out that some of the plots have
been sub-divided, which would increase the number
of cases.
Nor have the Commissioners been thus tender only
to the owners of lands illegally enclosed. They have
even refused to put any limit upon leases which have
been unlawfully granted of parts of the Forest, so that
in every way their leaning has been against, and not for
the public.
The Commissioners apologetically suggest that
the precedent they set in this case will not be an en-
couragement to enclosers in other cases throughout
the country, which shews how little they are able
to see the consequences of their actions. They say
this result cannot be arrived at, because the enclosures
having been determined to be unlawful it will not
form a precedent for enclosures being declared to be
lawful in other cases, but the Commissioners them-
selves set the very precedent. The law has declared
the enclosures to be unlawful and that they should
be thrown out, but the Commissioners, turning the
clemency of the Corporation in favour of houses and
35
gardens against them, recommend that all enclosures,
whatever their condition or the use they are put to,
although they are declared to be unlawful, shall
remain enclosed. In short, when the last petition
which could be made to the Commissioners about
these enclosures on behalf of the public, that they
would at least say they were not to be built upon,
was presented, even that was scattered to the winds
by the suggestion that when once the Commissioners
had determined the enclosures should be permitted to
remain, they should be permitted to remain with all
the rights of property. To use such a term as "Rights
of property" indeed, in connection with this subject,
when true regard for rights of property should have
dictated that these enclosures should be thrown open,
shows how infirm was the tribunal called into exist-
ence by the Epping Forest Act of 1871, and how
small is the respect to which its conclusions are
entitled.
The Commissioners feeling the weakness of their
decision again and again give reasons for its adoption,
and finally on page 23 of their Report they say that
"less hardship would arise to the public from per-
"mitting the enclosures to remain than would neces-
"sarily arise to grantees if the strict law were
66 enforced and the enclosures thrown open.'
Well, if this remarkable reason is valid at all the
Commissioners should have gone on to recommend that
c 2
1
36
all the lands which the Lords of Manors had enclosed
should also be allowed to remain enclosed, for if the
word "hardship" has any signification at all in con-
nection with this matter, it means, that those who
have spent money in purchasing these enclosures,
or in turning them into cultivation, will lose that
money, but as their titles are just the same as those
of the Lords of Manors from whom they derive them
(as the Commissioners themselves declare in their First
Report), the hardship is to both Lords of Manors
and their grantees a question of amount; in the
case of the owners of these 740 acres it would be
measured by a loss of hundreds, in the case of the
Lords of Manors whose fences have been thrown
down, by thousands of pounds. Where then is the
difference of hardship?
In point of fact, the Commissioners became, as it
was feared from the first they would become, the
advocates of the enclosers, and not the judges as
between them and the public. One of the Com-
missioners, Mr. Perry-Watlington, was a member of
the Committee of the House of Commons of 1863.
It is but necessary to turn to the proceedings of that
Committee to find how upon every division in the
Committee he was consistently on the side of the
enclosers against the public, and indeed there was
no doubt that he was put upon the Commission
to protect the interests of the enclosers. Another
37
Commissioner, Mr. Barclay, resides at Woodford
in the midst of the Forest, and is on terms of
social intimacy with many of the fortunate gentle-
men whose unlawful enclosures are thus to be
turned into gold mines, and it is not perhaps
in human nature that he could be insensible to
the influences which association with neighbours
and friends will certainly have in their favour.
Nor, indeed, is the appointment of an Assistant
Enclosure Commissioner in the person of Mr. Wood,
the Chairman of the Commission, a very happy one
to protect the public rights. What the Enclosure
Commissioners think of the public in connection
with open spaces is but too well known by their
proceedings. Let this be illustrated by an example :
Some few years ago the Enclosure Commissioners
submitted a scheme to Parliament for the enclosure of
Epsom Common. The House of Commons threw out
the proposal, but it was supported by a report of the
Enclosure Commissioners containing this passage:-
"The enclosure may destroy one of the principal
"features of the district when viewed from the
"premises of the objectors, and houses of inferior
description may spring up and may further pre-
66
66
judicially affect the view, but I submit that this
"indirect and remote injury, if any, ought not to be
"allowed to interpose a bar to the reclamation of so
large and valuable a tract as Epsom Common."
