turned into the streets if the commoners', was always used for military drill, but rights are extinguished in this way. I since 1873 it has been cut to pieces and come now to the equally shameful action the turf entirely destroyed by artillery. of the War Office in the case of the It is now a very fair copy of the east end common of Plumstead. This African Sahara. Had Queen's College common and Bostall Heath contain to- the right as against the commoners to gether about 160 acres. Up to 1859, cut the turf to pieces by the use of artilthough troops were drilled there, the lery? Why, an injunction would have common was largely used for the pur- stopped such a course at once if it had pose of recreation by the inhabitants of been tried. But last week, when an Woolwich, and used also by the com- injunction against the War Office was moners of the manor in the exercise of applied for, the Judge said "Even if their rights of common. In 1859, the Crown could commit a trespass, a Queen's College, Oxford, to which the subject could not sue for it." Is that Star manor belongs, began a high-handed Chamber doctrine still good law? May course of action, with the view to crush the artillery come and knock my private the freeholders and build upon the garden to pieces, and I be without the common. In 1866 a suit was instituted ordinary remedies of law? The whole in Chancery, at great cost, praying that of the advantages gained by the freethe College might be restrained from holders of the manor at a very heavy inclosing. This suit was heard in 1870, cost by the Chancery suit have been lost when judgment was given against the by the action of the War Office. Now, College. That judgment was appealed two years ago I asked the Secretary of against, and was confirmed by the Lord State for War under what title the Chancellor in 1871. On this latter occa- artillery cut to pieces the common. sion the Lord Chancellor concluded his replied thatdecision with the following memorable words: : "The inquiry has been occasioned by a highhanded assertion on the part of the College, who seem simply to have said to those who have been exercising their rights for 200 years, You will be in a difficulty to prove that you have exercised them, so we will put you to that proof by taking possession of your property.' Now, that is what it really is when you come to an inclosure done against those who have so long exercised the right to which I am thankful to be able to afford a legal origin." After this happy decision we really He "The artillery enjoyed the same right to practice on Plumstead Common which had 1145.] been enjoyed since 1745."-[3 Hansard, ccxxi. He Now, I venture to put this question to file;' No doubt it is better for Ministers to avoid the errors and to say what they are told to say by clerks; but, in this case, the reply which I received was not a proper one. I am told that, since my Motion has been placed upon the Paper, the War Office has proposed a compromise. I shall be glad to hear what the details of the compromise may be. In that which I have heard talked of, the cloven foot again appears. It is suggested that the War Office should give up half the common, but acquire, by means of the Defence Act, the whole of the rights over the rest. This is a fatal policy which we cannot possibly allow in the case of any common, without taking steps to test the right of the War Office to put the Defence Act in force for purposes of this kind. I can only warn the Secretary of State that in acquiring any property of the kind he should acquire it by a special Act of Parliament, rather than by straining the Defence Act to include cases which it never was meant to meet. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the action of the War Office with reference to Plumstead Common, in the county of Kent, and Wormholt Common, in the manor of Fulham, is such as to imperil the use of those open spaces for recreation by the people of the metropolis,"-(Sir Charles W. Dilke,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." employed in the Royal Arsenal. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, the hon. Member for Chelsea had taken a somewhat unusual course upon this question, because he had asked the House to come to a conclusion on the subject without placing any documentary evidence before them, and his Motion, if passed, would practically be a Vote of Censure not only on the present, but also on the past Government. He believed, however, that the hon. Baronet did not intend to press his Motion to a division, and that his real object was merely to elicit information on the subject, which he should be very happy to give him. The hon. Baronet had said that he Mr. Hardy) had given a disingenuous answer when he spoke of the common having been used by the Artillery since the year 1740. Well, in reply to that, he could MR. BOORD wished to say a very few words in support of the Amendment. He complimented the hon. Baronet on the very lucid statement he had laid before the House, and also on the ingenious method he had chosen to escape from an embarrassing situation. He had succeeded in showing that the late Government were greatly to blame in this matter, and to make their fault appear less he had attempted to throw a still greater responsibility on the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. How-only say that he did not think that the ever that might be, the fact remained Crown was bound any more than a that by Lord Chancellor Hatherley's private individual to disclose the nature decision it was evident that there were of its title, especially at a time when commoners, and that those commoners other persons were seeking to set its had, and exercised, rights of the usual rights aside, and that in this respect it description. But how were they situated was entitled to an equal protection of the now? It was impossible for them to use law with a private owner. He would their rights in consequence of the action only make a few remarks as to the course of the War Department. The condition taken with respect to these commons. of the common had been correctly de- With regard to Plumstead Common the scribed by the hon. Baronet as that of a facts stood thus:-Since 1740 the Crown desert. But behind the commoners had, without leave or licence from any there was a still more important body-person, used the common for practising the public-which was represented in the evolutions of artillery. His predethat locality chiefly by the operatives cessor in office (Lord Cardwell) thought, common, for the Crown, which he had paid for out of the £3,500,000 voted by Parliament under the Localization