3
The Corporation did not stay here. For centuries the parishes have
enjoyed the right of annually nominating the Forest Keeves—officers who
mark the Commoners' cattle, receive the fees, and regulate the turn out.
It was obvious that while the Cottagers still enjoyed the right of
electing their Keeves, the contention of the Corporation that the Cottagers
had no interest in Common rights was untenable.
Corporation Attempt to Alter the Epping Forest Act.
The Corporation accordingly took action and drafted an Epping Forest
Amendment Act which, among other things, was to take the nomination
of the Reeves from the Forest parishes and vest it in the Corporation. In
this, luckily for the Cottagers, the Corporation over-reached themselves.
The small Commoners formed a Defence Association, and at a cost they
could ill afford, telegraphed to the Ranger, H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught,
then in India, petitioning him to use his influence against any alteration in
the Forest Act or By-laws.
The Cottagers' appeal had effect, and nothing more was heard of the
Amendment Act until 1889, when the Corporation again attempted to ob-
tain similar powers, and they went further. They asked that the List or
Register of Commoners, as made out by themselves, should be conclusive
evidence as to who were and were not Commoners. This time opposition
came from two members of the Corporation themselves: Mr. Deputy
Bedford and Mr. A. C. Morton, M.P. The proposed Act was stealthily
withdrawn.
Meanwhile the Commoners' Defence Association was working to pre-
serve their old pasture and pannage rights.
Commoners Barred prom Voting for their Verderers.
The Commoners' interests are supposed to be represented on the Epping
Forest Committee by four local Verderers, who are elected by the
Commoners every seven years. But since the Corporation refuses to
recognise the rights of the small Commoners, and to place their names on
the Register of Commoners, the Cottagers are barred from voting for
these Verderers, who accordingly are chosen from and represent not the
small but their own class of Commoner. So little indeed are the present
Verderers in sympathy with the Cottagers, that we find two of them
recommending that the ancient right of nominating the Reeves, shall be
taken from their parishes and vested in the Corporation.
The Cottagers protested in vain that the half-acre qualification was a
creation of the Corporation ; that the Act preserved to them their ancient
rights ; that it specially protected those of the small Commoners ; and
contained no authority or shadow of authority for the half-acre qualifica-
tion. When challenged to show their authority for the half-acre limit,
the Corporation and Verderers' were dumb.
But the Verderers, feeling some action was necessary to justify their
existence, sought an interview with members of the Defence Association.
The outcome was, that the question was submitted to Mr. Horace Davey
for his opinion. It was understood that neither Commoners nor Corpora-
tion were to be bound by his opinion. That opinion, which is given on
page 15, is one to which the Commoners have never objected. It did
not uphold the half-acre qualification. It simply held that a cottage must
have land. And where is the country cottage without land sufficient to
keep a pig ?
And so the small Commoners' agitation—an agitation of poor men—
against "the richest Corporation in the world," commenced in 1884, went
steadily on until the Conservators thought it advisable to