38
In short the raison d'etre of an Enclosure Commissioner
is to enclose, and not to keep open, commons, and if
Mr. Wood could have approached this subject free
from the bias of his daily occupation he would be some-
thing more than mortal.
Nor have the Commissioners thus done wrong
without plenty of opportunity of doing right.
As soon as the Decree of the Master of the Rolls
had settled the rights in Epping Forest the Cor-
poration of London set to work aided by a map
of the Forest, for the purpose of sketching out a
scheme for restoring to the public all the Forest lands
to which the public were entitled, after allowing
houses, gardens and curtilages, and pleasure grounds to
remain. At a very large cost a detailed survey was
made of the Forest, and an elaborate scheme suggested
to the Commissioners, shewing every house and
garden, and curtilage that was to be allowed to
remain, with the sum which the Corporation proposed
should be assessed upon them for quieting the owners
titles. Nothing could have been easier, than for the
Commissioners to have taken up this scheme, and to
have called up in succession every owner and
occupier of a house, garden, and curtilage, and to
have heard what he had to say upon the subject,
and to have decided whether the area to be left to
him should be increased or diminished, and in like
manner whether the sum which he was to be called upon
39
to pay should be increased or diminished; but they took
no such course. However troublesome and wear-
isome such a function might have been it was the
very thing in which the Commissioners could have
been useful, and in dealing with the Forest on this
footing they would have presented a final scheme and
a legal scheme to Parliament for settling the whole
question.* As it is if their scheme should receive the
sanction of Parliament, (which is a contingency not
contemplated) it will be but the commencement of new
litigation.
For let us think of the case of the owner of a house
who is called upon, under the Commissioners' scheme,
to have his title quieted by paying the Conservators
9/10ths of the yearly agricultural value of the land
upon which his house stands. Upon reference to the
Commissioners' schedule, it will be seen there are many
small houses standing with their gardens upon 5 or 6
poles of land only. This would be the 32nd part of
The Conservators may allege that the land
is of a value varying from 40s. to £5 per acre, so that
the settlement of the question whether he is to pay the
32nd part of either of these sums or not may lead to
a costly compensation case.
an acre.
It appears by the Commissioners' scheme that
there are no less than 1,557 different plots of land
There is no practical difficulty in working out such a scheme; similar
questions were settled in a short time and at a small cost by the Master of
the Rolls as to the lands the subject of the Chancery Suit.
40
illegally enclosed and subject to these provisions.
They have however often used the same number
more than once, distinguishing it by A B, &c.,
if these duplicate numbers, which amount to 255,
be added there is a total of 1,812 plots, but from
this must be deducted 293 owned by and thrown
open by the City, leaving no less than 1,519 cases,
about which there may be an arbitration or a jury
to settle the annual rent to be paid to the Conservators
for quieting the title. Can any one contemplate the
cost of such a process without coming to the con-
clusion, that, such proposals for quieting titles are
too absurd and impracticable ever to receive count-
enance any where when their working comes to be
examined?
In justice to every one, the Commissioners should
themselves have fixed at least the standard price per
acre, and have appointed a surveyor to apportion it
to each plot.
It may be asked, how is it that the Corporation
having succeeded in getting a Decree declaring all
these enclosures illegal, has not enforced it as to the
740 acres? The answer is easy. By the Epping
Forest Act of 1872 all new legal proceedings are
prohibited until the end of the next Session after the
Commissioners have made their final report. The only
proceeding excepted from this enactment was the suit
then pending, or supplemental suits instituted by the
41
Corporation. As supplemental suits cannot according
to the practice of the Court of Chancery be com-
menced after the Decree in the original suit, it was
thought that no new legal proceedings question-
ing the keeping enclosed these 740 acres of land
could be commenced until the end of the present
Session of Parliament. The Corporation have thus
only been able to enforce the Decree against the
Lords of Manors and the two representative defendants
who were made parties to the suit.
