14
grass, because ground left in ridges will very soon be overgrown with broom
and fern, and would not be so advantageous to the commoners as it was
before these gentlemen took it and maltreated it. The money expended
in the fences—I know a good deal about that, because I had a very con-
siderable hand in removing them ; it was done under my directions. I say
that they were desperate eyesores to everyone who went by and who knew
that this land was being withheld from them. Then I say further that these
fences were carefully devised to last twenty years or thereabouts. That
was the only object—to fence in the land until it became fit for building,
and then to let it for building or for other purposes. I say that every day
that these fences remained was a discredit, after the decision in law, and
I am sorry to say that my opinion is that they are a discredit now to
the law every day that they remain. The law has been so plainly
pronounced by the Master of the Rolls, and acted upon in so many cases
—I may say in every other case—but that of a few gentlemen who will not
submit.
Now, sir, I have to call upon Mr. Gellatly to refund the value of 68
acres for sixteen years. I believe I am taking the value of that land when
I put it at £3 10s. an acre. I imagine that that is the value at the present
time, and if you take it at sixteen years you will find that it works out at
£3,000, of which nine-tenths belong to me. Practically, when this ground
is thrown open, the whole of it will belong to me; all that will be in
pasturage for my cattle. Of course I mean that it will belong to me pro
rata. You will see that the obstructive right which has been mentioned in
such a peculiar manner in making out their case is a very important matter
indeed when it opens the whole of that land to the use of my cattle. I
think it is a thing that cannot be sneered at or depreciated in any sort of
way. The simple fact is, that the moment those fences are thrown down
my cattle will go over the whole of that land, the only restriction being as
to the number which I am entitled to turn on, which is, of course, a very
proper restriction. It belongs to me and to the two millions of the
population of London to whom the forest is accessible, and to the many
millions yet unborn, for I think in the short time allowed us to live is well
to consider those who come after us, as well as those who remain here.
Sir, I have nearly come to the conclusion of my remarks upon Mr.
Gellatly's case, but I do ask you seriously and sadly, why am I kept out of
this land ? There was and is a noble butcher who is kept out of some
property which does not belong to him. There is a very great deal of
mouthing about that, that comes on periodically, but here is a case with no
sort of doubt at all. The law has said it. It rests with you to name an
early day for throwing these fences down, and I really very seriously and
rather sadly call upon you at the earliest possible moment to exercise that
power.
Sir, I shall only have a few words to say upon Mr. Borwick's case. I
must say when I heard in Mr. Borwick's case—not for the first time—the
wonderful transactions between Lord Mornington and his steward—it
did remind me a good deal of the legerdemain exhibitions which we see,
and which amuse us so much, and we cannot tell always the reason why.
That is the way it is done—we cannot tell the reason why. Presto!
Lord's freehold!—lord to steward! Presto!—steward back to Lord!
and the lord sells and disposes of it. I think that is the history of the
land in Mr. Borwick's case. I do not know any other interpretation