The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-01-24 00:00:00

the ten efit of the neighbourhood—(hear, he ir)— 1
which was defi.zed to be the health, comfort, and ,
con7enience of the inhabitznts of any towns, cities,
or populous places in or near to which the common 1
o; any part of it was situated. One of the main
ohjeets .:f holding that inquiry was to give all per,ons
whether tney had any direct interest in the common
or not—as common-right owners or otherwise—an
opportunity of expressing their views upon the sub-
ject of the application, and as to the way it would
affect the neighbourhood generally. Th evidence
of persons who had
.no direct peennia.:y interest in
the common was considered especially valuable
both by the Commissioners and by Parliament. As
to the powers conferred by the Commons Act upon
urban authorities, these might with the sane ion of
' the Enclosure Commissioners enter into an under-
taking to cahtribute out of their funds for or towards
the maintenance of recreation grounds, or for making
roads, or doing any other thing for the benefit of the
town to which the application related. Where it
was necessary to interfere with the rights of com-
moners in order that the common might be made of
greater benefit to the general body of the inhabitants
the Act carefully provided that no person having
any legal right upon the common should be deprived
of it without compensation being made to him by the
urban authority. The only persons who had any
legal right upon the common were the lord of the
manor as owner of the soil, and the commoners of the
manor.iThe neighb turing population were generally
allowed to go upon toe land and eejoy it, but this
was not a right recognised by law. If the neigh-
bouring towns chose to contribute to the expense of
maintaining and regulating a common the Enclosure
Commissioners would give them a voi,e in the
management of it, if a Board of Conservators was
appointed,
The Commissioner thenproceeded to deal seriatim
with answers given by the applicants to a series of
questions as to what were their proposals. A
number of the qu-stions related merely to the posi-
tion of the land—each tenant of the manor and all
freeholders AN ho held an acre of land in the manor,
having the right of pasture. Upon the answer as
to these rights of comm on the Commissioner said
there was no doubt that the general public had no
legal right upon Cleat Hills at all ; but at the same
time man application of that sort the commissioners
and Parliament would always take the quasi right
which had been exercised by the public into con-
sideration, and would sanction no order in which
ample provision for -the enjoyment of the public
was not made. _

Mr. Holberton (Brierley Hill) said the public
believed they had a right to go on the common;
and people could rember that it had been unint2r-
ruptedly used for seventy-five years,
The Commissioner replied that there w..is a • de-
spread feeling that the public had legal rights ;
but the fact was that if the Lord of the manor and
the commissioners agreed aniong,st themselves to
enclose the common there wouldnot be the smillest
difficulty. The public could not stop them.
Mr. J. Hingley (Cradley) complained that al
though he was a copyholder in the manor he had
no intimation of that inee.ing, and heard nothing
of the matter till three weeks after an account of
the scheme was published in the Daily Gazette.
The thing had been clone entirely in a corner.
The Conmissioner pointed out that notices Irld
been posted in the village and advertised as re-
quired by law. Reverting to the rights of cornmeal
Le said the present uroceedings would not restriet
them in any way. Those rights whi,th had been
enjoyed up to the present time would continue in
the future„ whether a provisional order was made
or not—at. all events there would be compensation
if they were interfered with.

