7
Epping Forest Act of 1878. The fact is perfectly well known to the City
Authorities, and now admitted by the Local Verderers. In face of these
facts what happened P On May 6th, 1891, at Guildhall, before the Con-
servators, (to quote from the Essex Times report) :—
" W. C. Willmore, of 59, Latimer Road, Forest Gate, claimed to have
his name placed on the List in respect of a freehold house at Harrow Road,
to which about 1/8 of an acre of land was attached.
" The City Solicitor pointed out that the applicant had not sufficient land
to keep cattle on during the Fence months, and the application could not there-
fore be entertained."
Other claims were disallowed by the Conservators on similar grounds.
Mr. E. N. Buxton and the "Fence Month."
Although Mr. Buxton knew better than most men that the Fence month
was as dead as the dodo, on May 6,1891, he brought it forward in defence
of the half-acre qualification.
It may be well to place Mr. Buxton's two statements side by side :—
May 6,1891.
" Mr. Hardingham seems to wish
for an explanation of the half-acre
limit. From ancient times it has
been held that to have the right of
a Commoner, a man must hold land
to maintain his animals during the
Fence month. When the Corporation
became Conservators they fixed the
amount at a minim urn of half an acre."
April 29, 1892.
Quoting the extract in the other
column of May 6, 1891, Mr. Buxton
says:—
" It is clear from these facts that
I was stating an historical fact, not
advocating the revival of the Fence
month at the present day."
The Crux of the Question.
Could the force of contradiction further go ?
First we have Mr. Buxton explaining the half-acre qualification is based
on the Fence month regulation. Next we have the City Solicitor dis-
qualifying Commoners because of the Fence month regulation. Lastly, we
have Mr. Buxton admitting that he is not advocating " the revival of the
Fence month at the present day," which he well knew had been abolished.
Mr. Buxton has proved the small Commoners' best friend, for while con-
testing their claims he has absolutely given his and his fellow Conservators'
case away.
A Test Case Proposed.
In the same year at a Commoners' meeting at Loughton, Mr. E. N.
Buxton made a very generous offer. He proposed that "the whole
question should be raised by a mandamus to compel the admission of a
certain name to the roll of Commoners, or else that a case should be sub-
mitted to some leading counsel for his opinion." Mr. Buxton guaranteed
the cost of a test case.
This was naturally an offer which the small Commoners had seriously
and gratefully to consider; and they decided to postpone accepting it until
they were satisfied that the Corporation (1) would be bound by the decision
of the Court, as applicable to all similar claims by cottagers; or, (2) that
Mr. Buxton would consent to carry the case up to the Higher Courts in the
event of the Corporation or the cottagers appealing.
The Commoners Claims Confirmed.
But a complete justification of the Commoners agitation followed.
The Epping Forest Act of 1878, which confirms the Commoners' claims,
was drafted and piloted through the House by Sir Henry Selwin Ibbotson,
(Lord Rookwood) as Member for the Epping Division.
Lord Rookwood attended a meeting called in June last by the Com-
moners' Defence Association, and made a statement vital to the Commoners.