4
Mr. BURNEY : I think there can be no doubt about the matter.
It was in contemplation, and I consulted my solicitor about it, not a very-
great while ago, whether a suit should not be brought to compel the whole
of the grantees—in fact, the people who have enclosed under an improper
idea of their title, to refund, having been in possession of the profit for
15 or 16 years, nine-tenths of which actually belong to me ; I say it was in
contemplation whether a suit might not be established for making them
refund part of that. That suit was not instituted, and I will not further
detain you upon that matter. I am now bringing it to bear upon Messrs
Paul in this manner. They have occupied 34 acres for between 15 and 16
years. They say that the present rental of that land is £6 per year. That
is their own value. Mr. Driver says that is a very reasonable value. I am
content, for the purpose of my argument, to put it before you for sixteen
years at half the amount. They have had this land, they have used it, and
they have not paid anything to the commoners or anybody else for its use.
That would amount to £1,632. I think you will find the figures are correct.
The City authorities, the Conservators, now propose to give them fourteen
years, which at their own rating (and they certainly cannot consider them-
selves damaged by being treated on their own figures), gives a further sum
of £2,856, making a total of £4,488, of which all but one-tenth would
belong to myself and the other commoners, because it is quite clear that
if this land is kept inclosed for fourteen years I may have the privilege of
walking into it possibly, supposing that arrangement is carried out, but
otherwise I should have the use and privilege of grazing over it.
Now, Sir, I think this is important enough to be taken into very
serious consideration—that these gentlemen are proposed to be paid a sum
of over £4,000 for what they have had and will receive, which is to be
taken in mitigation of their possible sufferings by being turned out at
some time or other. Before the House of Commons Mr. William Paul,
I think, said that he could find no land within a large district that was
suitable for the growth of certain trees which I very much admire. He said
he could find no other place fitting for them but this land. There is no
doubt at all that he and the other gentlemen in the same position, who
occupy the 750 acres of land, sought and obtained the best land for their
purpose. There cannot be the slightest doubt about that in the mind of
any person of common sense. They did not go and take gravel or waste
land, although we hear from Mr George Paul that this bog land is
growing some American plants which fetch very high prices in the market,
as, I believe, they do. But they sought and got the best land for their
purpose. What difference is there between that case of Mr. Borwick's and
Mr. Paul's ? He took the best land for growing houses. If this suit had
not been instituted, and the Act had not been passed, they would have
obtained a very large section of valuable building frontage. Now, I wished
to have asked one of the Messrs. Paul a question. I will merely state what
I am satisfied in my own mind is the fact. It has escaped the legal
gentlemen who have been concerned in this case as far as I have noticed ;
I mean, what are the usual terms for leases for fioricultural purposes. I
think I may state with the most perfect safety, because I have noticed
it hundreds of times when these nurserymen sell off, or are being sold off
—they are like drapers, they are always selling off—their sale is always
going on, and I never heard it argued before that it could be any loss to a
nurseryman to sell off his stock, because he is always growing more, but I