« PreviousContinue »
deer and the forestal laws connected with committee was also“ of opinion that their preservation.
henceforward the royal forest should asThe sanction of Parliament was request- sume the character of ordinary property, ed to the enclosure of 20,000 acres for the to be managed by officers appointed by the growth of timber for the use of the Royal Crown acting under the authority of ParNavy, the 6,000 acres granted for the same liament.” purpose by the Act of William III. being But the recommendations of this comincluded in the amount. was further mittee were not carried out in heir inproposed that the deer should be confined tegrity nor in the spirit in which they in a park (part of the enclosures now to were made; advantage, however, be authorized being set apart for the pur- taken of some of them by the Office of pose), and the commoners relieved of the Woods to initiate an entirely novel policy. liability to have their cattle driven from This revolution in the management of the the forest during the fawning month and New Forest was brought about very gradin the winter. But the important recom- ually, and with such ingenuity, that it will mendation of the Royal Commission, that be well to let the facts speak for theman equitable arrangement should be made selves. But the impartial inquirer, who between the Crown and the commoners, would unravel the complications of a very and the wastes apportioned between them difficult subject, must accurately distinby an impartial tribunal, had been disre- guish the theoretical and actual, the forgarded. The omission proved fatal to the estal and manorial rights of the Crown, measure. The Bill had actually passed the and sever the forestal rights from the House of Commons without attracting at- right of chase, or free warren ; and furtention; but on the presentation of a peti-ther investigate the intention of Parliation of a few landowners to the House of ment, and of the several parties to the Lords, to be heard by counsel, against it, Deer Removal Bill when it was under connothing further was heard of this some- sideration, and separate in thought the what singular attempt at legi-lation. The powers actually conferred by the Act from deer, therefore, remained in the New For- the extraordinary and destructive powers est, and although it was transferred in developed by the method of its execution. 1810 to the nation, with the other royal The outline of so large a subject can only forests, and passed under the management be indicated. of the Commissioners of the Woods and In the course of the year 1850 a keen Forests, the subject seems to have escaped eye might have observed blocks of land of notice for fifty years. Certain honorary unprecedented size, and closely adjacent forestal offices, indeed, had been distrib- to one another, marked out as if for plantuted from time to time amongst the prin- ing, their size and form indicating an incipal landowners, and an annual quota of tention to enclose the best land only, and venison was paid as compensation to those some of the lawns which could least be who did not kill the deer which invaded spared from the commons” of the New their fields; but the patience of the inhab- Forest. But nothing further was done, itants of the New Forest was mainly due and the marks attracted little attention, to the conciliatory policy adopted by the because the foresters had been lulled into advisers and representatives of the Crown, a fatal security by the limited and unimwho consulted the chief proprietors upon portant results of the Act of William 1II.* matters of importance.
În 1850 a Commission, appointed “to inAt length a Select Committee appointed quire into and report upon rights and by the House of Commons (of which Lord claims over the New Forest,” | visited the Duncan was the chairman) sat and took locality ; but the Commissioners, desiring evidence on the subject of this and other to make a report in time to enable “ legisforests during the sessions of 1818 and lative steps thereupon in the present ses1819, and the revelations of half a century then made public rendered it impossible for the Crown to continue to keep the upwards, and not more than 110 bucks were killed
that every buck killed in the forest cnet £100 and deer in the New Forest. The draft re- in a year, and they went principally in payment of port (for the session closed before the re- compensation to those landowners who did not kill
the deer which came upon their property."— Evi. port had been presented) recommended dence, 1868, q 319. the total abolition of the deer and forestal * In fifty-two years after this Act was passed only laws connected with them, on the ground 1,022acres were planted, and until 1786 little more that the deer were a public nuisance and closure: and in 1816 the full amount of 6,000 acres an unjustifiable annual expense.* The were taken in.
Act there were only 1,772 acres under enclosure. * " It was proved beyond the possibility of doubt + On this subject see Mr. Jenkinson, pp. 20, 21.