Here again the recommendation of the Commission-
ers is open to grave remark, one of the Defendants
held about 40 acres of land, the greater part of which
is in its wild Forest state, and by the decree the fences
are thrown down and the land is restored to the Forest.
Under the Commissioners scheme if confirmed by Par-
liament, the owner will be entitled in defiance of the
decision of the Court of Chancery, to enclose these
lands again. Is this really the purpose for which
Parliament appointed the Commission?
Within this year, a strange state of things
has come about by which the right to keep the
740 acres of land enclosed is unexpectedly chal-
lenged by legal proceedings. Mr. Burney, who for
many years has taken a great interest in the Epping
Forest question, and who was examined as a witness
on behalf of the public on the 7th May, 1863, before
the Committee of the House of Commons on this
42
question, determined in the most public manner to
challenge the rights of the owners of those enclosures
to keep the commoners out of them, and on the 16th
January last he knocked down the fences round
the greater portion of them. The owners of these
fences at once appealed to the Chancery Division
of the High Court of Justice for an injunction to
protect them, but by the recent amendment of the
law under the Judicature Acts, Mr. Burney, the
defendant in these proceedings, by way of counter-
claim, can challenge the lawfulness of these enclosures
and hence in the course of a short time a decree may
and probably will be made declaring them unlawful.
In like manner the Corporation of London, having
had an action brought against it by one of these
enclosers, at once challenged the Plaintiff in respect
of 34 acres of land unlawfully enclosed from the
Forest which he holds.
It will thus be seen that if any attempt be made
in this Session of Parliament to give effect to the
recommendations of the Commissioners, Parliament
will be invited to step in with a strong hand and
declare that no less than 740 acres of Epping
Forest, unlawfully enclosed, is to remain enclosed
for ever, and to be held by persons who have
not a shadow of title to it as their private pro-
property, and that too in the face of decisions of
courts of law declaring those enclosures illegal, and
43
in the face of legal proceedings now pending to throw
down the fences around them. No precedent since
there has been settled law and order in this
country can be found for such a step, and there
is difficulty in believing if it be attempted, that the
House of Commons will listen to a bill, the main object
of which will be not to preserve but to keep enclosed
and to destroy 1/8th of Epping Forest. It will not
be the first or the second time that the House has
rejected such recommendations.
The Corporation of London on its part has not
been idle. Having acquired, as before stated the
greater portion of the lands belonging to the
Lords of Manors, and desiring very much to drain
and to improve that land for the use of the commoners,
and the public it has brought a very modest bill into
Parliament, giving it the necessary powers to make
bye-laws applying only to the lands it owns, to
restore the Forest Officers, (the Reeves), so that there
may be some control over the commoners' cattle sent
to depasture, and to open the Forest up by making
walks and rides for the use of the commoners and the
public. The Bill also contains powers to enable the
Corporation to purchase by agreement the remaining
1,500 acres belonging to the Lords of Manors, and
any of the enclosures, the owners of which are willing
to sell them without having to go through the costly pro-
cess of obtaining on each occasion a license in mortmain.
44
It is threatened that this Bill shall be vigorously
opposed, and it is not difficult to know whence the
opposition comes.
It may well be that upon a consideration of the
recommendations of the Commissioners, Parliament,
and all those who take an interest in the Epping
Forest question, will think they are by far too unjust
to have legal effect given to them. If there were no
other suggestion before Parliament, as this Epping
Forest question has been long waiting for final
settlement, these recommendations might have been
accepted, but the Corporation having themselves set-
tled the greater part of the Forest questions, and
obtained the ownership of the greater part of the
soil, presents an alternative Bill to Parliament to
enable its work to be completed, an alternative which
while it touches no disputed question whatever, nor
seeks power over any other land but that of the
Corporation, will, if it be passed into law, enable
these 3,500 acres to be at once enjoyed. This would
not suit the enclosers because they want a bill to
keep their land against the commoners, who are
claiming it, and hence if the Corporation bill can be but
stopped by any means whatever, they would be able
to say there is now no proposal but the Commissioners'
scheme before Parliament.