Act. If an invasion of this country ever occurred Wormwood Scrubbs might become of great importance for the erection of fortifications, and his predecessor had purchased the freehold of 54 acres of land adjoining the Scrubbs at a cost of £24,600, in order to secure a large space for the exercise of the Cavalry, and which might ultimately be thrown open for public recreation. There was no intention to interfere with the rights of the commoners or of the public over the Scrubbs, and indeed the former received a rent from the Government for the use that was made of it, which circumstance was a sufficient proof that no confiscation of their rights was intended. He wished to point out, however, that some scheme with regard to these open spaces should be adopted which would render the public use of them more advantageous and less obnoxious to the neighbourhood than was at present the case. He trusted the House would leave the whole matter in the hands of the Executive. It would be impossible for it to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the Resolution of the hon. Baronet. however, it would be better to become possessed of the rights of the lords of the manor, so as to relieve himself from any opposition on their part. He (Mr. Hardy) quite admitted that the commoners also had rights over the common, and he would go further, and concede that the population of Greenwich had acquired certain rights of recreation in regard to it which ought to be respected. Negotiations, however, were now going on which he trusted would result in a satisfactory solution for all parties of the difficulty that had arisen; but he did not think that it would be prudent or desirable to state the stage those negotiations had reached to the House at the present moment. With respect to the rights of the Crown, the Master of the Rolls had most emphatically said it was impossible to get an injunction against the Crown, because it was itself the Fountain of Justice. No doubt the surface of the common was cut up to a greater extent by the heavy artillery, which required 8 or 12 horses to each gun, than it had been by the light artillery of former years; but that was a matter that could not be helped. It was in 1873 that his predecessor had obtained a lease, and certainly up to that time no complaint had been made by MR. SHAW LEFEVRE said, he did the commoners as to the use of the com- not think it necessary to discuss this mon. But since then not only private matter in a hostile spirit. The ground individuals, but the local board of Wool- of complaint with respect to Plumstead wich, had been anxious to come to some Common was not so much the use of terms with the Government. He desired the common by the troops as its abuse. that facilities should be given for the The right hon. Gentleman had said that recreation of the people; but holding the War Office had a right arising from the office he did he had also to look to long use to that common for military the military requirements of the country, purposes. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: and he was not prepared to give up the The Crown.] Well, the Crown. rights which the Government had exer- should be glad to know if that right cised unless it could be shown that he rested upon any better ground than the was entirely in the wrong. He declined right of the public to use the common. to go into the question of the negotia- He was afraid that it had no other basis. tions that were going on. He did not All that the hon. Member for Chelsea at all despair of making arrangements had asked of the Government was that which would be satisfactory at once to further proceedings should not be taken the locality and to the Government. in the matter until it was submitted to The Defence Act had not been put into the decision of Parliament. The excessive operation with regard either to Plum- use of the common had really rendered stead Common or Wormwood Scrubbs; it totally unsuitable for the purpose of and if any question arose as to the force public recreation; and he had a meof that statute it would have to be deter-morial from people living in the neighmined, not by that House, but by the ordinary Courts of Law. With regard to Wormwood Scrubbs, Lord Cardwell had purchased the rights of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as lords of the He bourhood to that effect. The public considered that the War Office was not the best authority to define the right of use of the commons as between that Department and the public. The obser vations of the hon. Member for Chelsea had pointed to a scheme for the regulation of these commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, and the suggestion was deserving of the attention of the Go vernment. MR. FAWCETT said, he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea would be satisfied if the Government would give an assurance that the rights of the commoners would not be purchased until Parliament had considered the matter. If the Government would give that promise, and subsequently introduce a scheme of regulation, he believed that the object in view would be sufficiently met. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, he had not the least objection to say this much that he would conclude no arrangements before the beginning of next Session, so that there might be information before the House on the subject. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow. SUEZ CANAL SHARES BILL-[BILL 189.] (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.) COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. MR. LOWE said, that before they went to that stage he thought the House would like to have some little information as to the state of the undertaking. He thought the thing might be said to have settled down, so far as the outside public were concerned, and to have assumed its normal condition. Most of the things had happened which they had expected. The money and the interest on the money at the exorbitant rate agreed on had been paid-all that was done with. Then they had obtained three votes on the Council of the Board of Directors. The Council had been increased to 24 from 21, and three of these places had been given to gentlemen who represented the Government. They had not obtained, so far as he was aware, the recognition of any votes at all in the General Assembly of the Company. He should be glad to know if that was correct? He should also like very much to know whether their Directors would be admitted to the General Assembly of the Company as well as to the Council? All these things it was very desirable should be known. The Khedive had pledged himself for the interest on the large sum advanced; but in this matter they had to rely on a Power which had declared itself unable to fulfil its pecuniary engagements, and he should, therefore, like to know whether there was any special agreement that we should be paid, at all events, or whether we should have to take our chance with the rest of his creditors; and whether in that case we should exercise any influence with the Khedive that we should be paid in full, when so many were not paid in full, or not paid at all? It would be very interesting to know all these things. He should further like to know, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated doing, what was often done in bankruptcy-namely, capitalizing the whole matter, and taking a dividend upon that? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take any particular amount of credit to himself or the Government for the fact that he had obtained three directorships in the Company; because, as was shown on the former debate when the Papers were laid on the Table, M. de Lesseps had been always ready-as early as 1871to admit three Directors into the Council. M. de Lesseps was extremely frank upon the subject, because he said that would be the very way to preserve the Company under French influence. It would give the appearance but not the reality of power. Therefore, he did not expect much to be made of it. Then there was another point-the settlement of the question of the surtax-and he did not think that we could claim any great diplomatic victory in that matter either, because it had been shown by M. Lesseps that we did not gain by it anything more than he chose to give us. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving an account of the state of this undertaking, would steer clear of vague generalities, and that we should be paid no more with wind for our money. On former occasions when they asked what they had gained by this purchase, they had been told that it had strengthened the position of the Empire; and, if that statement were to be repeated, he | it, and in that event the Government should desire that the logical connection would have received the support of the between the purchase and that result country. As it was, we were only in the should be stated. They had been told position of ordinary shareholders. It that they had interests in the Mediter- was to be hoped we should some day ranean which they must and would pre- acquire the whole property. serve at all hazards; but how would the purchase of these shares enable us to preserve them? They were told that the great highway of India must be kept open. That was perfectly right; but how would the flinging of £4,000,000 into the lap of the Khedive, on which we should probably receive no interest for 19 years, help us to keep that highway open? Now that the first blush of the thing was over, and the glory had got rather stale, the Government might reasonably be asked to state how the matter really stood, and what real advantage we had gained by the purchase of these shares which we should not have had if we had not purchased these shares at all. He thought the House ought not to separate before hearing from the Government what good we were to get out of the enormous expenditure which we had made in this matter. MR. GOURLEY was anxious to know precisely the meaning and object of the purchase of these shares. At the time when the purchase was made the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Manchester, said there were considerations in the present case which took the transaction out of the region of our financial policy, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent. He should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what those considerations were? So far as he was himself able to judge, the purchase of a portion of the Canal would leave this country in a much worse position than if we had not possessed any shares at all; because, in the event of any complications with foreign Governments, those Governments would naturally seek to have the right to navigate the Canal by vessels of war equally with ourselves, and we should not be able to prevent them, except by keeping a fleet of ships on the spot for the purpose, which might prove very inconvenient. He believed that Her Majesty's Government entered into this transaction without really knowing what the object was. What we ought to have done, if anything at all, was to have purchased the whole Canal, so as to obtain entire control over VOL. CCXXXI. [THIRD SERIES.] SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, we had reserved the right to interfere whenever the interests of the Canal were at stake, inasmuch as we were proprietors of half the Canal, and that should be the first step towards redeeming the whole by a process similar to that by which the Sound Dues were redeemed. It was necessary to do something to enable us to lower the charges, which were very high, and often amounted to one-third of a ship's freight. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider the Treasury Minute, which was published on the 17th of July, with regard to the three directors by whom this country was to be represented on the Canal Company's Board, because that Minute was likely to raise very serious legal questions in France. Even although its terms were accepted by the Council of the Company, he did not think that it would hold good against third parties. The statutes of the Company laid down that each director must be the actual proprietor of 100 shares. Consequently, the Government said in that Minute that it had become necessary to provide each of those gentlemen with that number of shares; but he believed that the way in which that had been done would not give them the requisite qualification. If those shares had the coupons detached, they were clearly not qualfying shares; and although our directors were registered holders of shares, they were bound to give the profits to the Government, which gave them a fixed stipend, to include both their profits and their pay as directors. Therefore, they had no interest in promoting the future success of the Company. The Minute also directed an instrument to be executed by their nominees to the Council, binding them to return their shares to the Treasury in the event of their bankruptcy. But if these gentlemen were proprietors of shares, and yet returned a portion of their assets in case of bankruptcy, that bankruptcy would assume a very remarkable character. But in such a contingency which, of course, he did not anticipate, the French law would sequestrate these shares. It seemed to him. 2 E |