At the time of the Deer Removal
sion,” and finding that they did not “pos- people of the district, that the intention to sess the means or authorities essentially enforce these laws was publicly disavowed. requisite legally to effect a complete and But this was not the only unforeseen reaccurate investigation of the matters in sult of the Act. The enclosures marked question,” decided to place at once before out in 1850 (4,000 acres), under the Act the Treasury such information as their of William III., became immediately subsecretary had been able to collect, in order ject to the new principle of planting for to “suggest or promote inquiry.” But in profit; and with this view a new system of 1851 the Chief Commissioner of Woods planting * was introduced. It gradually introduced a Bill providing for the removal became evident that the clause in the Act of the deer, and fixing arbitrarily the com- designed for the protection of the common pensation for this forestal right of the rights would be rendered inoperative if Crown at 14,000 acres, to be enclosed and this system was pursued; the land thus planted on the terms of the Act of Wil- planted would obviously be valueless for liam III.; no provision, however, was pasturage when again disenclosed, and made for the ascertainment or registra- yet the sites of the new enclosures emtion of the rights of the commoners. The braced some of the most valuable pastures very language and terms of the Act of in the forest. Remonstrances were reWilliam III. having been adopted, the Bill peatedly made, the hope th the D seemed to be but an extension of its pow-partment of Woods and Forests would ers, but actually involved a totally new forbear to exercise to the full the powers principle - that of planting for profit only. thus developed of destroying the value of The foresters were taken completely by the common rights, but in vain ; the only surprise; but a few of the landowners answer given was, that this effect of the sent up a petition against the Bill, alleg- Acts ought to have been foreseen in 1851, ing that the compensation proposed was before the “compromise ” embodied in the extravagant, and that the preamble had Deer Removal Act was accepted. Both been declared proved without any suffi- Acts, it is true, provided for the due repcient inquiry into the nature and extent resentation of local interests upon the of the commoners' rights, or into the value Commission by which the enclosures are of the right of the Crown to keep deer.* set out, but this check was neutralized in . This hurried opposition was so far suc- practice. The site of an enclosure was cessful that the Bill would probably have rarely known until it had been authorized been thrown out by the Select Committee, by the Commission, and sufficient opporbut its opponents were induced to negotiate tunity was seldom, if ever, given to the by the threat of a general enclosure of the local commissioners to examine the bounds forest,† and seem to have consented to the proposed; they were called together by reduced grant of 10,000 acres as the price the Chief Commissioner of Woods as of the surrender of the deer and of the though they were expected to endorse the forestal laws relating to their preservation. proposals emanating from the departThese negotiations, however, are involved ment. in much mystery, and have not yet been Huge enclosures, therefore gradually satisfactorily explained; but it is certain overspread much of the best land, till in that the clauses under which the common rights were ascertained and registered in to the Chief Commissioner of Woods ( Mr. Kennedy)
* The resident deputy-surveyor writes (Dec. 31, 1853) 1854 were inserted by the Government at “It appears to me to be important that the Crown the instance of the opponents of the Bill, should, as soon as possible, exercise its right of enand that the commoners, as a body, had no advantages, by so doing, all the best pasture would opportunity of protecting their interests. be taken from the commoners, and the value of their The Bill
, however, had no sooner passed rights of pasture would be thus materially dimin. than notices posted in the forest announced in the event of any such right being commuted.” that ancient and hitherto unknown forestal (Evidence. 1868. 9. 807; compare q. 130 ) The writer laws were still in existence, and especially admission of the deputy-surveyor himself
, who was that the restrictions of Winter Heyning appointed in 1849, the moorland, while worthless for and Fence Month had been reserved, and other purposes, might be profitably planted with would be enforced (contrary to the habitual operations in 1851 by the enclosure and the planta. practice when the deer were still in the tion of the better land in the forest. The removal forest) with full legal strictness. This no- oak only, enabled the Office of Woods to adapt the tice created such an agitation among the system of planting to the circumstances of the for.
est, and the reclamation of the “ worthless"
tion of its wastes (30,000 acres) might fitly have * Evidence, 1568, q. 319.
been made a national undertaking, being far too lbid.
costly for private enterprise.