There remains one more point to be noticed. It
has been seen that the Corporation owns 3,500 acres of
45
/
the Forest land. There are 740 acres in dispute,
270 acres belonging to houses about which there are
no dispute, and 1,500 still belonging to Lords of
Manors, but open. As to these the Commissioners
propose by the scheme, that the Corporation shall be
compelled to purchase, and the Lords of Manors shall
be compelled to sell them. It will scarcely be
credited, but it is nevertheless a fact, that the
Commissioners have recommended (see clause 13 of
their scheme) that the price to be thus paid by the
Corporation shall be "one equal tenth part in
"marketable value of the soil, such value to be the
"marketable valuc at the date of the scheme coming
"into operation, taken as if the land were released
"from all rights of common, and of the Crown and
other Forestal rights," so that although up to this
moment the only interest the Lord of the Manor has
in the waste lands of Epping Forest, is a bare owner-
ship of the soil, which he cannot turn to any profitable
use-for all the profit belonged for eleven months of
the
year to the commoners, and for the twelfth month
(the fence month) to the Crown-he is to be entitled
to be paid, not the value of the bare right of owner-
ship of the soil, but one tenth part of its marketable
value, as if it were clear of all Forestal and Common
Rights. The other Lords of Manors have been con-
tent to receive from the Corporation for this manorial
right at the rate of £20 an acre for their land, and
}
#
46
t
the value of the timber, but the five who have
held out may, if this recommendation should become
law, obtain five times that amount.
Now nothing would have been easier for the Com-
missioners if they desired to hold an even balance, than
to have called the Lords of Manors before them, to
have ascertained what each Lord had received from
grantees for the lands which they had thus unlawfully
sold, and to have recommended to Parliament that as the
result of the decision in the Chancery Suit was that all
the lands enclosed within twenty years had to be restored
to the Forest, those Lords should, out of any purchase
money they might receive for their ownership of the
soil, repay to the grantees the sums they had paid
for lands which, as it turned out, the Lords could
give them no title to enclose. When it is known
that very large sums have passed into the hands of
one of these Lords of Manors for lands which he had
no right to sell as enclosed land, it is left to the
judgment of a just and discerning public to say what
hardship there would have been in stopping any
further sums going into this person's pocket until he
had first done justice to those whose money he had
taken for nought, and whether having already re-
ceived this large sum to which he has no right, he is
to have a further large sum from the public for the rest
of his land as building land. All these suggestions
were made to the Commissioners, but the only result has
47
been the weak and illegal scheme which they have
presented to Parliament.
It is a small matter, but perhaps the climax of all
these recommendations is found in the recommendation
of the Commissioners, that the Lord Warden should
be compensated for his interest in the Forest, al-
though it is due to his acting in entire contravention
of his duties for his own profit that the enclosures
have taken place, and all this litigation and expense
have become necessary.
If no Bill is brought in to give effect to the
Commissioners' Scheme, the Epping Forest question
will settle itself, as it would have settled itself two
years ago if the unfortunate Commission had not been
in existence and kept the question open. 3,500 acres
belong to the Corporation of London, upon a public
trust to keep them open for ever; 1,500 acres more
are open by the Decree of the Master of the Rolls,
and can never be enclosed in the face of the Common
Rights owned by the Corporation and others in respect
of property in the Forest; the 740 acres now un-
lawfully retained enclosed will be thrown open by the
Law Courts before the summer is over. With the owners
of houses and gardens there will be no difficulty
in agreeing upon the payment of some small sum to
quiet their titles, and for this last purpose only will
legislation be hereafter necessary; but it is clear that
a schedule of those houses, and the sums the owners
|
48
are to pay, must first be settled if the unfortunate
persons are not to be ruined by the cost of legal
proceedings to ascertain what they must pay.