Fui:ther answers given by the applicants were :-+s
to the population of towns and villages within SIT
miles radius of the common. In answer 22 the ap-
plicants stated that they only desired !the improve-
ment of the common, not the adjustment of rights.
This improvement was explained to be by planting
trees and in other ways adding to the beauty of the
common, and by making bye-laws and regulations
for the prevention of, or protection from, nuisanues,
for keeping order on the common, and for th 3 ap.
p&ntment of conservators from time to time for
these purposes. In reply to question 26, it was
stated there is another common called Walton Hill,
ninety acres in extent, similar in character Jn all
respects to the one dealt with in the application,
but little used by the publiec for recreation. Answer
29 stated that it was not proposed that any land
should be allotted for field gardens, the land being
unsuitable for sueli a purpose. The 30th ques-
tion and answers were :—" Do the applicants
suggest that for the benefit of the neighbourhood
any of the following terms and conditions which
may be applicable should be inserted in the
_provisional order 2—Answer ; Yes.—(l) That free
aWess he secured to any particular powts ot view 7
—Yes.—(2) Thet particular trees or objects of
historical interest be pi, served ?—Ye .—(3) Tnat
there should be where a secreation ground is not
set out a privilege of paying games, or of enjoying
other species of recreation at such times, eel(' in
such manner, and en such prts of the common, as
may be thought suitable ?—Yes.---(1) That carriage
roads, bridle R.ths, and footpaths over the common
be set out in such directions as may appear most
commodious ?—Yes.—(s) That any other specified
thing be done whice may be thought equitable and
expedient required for adding to the benefit of the
neighbourhood 7—Yes." the next question asiced
,if the lord of the manor would require com-
pensation if his rights were affected by the pro-
visional order? The answer was in the negative.
rThe number of persons interested as owners of the
soil, common rights, or otherwise, in the lan:1
proposed to be dealt with, was stated to be 37, of
whom 20 had assented to the application, the
interest of the latter being fivesixths of the whole
interest in the land. Only two persons dissented
from the application at a meeting, called by
circular, of all persons interested in the matter.
The 35th question was: "In w:!at respeets is the
regulatioa of the common expedient considered in
relation to the benefit of the neighbourhood ?"
Answer "The proximity of the common to the
manufacturing districts of Sou'll Staffordshire and
Worcestershire causes it to be a very favourite
resort of pleasure seekers, and of la'e years their
number has largeiy increesed. At present there
are no means of controlling the very large crowds
that assemble on bank and other holidays, and.
in co.,sequence, many abuses flouri,h unchecked,
and th scene is one of wild disorder. The rivalry
of the owners of the various shooting galleries,
swinging boats, and other amusements, tin'is a vent
in frequent quarrels, and the donkeys and poeies
which are let out on hire net only scour all over
the bill, but gallop furiously in the adjacent lanes.
Questionable chafacters of all kinds are attracted
by the crowds of people which assemble, and gross
ire not untrequently is the result. In fact,
on these public holiday the neighbourhood cf the
common is shunned by most of the paeishioners.
13y the establisnm:nt of a body of conservators as a
central authority, who might administer a set of
bye-laws for the regulation of the common, it is
hoped that the neigh nourhood will be made more
orderly, and ,he attraction of Cleat Hills i,s
Pleasure resort for resp.ctable people miler: a•ed.
Nor is there at present any authority by which the
co.aninon can be either beautified or even in iin -
tained. The conservators will, it is hoped, be able
not only to regulate, but also improve the common
for purposes of recreation by placing seats in
proper places, by planting trees, and in other ways
by attending generally to its management and
maintainance."

Mr. Walker, solicitor to the Stourbridge Com-
missioners, said they a•serted that the answer to this
question was not justifiable. No bye-:aws were
oecessary for the to;.;ula, ion of the counn,u ot for
keeping order upon it. The public at all times can-
ducted themselves with proprietyand as se, isfactortly
as could be expected, considering the large bodies of
people who frequented the hills on bank and other
hoidays.
Holberton (Brierley Hill) agreel with Mr.
Walker that no bye-laws were required, as there
were no "nuisances" which specially r,quired
attention. Thee had never been more than one
policeman stationed on the bills, and he was seld,rn
to be found. If there had been nece,sity the au-
thoriti:,i would h :ye s-en that the hills were lookt-d
Etter properly. On a bank holiday the people were
as orderly as at any other time. The Brim ley Hill
Local Board consider the answer given by the ap-
plication was exa,AT:a.txl.

- Mr. J. W. CfuTow (Brierley Hill) thought the
answer was a gross exag4er oion• Ile had resi .0(1
ia Clent and been upon the hills frrquently, loth oa
bank holidays kind at other times, and 110 had Leviir
seen any miscondu-t such as the "gross immorality"
alleged by the appl cants.
the recreation of the
Regis I.c cal Board)
sad NI ri.)
iIsVBL, lotaerrdßa weres s a noop
p(oßsoe‘tT licoy
people on the hills hang regulated in any way.
They thought it wholly annecestary.
Thc4 Ma,yor of Ki Icbraii!!ster said the Kidd rmin-
youth was
s'er Cur oration weie in favour of the proru‘ed
rf,aretgaulllyatiion
jnuredAbbyouotnetwonf
the
:inirsshaogooag. g
alleries on
the hills. It would be better if on holiday occasions
some regulations w,-re in force fir the government
of those who frequented t'A3 hills. In June last he
n
tB7thbeoirysowanndanindenotghaelr people
lopillg about at a furious rate,
's risk.
Mr. Connop (Rowley) said he wa present at the
shooting accidont mentioned, and knew that it was
purely an accident Th:,re '7.:as no cPsorcler on the
hills at the time.

The Gnimissioner observed that bylaws had been
large considered advisable in the case of comTnons
titer London.

Mr. Walker (Stourbridge) said th-re was an im-
pression that if a Board of Conservators was ap-
pointed for the common it w,,uld become in future
necessary to levy tolls upon all c.nn6rs t,) the
Mr. S. Amphlett assured the meeting that tbe
applicguato did not wish in any respect to restrict the