1867 the enclosures upon the eastern and diate partition of the forest between the
of land that may be taken for planting in * To protect the "lawns” and “greens," which constitute the forest, the Act of 1851 provided that * Oak fetches in the forest 18. 4 1-2d., beech 3 3no enclosures should be made of less than 300 acres, 4d., per foot. Return (Mr. Bonham Carter), July " by virtue of any Commission hereafter to be is- 16, 1867. sued" under any of the Acts. But, as a new Com- See Mr. Jenkinson, p. 27, and pp. 31, 32, who mission was not appointed for some years, much in- submits that to enclose the old woods without cut. valuble pasture-land was planted, which otherwise ting them down would be “ simply illegal," as the would have escaped enclosure.- Evidence, 1868, q. law stands, with regard to enclosures of the New 424-5, 133-5.
the next few years will absorb the remain-1 Old Style), but the Fence Month had not der of the unenclosed lowland. Such is been enforced within living memory, and the inevitable result of the powers con- the Winter Heyning was gradually beferred by existing Acts even upon the coming a dead letter, even before the remost moderate interpretation of their lan- moval of the deer. It was, therefore, guage; but if a partition of the forest naturally believed that these rights would take place, its open lands may immedi- go with the deer, and had been compenately suffer further diminution, for claims sated under the Act of 1851, as part of will be advanced by the Office of Woods, “the right to keep deer; but further which, unless disallowed by the Legisla- compensation was demanded in 1868 for ture, must be compensated by further con- the surrender of these rights also. While, cessions of land for planting or in fee. therefore, in any event, the primitive The Chief Commissioner, relying partly beauty of the woodlands is on the eve of upon the perpetuity of the right of the total destruction, the public may also lose a Crown to keep deer, states that all planta- large portion of the unique pleasure-ground tions made under the Acts may be success- for ever, by the concessions, to be made as ively disenclosed and replaced by others compensation for these unsatisfied claims, of similar extent ad infinitum ; but it is if the partition of the waste recommended difficu to be that such unlimited by the Committee of 1868 be carried out. powers over the New Forest were con- A Bill for the disa fforestation of the ferred by Parliament, in exchange for the New Forest is to be brought before Parliabarren right to keep deer there. Com- ment during the present session by the pensation is also expected for the surren- Chief Commissioners of Woods and Forder of certain laws of the forest, the scope ests. Its provisions have been discussed and nature of which it is probably impos- in the pamphlet to which frequent refersible to define. The larger proportion of ence has already been made. À searching these laws would seem to be antiquated inquiry will doubtless ensue, and it is and impracticable relics of the oppressive hoped that the importance of the largest Norman law imposed upon the district by open space in England to the general the Conqueror; but as a formal announce- public will be fully investigated before it ment has been made that 26,000 acres of is permitted to pass into the hands of any private property are “ within the regard section of the nation. Economists must of the forest," and, as well as the wastes, also determine the commercial value of the are subject to the operation of these laws, speculation upon which the Department the amount of compensation demanded is of Woods has embarked, and inquire into likely to be large. "It should, however, be the expenditure of large sums of public added that this view is as yet unsupported money upon the district; for it is at least by evidence, and has been disavowed by an open question whether the nation is former Chief Commissioners.* Two only not much the poorer for what has been of these forestal rights have found their done. way into the statute-book. Whilst the The fate of the remnant that yet surdeer were in the forest, the Crown had vives, now rests in the hands of the Legisthe right to exclude the cattle of the com- lature; meanwhile, in the interest of those moners from it during the Fence Month, whose only books are Nature's looks, and when the does were dropping their fawns of those to whom an innocent taste acquired (June 20 - July 20, Old Style), and dur- may prove a harmful taste forestalled, an ing the Winter Heyning (Nov. 4 – May 4, earnest protest may perhaps be permitted The pro
against the further destruction of scenery • The subject of these forestal laws was first unique in Great Britain, and, if reprebroached in the subreport of the Secretary to the sented in America at all, but imperfectly complete and sufficient report upon the various represented by the oak openings of Michimatters inquired into, but rather as notes made in gan.* the course of my investigations hitherto." refer to the facts in that report and the subreport as containing substantially all the information f have * ERRATUM. - A clerical error which occurs on to give on the subject, because I was in communi. p. 501 may mislead. The average of lands to which cation with Mr. Hume, and I believe a good deal of rights of common over the forest attach, was not that matter was framed in communication with me.” | ascertained till 1854. In the reign of Charles II., - Evidence of the Solicitor to the Office of Woods many manors were registered merely as “ manors,' and Forests, 1868, q. 1,008.
without mention being made of their extent.