Lastly, let the poor toilers at the East End be
remembered in the settlement of this question. If
mercy is to be one of the elements in its determination
let their claim for mercy be heard. The West End
has its large and well kept parks, and if the building
of even one house in Hyde Park is loudly objected to
as depriving the public of an open space, how
much more is the unlawful detention from the East
End of 740 acres of their park open to just and
reasonable objection.
3
49
APPENDIX.
Extract from the Report of the Royal New and
66
Waltham Forest Commission, 1850.
•
Twelfthly, in respect of Forest Courts, after
referring to what has been hereinbefore stated on the
subject generally, it should be noticed that the
judicial administration of the law in this Forest has
fallen into the last stages of debility. The Title of
the Proclamation Tempore Edward VI, from which
a passage was quoted above, appears to be for
ceasing the bruit and noise of disafforesting the Forest
of Waltham,' while the letter from Mr. Waldegrave,
A.D. 1603, cited above, obviously implies that
proposals had then been renewed for the same object.
Further, the last Justice Seat for this Forest appears
to have been held A.D. 1670; and when the last
Court of Swainmote was held I have not been able to
ascertain. The Steward of the Forest Courts there,
however, intimated to the Committee of the House
of Commons that both these Courts were
or had ceased to exist. It further appears that with
reference to the only surviving Court, the Court of
gone
D
""
50
Attachments, there have been several consecutive
years in this century, during which no such Court
whatever has been held; and even at those which
have been held no business appears to have been
transacted.
"In connection with this subject it will be proper
to notice that the majority of the Forest Officers,
those bound to hold the Courts and to enforce the
law, are alleged to be among the persons most
interested in the disuse of the Courts and in breaches
of the apparent law.
"In the first place, the private interest of the
Lord Warden, as Lord of several Manors in the
Forest, appears to be directly antagonistic to the rights.
and interests both of the Crown and the Commoners.
Every enclosure from the wastes of his Manors that
he can make, to the limitation of the Forestal Rights
of the Crown and the pasture rights of the commoners,
is a source of revenue to him in the shape of rents,
fines, &c.
"In the second place, the Steward of the Lord
Warden, who is also Steward of the Verderers' Court
there, as also of several private Manors in the Forest,
is said to have a direct pecuniary interest in en-
couraging what are alleged to be similar breaches of
the supposed law. It also appears that on the recent
presentment of an alleged encroachment at the
Verderers' Court, the Steward of the Forest and of
51
6
the said Court, being present there officially, defended
the alleged encroachment against the alleged Rights
of the Crown and public; and that in the case of
Attorney General v. Hallett* in which a verdict was
obtained by the Crown, he was concerned on behalf
of the defendant and against the Crown. He also
himself stated to the Committee of the House of
Commons, when asked whether as Lord Warden's
Steward he was likely to have made some enquiries.
on the subject' of some timber that had been cut by
one of the Verderers within the bounds of Waltham
Forest, that he had not done so and should not
consider it his duty so to do, because he had himself
cut and sold timber in a similar manner, and there-
fore he could not do such an absurd thing, as Steward,
as complain of others for doing the same thing as he
had done himself;' as also that 'if he were directed
by the Verderers to apply to a freeholder who had
cut timber on his own freehold, he must at once say,
I cannot do such an absurd thing as that because I
have myself done the same thing.'
"In the third place, three of the four Verderers,
being also Lords of Manors, appear to be similarly
interested in a high degree in violating the supposed
laws and rights, which they have been sworn to uphold.
Accordingly it has been alleged that one or more of
the Verderers have themselves made or authorised
* This is the case of Knighton Wood referred to in the note on page 6.
