6
through its coming back again into waste. The thing that ought and
should be done with it at the expiration of the time, as I believe you will
see to be your duty to direct, is, that it should be thrown open after all
reasonable allowances to Messrs. Paul, and I should be the last person to
object to reasonable allowances being made to them. I certainly thought
that the 14 years proposed by the City was a highly reasonable allowance
under the circumstances, seeing, as I said before, that they have had 16
years' use of it, and that they are going to have 14 years' more, making
30 years altogether. I think they have had a wonderful benefit out of that
property. But with regard to this land, and its returning to the waste,
I wish to say a few words. There was a case of inclosure by Mr. Hodgson ;
it did not come within your view, because it was settled by a large quantity
of arable land—300 acres altogether—being laid down in grass, and
becoming a permanent pasture for the commoners, and partly restored to
them for the injury they had suffered. It gave them better grass and better
land than it was before it was originally taken. But I want you to see
that there is no serious or dreadful consequence impending here—that if the
land, in the course of time, is restored, it would be an absolute benefit to
the persons—I among them—who have expressly given up all the rights
which the Solicitor-General told you belonged to them. The Solicitor-
General told you that these rights belonged to the commoners. In the case
of land and curtilage, we, as far as I know unanimously—my action in the
matter has not been objected to or questioned—agreed to give up our
rights ; that is a good deal to do. There is no doubt about that. But I
want to give up my rights for the benefit of the public; and not to give
them up for anyone else to take possession in that sort of way. The
question of curtilage I shall say no more upon. It is a trifling affair, but
it appears to me, as Sir William Harcourt has said, to be a very awkward
precedent to set up that a cottage should have a very large amount of
ground as curtilage, because by-and-bye, when you come to the large
houses, you will find that they will take a domain round them if you apply
the same sort of principle.
Now you have laid down, I think very fairly and without any questions
at all, that these gentlemen, one and all, although some sympathy may be
felt in different cases, in the first place have to complain of no hardship.
I gather that from what you said.
The ARBITRATOR : Hardship in the sense in which I used it.
Mr. BURNEY : That is, they did their business through the medium
of professional gentlemen who were responsible to them. Their solicitors
were responsible for the advice they gave them, if they advised them that
they had good cause for buying this land when they had no cause at all. I
think that is the plain and common sense way of putting it. If there is
any sympathy in this particular case, I think it is my duty to show you that
these gentlemen or their professional advisers do not deserve much
sympathy. I want to show you—you have adverted to it also—that these
transactions took place in the face of a considerable agitation. Many years
ago there was a miserable inclosure which took place on Woodford
Green. It was a most abominable inclosure, and entirely destroyed the
whole of Woodford Green. It is opposite Woodford Wells tavern.
You have bestowed great care and trouble upon this case. I have heard