" I inay
From The Pall Mall Gazette. As a student of history I cannot accept it, for THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF DR. DOLLIN- as such I know that the persistent endeavour GER.
to realize this theory of universal dominion has
cost Europe rivers of blood, has disordered BAVARIA is one of the few countries in whole countries and brought them to ruin, has Europe in which the doctrine of Papal In- shattered the beautiful structure of the earlier fallibility could have direct consequences, Church, and in the Church of modern times has and the conflict between Dr. Döllinger and generated, nurtured, and maintained the worst his Archbishop, which has resulted in the abuses. As a citizen I must reject it, because excommunication of the former, is bring- by its pretensions to the subjection of States and ing these consequences to light more rap- monarchs and of the whole of the political idly than any one anticipated. Ever since system to the Papal power, it leads to endless
destructive conflict between Church and State, July last the Ultramontane party have la
between clergy and laity. bored indefatigably to obtain adhesions to the new dogma. Though Dr. Döllinger The publication of this letter the day had made no public declaration since the after its date in the Augsburg Gazette decision of the Council, it was generally shows that Dr. Döllinger intended it as a believed in Germany that he would not manifesto to those who agreed with him, recognize that decision as binding, and so of whom he says there are thousands great was his influence that this opinion among the clergy and hundreds of thouwas sufficient to keep the matter unsettled sands among the laity. So it was reand the Ultramontane triumph insecure. garded by the public, who hastened to exThe Archbishop of Munich twice addressed press their sympathy with the writer; and him on the subject, and at last fixed a day also by the Archbishop, who immediately by which he was to give in his submission issued a pastoral to his flock warning them under pain of incurring ecclesiastical cen- against Dr. Döllinger's errors. sures. Thus called upon, he declared posal for a conference could not, he said, himself in very distinct terms. He asks be accepted, for there was nothing to disthe Archbishop to meet his disobedience cuss. The Church bad spoken; the connot by condemnation, but by admitting troversy was over. And as the Doctor him to a conference, either at Fulda, where still continued contumacious excommunithe German bishops are about to assemble, cation followed. There are political interor before a body of theologians to be seests involved in the treatment of Dr. Dollected by the Archbishop. If in this con- linger which complicate the action of Ulference he was convinced of his errors, he tramontanism. As the religion of the was ready both to accept the dogma and vast majority of the people, Catholicism in to withdraw everything he had written Bavaria retains a great position in the against it. If, however, this conference State, and that position is supported by were allowed him, he expected to prove public opinion. But Doctor Döllinger is that the doctrine was contrary to Scrip- not only a great theologian. As Dean of ture; that it was based upon a misconcep- the Cathedral Chapter, a professor of the tion of the history of the Church and of University, and a member of the Legisher traditions. The Council, he main- lative Body, he enjoys a political position, tains, enjoyed no freedom of discussion. and one which the State cannot see him Its only parallel in Church history is the deprived of by irresponsible authority withRobber Synod of Ephesus. No pains were out sacrificing that principle of a controltaken to examine the authorities relied on. ling influence in Church affairs which BavaThe vast majority of the Latin bishops rian Catholicism contends for. It is in had neither the inclination nor the critical protecting the Church from irresponsible power for such an undertaking, although influence that the Augsburg Gazetie sees a the importance of the doctrine in question safeguard against the dangers of Ultramade an investigation the more indispens- montanism. It points to the spread of able. The dogma supplies at once a new Ultramontane opinion in Prussia as proof rule of faith. For the future the Catholic of the evil which must ensue where Church when asked the ground on which he ac- and State are regarded as independent cepts or rejects any opinion must say, I powers determining their respective rights accept it or reject it, because an infallible by treaty. This theory of a Catholicity Pope has enjoined me to accept it or to making a part of the State, Dr. Döllinger reject it. The doctrine is of Roman ori- and his adherents feel cannot co-exist with gin, and can never be accepted by Teu- the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. In this tonic nations; and Dr. Döllinger thus con- way the public are enabled to grasp the cludes:
question apart from theological subtleties.