52
enclosures on their own lands or encroachments con-
trary to law; that these enclosures or encroachments
by them have prevented their interfering to prevent
similar ones being made by the lords or stewards of
other Manors, and have also made them not anxious
to hold the Courts at which such enclosures might be
presented. The Steward of the Forest and Forest
Courts there also distinctly stated: Again the Ver-
derers cannot act as a Court in preventing these
enclosures; take Mr. Conyers, Mr. Conyers cannot
sign a warrant to throw down a fence, when he himself
is putting up fences in other parts of the forest within
his own Manor;' while one of the Verderers himself
admitted that he had voted against complying with
the directions of the Statute, 10 Geo. IV., cap. 50,
sec. 100, as to certifying to the Attorney General the
presentment of one such enclosure or encroachment in
the Forest, because he thought it hard to put a Lord
of a Manor, who alleged a right against the Crown,
to the expense of a law suit with the Crown whereby
to establish that right.
"In the fourth place, it appears that one at least of
the Verderers is a Master-keeper, and as such is
apparently bound to prevent his own enclosures or
encroachments, and to present them when made at the
Forest Courts.
"In the fifth place, it should seem that one or two
of the Master-keepers are also Lords of Manors within
53
or adjoining the Forest, and consequently exhibit a
similar conflict between private interests and public
duties; as also that all the Master-keepers are
appointed by the Lord Warden, who is Lord of several
Manors as above-mentioned.
"In the sixth place, it appears that the Master-
keepers have the right of appointing their own Under-
keepers, and that this right is not unfrequently
exercised in the appointment of their own private
servants to that office; and it was distinctly stated by
one witness that the Forest law has latterly fallen
almost into abeyance; and that the Forest-keepers not
knowing what to do, have rather obeyed their masters,
to whom they were private gamekeepers, than done
their duty to the Crown.
6
"Now if these allegations be true, or anything
like true, it seems almost superfluous to observe that
a legal and judicial system, in which one and the
same person is or ought to be offender, prosecutor,
judge and witness all in one, in which the Courts for
the administration of that justice are not held, and
the constables intended to see to the keeping of
the law are either not appointed or incapable, is little
else than what the Stewards of the Court in question
stated them to be, viz:-' a pack of moonshine,' and
'a sort of tom-foolery concern.' Practically speaking
enclosures and encroachments and other breaches of
the supposed law are committed with impunity; the
54
rights of the Crown, the commoners, and of the
public are not properly protected; and consequently,
although it is stated that the powers of the Courts in
question are sufficient, if there were a disposition to
act upon them; it will create little surprise that the
Solicitor to the Woods and Forests' does not expect
much good to result from the holding of Courts by
the Verderers, constituted as the Verderers are now;'
or that the Second Commissioner of Works, &c.,
should have expressed his opinion that the 'Verderers'
Courts in this Forest are perfectly unavailing for the
purpose of taking cognizance of offences against the
property of the Crown and individuals,' and that
some other tribunal besides the very expensive Court
of Exchequer should be established or authorised for
that purpose.
JAN 16 1919
WATERLOW BROS. & LAYTON, Printers, London,

MAP OF
་་་་C་་
EPPING FOREST
IN THE COUNTY OF
ESSEX
Pors
Epping Long Green
GREAT PARNDON
HACKNEY
PARISH
Pt of Phot
West Ham
ST MARY LE BOW
BOW
Bridge
WEST
STRATFORD
TOWN
Temple
Mills
Pt of P
Wanstead
STRATFORD
STATION
Church
HAM
MAD
YAWJINA
COMPILED BY
WILLIAM D'OYLEY, ARCHITECT & SURVEYOR,
LOUGHTON.
1876.
