Part 9

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.

"She examines the question patiently and thoroughly, and her book contains much information, and will be useful as a text-book to those who are desirous to use their abilities to the best advantage in the wide and difficult field of philanthropy."--_Athenæum._

"We recommend Miss Stephen's book to all who are thinking of entering sisterhoods, and still more to all who are engaged in the conduct of them. They will find in it much that deserves consideration, much from which, if they will honestly apply it, they cannot fail to derive profit."--_Saturday Review._

HOMES OF THE LONDON POOR. By OCTAVIA HILL. Extra fcap. 8vo, 3s. 6d.

"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 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._

STREETS AND LANES OF A CITY. Being the Reminiscences of Amy Dutton; with a Preface by the Bishop of Salisbury. Second and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo, 2s. 6d.

FIRST LESSONS ON HEALTH. By J. BERNERS. Seventh Edition. 18mo, cloth, 1s.

HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT AND COOKERY. By W. B. TEGETMEIER. With an Appendix of Recipes used by the Teachers of the National School of Cookery. 18mo, 1s.

FIRST LESSONS IN THE PRINCIPLES OF COOKING. By LADY BARKER. Second Edition. 18mo, 1s.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.