The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-24 00:00:00

inclosure of the common involves the extinction of
the present common rights and the necessity of
compensating their possessors. I do not know the
exact number of commoners, but the number of
notices served is 287. There are no freeholders, to
my knowledge, who possess common rights. The
expense of management is to be taken out of the
current receipts of the park. They will arise from
pasturage which will be improved by the drainage.
In the first scheme I undertook to keep up the park
and to take the pasturage, but when I gave up the
management I gave up the pasturage. Any surplus
would have belonged to me.
What is your present proposition ?- -That the
whole of the proceeds of the park be placed in the hands
of trustees, the receipts from the pasturage, and also
from the gravel ; the receipts from the pasturage are
to pay the expenses of the park, the receipts from
the gravel are to pay my reserved rights.
Is not the principal question raised by the inha,bi-
tan ts of Wimbledon,Putney, an d other places, whether
the common shall be enclosed or not—;Chat has
been put forward as the principal reason. Several
meetings have been held, at which resolutions to
that effect have been passed.
Is it your desire that this committee shall express
an opinion as to whether or no the inclosure of
Wimbledon-common would be an advantage
shall be obliged to the committee if they will consi-
der that point after hearing all that can be said on
the subject. It will be a great advantage to me to
have the opinion of the committee on that point.
Supposing the common tobe kept as an open space,
would not the expense of keeping it up be necessarily
diminished ?--Not very much. If the expense of a
fence could be got rid of, there would be an in-
creased cost for supervision. I think it desirable
that the roads should be improved whether the coin
mon is enclosed or not.

Supposing the enclosure to be given up, would
there be any occasion for a sale ?—Yes, for drain-
age and compensation for the commoners. The
drainage certainly might be effected by a subscrip-
tion among the inhabitants. The commoners have
agreed that their rights shall be put an end to if
thry are compensated. I believe I have the right
by law to enclose the common if I leave sufficient
for the commoners ; I can enclose by custom with
the consent of the homage jury. Any surplus beyond
expenses of keeping up the park would go to the
trustees.

Mr. LOCKE KING—If the decision of the com-
mittee should be against your lordship, should you
withdraw the bill ?—I should not like to pledge
myself to do that. A considerable portion of the
public are in favour of the bill as it now stands.

Mr. J. SHELLEY-It might be a popular repre-
sentation to have the park under the control of the
Metropolitan Board. Ido not see any great objec-
tion to that, but do not like to pledge myself.
If there are gates and lodges how are the public
to obtain access at all times ? If the trustees had
had the power of closing the gates at sunset, would
not the practical effect be to prevent the public from
having access ?—That is not my intention. I have
no wish to interfere with the Volunteers. My object
is merely to prevent carts from going in and cattle
from coming out.

The CHAIRMAN-If the committee come to the
conclusion that the enclosure is not desirable, would
you be satisfied and still go on with the Bill ?7--I
believe I should. If lam told I have no right, I
shall take such steps as my legal adviser may re-
commend to prove my right.

You would not consider yourself bound by the
decision either of this committee or the other com-
mittee, but would retain the right of withdrawing
the bill altogether ?—I cannot bind myself uncon-
ditionally to say that I will accept whatever deci-
sion the committee may come to.
Supposing this committee should state that a
fence is undesirable, would you consent to abandon