RAILWAY
CAMBRIDGE LINE
GREAT
EASTERN
LOW LEYTON
STATION
E
T
0
ألف
1
OPPER MILLS
LOW
HALL
LEA
BRIDGE
ROAD
N
4
MARSH
Helliers
Perry
Knotts
G
LEYTON STREET
MANOR
WALTHAM
STATION
CREAT EASTERN RAILWAY, CAMBRIDGE LINE
PONDERS END
STATION
Chingford Marsh
LOW
STREET
LO
Chingford Hall
Yardley
Spencer's Picks
Farm
Farm
Wagners
House
Old Church
GILWELLS
HICHAM
HILL
WALTHAMSTOW
CHINGFORD
CHINGFORD
EARLS
Salisbury
House
CHINGFORD HIGH ST
King's
Head
PAULS
Chingford
A Church
CHINGFORD
HAWKWOOD
USE
WALTHAM
Sewardstone
Green
SEWARDSTONE
THE
GREAT HAWK
WOOD
Sewardstone
Bury
CHINGFORD
SAINT
MATTOCKS LANE
LEPPITTS
HILL
MOTT
Queen Elizabeth's
Lodge
FAIRMEAD
BOTTOM
Fairmead
Lodge
STREET
CLAY
STREET
STREET
FOREST ROAD
PARISH,
LEYTONSTONE
STATION
BUSH WOOD
ANSTEAD
P
Old Turnpike Road to Romford
ISH
WANSTEAD
EAST HAM
PARISH
FLATS
PARISH
WHIPPS
CROSS
WOOD
STREET
CHAPEL
END
SNARESBROOK
Bazy TATION
Asylum
PARIS
Wanstead Park
THORPE
HALL
PAR S--F
STATION
Friday Hill
CHINGFORD
LINE
CHINGFORD
HATCH
Hale End
GEORGE LANE
STATION
Sale Wood
The Lops
ㄡ​ˊ
R
SNAKES LANE
STATION
WOODFORD & LOUGHTON LINE
WOOD FOR
H
WOODFORD
BRIDGE!
OK
LITTLE ILFORD
City of London
Cemetery
PARISH
ALDE
NOTE.
The Lands comprising the Forest are shown by the Three
Colours Yellow, Blue and Red.
The Yellow Lands are the lands now open, and to remain
open by the scheme of the Epping Forest Commissioners.
The Red Lands are houses, or gardens, or pleasure grounds
to houses, which the Corporation is willing to allow to
remain enclosed
The Blue Lands are lands unlawfully enclosed and which are
neither houses, nor gardens, nor pleasure grounds, and
which the Corporation contend should be restored to the
Forest
LODCE
BUSHES
BUCKHURST HILL
STATION
CHEOWELL
The
PARISH
Chains 80
40
Ancient
E
SM
arth
HIGH
BEECH
Kings
Oak
B
Little Monk
Wood
Great
Menk
Wood
OUGHTON PARISH
LOUGHTON
STATION
AND
River
Roding
from Chigwell
MANOR
CHOWELL ROAD
TATION
Loughton
Bridge
Stale of Chains
1 Mile
2 Miles
WALTHAM
ill
WALTHAM
MARSH
ABBEY
+
TOWN
ABBEY
CROUND
Honey Lane
Woodriddem Farm
Pick Hill
HOLY FIELD
PARK
CALLEY HILL
WOOD
PARISH
Warlis
Park
COPPED
HALL
GREEN
Reeves
Gate
سالان
Cobbin End
Hunter's
Farm
Gill's Farm
Copped Hall
WAKE ARMS
Park
EPPING
Bury Farm
HEAD KEEPERS,
HOUSE
Birch
Hall
ABANKRY
PARIS H
Poultwells
Symondson
EPPING
Plack
Acre
Farm
THY DON
Red Oak
Farm
BOIS
THEYDON
GREEN
THEYDON BOIS
STATION
OIS
Bury Lane
TOWN
THEY DON CARNON
EPPING
STATION
COOPERSALE
Lindsey S
PARISH
CHAMBERS
MANOR
Epping
Church
Cobbin Bush
Farm
Shingle Hall
Severs Green
LITTLE MARLES
PARISH
PINCHTIMBER
FARM
Mr Leyton
Wintry Farm
Hayles
Farm
Rye Hill
Common
LITTLE
PARNDON
NETTESWELL
PARISH
Rye Hill Farm
LATTON PARISH
to Harlow
NORTH WEALD BASSET
NICHOLSON'S LITHO-TYPO STEAM PRINTING WORKS,
11, WORMWOOD STREET. CITY, E.C.

BOL.
NOV 12 1921
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06398 9522