The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-15 00:00:00

PAPER DUTY.

Mr. SCHOLE FIE LD presented a petition from the paper •
manufacturers of Birmingham, praying that they might be al-
lowed a drawback on the quantity of paper they had on hand
at the time of lowering the duty ; and another petition, nume-
rously signed, also from Birmingham, praying for the total
repeal of the duty on Newspapers. The Hon. Member also
presented another petition, in favour of the Cheshire Junction
Railway.

Mr. 'CHALMERS presented a petition in favour of the
Irish Municipal Bill, as it originally passed that House.
Sir S. WHALLEY presented a petition from Essex, pray-
ing for a mitigation of the severity of the Poor Laws Amend-
ment Bill, as regarded the extension of relief to the poor.
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from the diocese
of Cloyne, against the Ecclesiastical Revenues Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a number of petitions from
the North of England and Ireland, in favour of the Irish Mu-
nicipal Reform Bill as first passed by that House. The Hon.
Member gave notice that in the Committee on the Irish
Church Bill he would move clauses to increase the per tentage
from 30 to 40 per cent., and to provide for the repayment of
the 10 per cent. from the Consolidated Fund, in order to
cover the collection, &c. Also, that he would move clauses
in the Committee on the Registration of Votes' Bill.
Mr. T. GLADSTONE presented a petition from Leices-
ter in favour of the Lords' amendments to the Irish Munici-
pal Bill.
Mr. POTTER hoped the Hon. Member was aware that
there had been a most numerously signed petition to a con-
trary effect, which was agreed to at a public meeting, already
on the table of the House.
WOODS AND FORESTS.

Mr. HARVEY was glad to see the Attorney-General in
his place, for he had ans important petition to present, which
he had deferred from last Friday, in the hope of his presence.
This was a petition from the poor to the rich. The petition
was signed by seventy persons, who, with five exceptions,
were all labouring poor. They represented that they had
lived and were born in the county of Radnor, which
till a late period was, at least the greater part of it,
the property of the Crown. In 1826, the Commissioner
of the Woods apd Forests sold a great many of the manors in
that county, chiefly, he regretted to say, by private contract.
In that year one of those manors was purchased by private
contract for 12,000/. by Mr. Watt, of Birmingham. From
the statements of the petition it appeared that it was a custom
immemorial for the poor of the district to inclose small por-
tions of waste ground which sloped the hills and rallies
of the county, and out of their labour they built cottages
which many of them had occupied for upwards of 30 years
without interruption, but the Gentleman to whom he had 41-
luded, by purchasing one of the manors, had instituted an
action at law to recover one of those cottages and a small
piece of ground. In that action a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, subject to a special case to be argued before the
Court of Common Pleas. Three issues were discussed befo;'e
the judges of that Court, first, whether the Crown had the
power to sell ; secondly, if it had, whether the wastes would
pass under the conveyance ; and thirdly, whether the enclosures
having been made for more than thirty years, the action could
be maintained. The unanimous opinion of the Court was,
the Crown had not the power to sell the waste; that if they
bad the poser, the waste could not pass under the deed, the
Lord Chief Justice (Gibbs) observing that the law and justice
of the case lay with the defendant. Since then the Attorney-
General, at the instance of the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests, had issued a writ to establish, if possible, the right of
the Crown. Whether this was an experiment or not on behalf
of the Woods and Forests, was a matter of little or no mo-
ment, because these persons who were in possession of their
little property were sought to be displaced by a most
expensive, and a most dilatory process.—( Cries of " Hear.")
It was clear that these proceedings were at variance with the
first principles of justice, and uncalled for by the law of Par-
liament. For by the comprehensive Act passed a few years
since, consolidating all the Acts of Parliament with reference
to inclosures, the Commissioners were empowered to sell, by
public or private contract, the property committed to their
charge. But it went on to state, that as there were many im-
provements wheie it would not be expedient to disturb the pos-
sessors, it provided that where parties had been in possession
of these encroachments for twenty years they were not to be in-
terfered with, but where it was for a less time, the Commis-
sioners had power to grant leases. This showed a solicitude to
protect persons in this unfortunate condition. By the proceed-
ings instituted by the Crown in one instance an individual had
been driven from his little home and his little all—from the
rugged soil that he had tilled with the sweat of his brow—from
the cottage, the work of his own hands, to find no other
home but in the workhouse.—( Hear.) He had another
petition on the same subject, which showed how cruelly and
severely these proceedings acted upon the poor. The peti-
tioner stated that he was 78 years of age ; that in 1801,
he enclosed from the Crown of waste lands 20 acres of land,
tin which he erected a cottage. Proceedings were taken against
him, and having no means to defend the action, he let judg-
ment go by default. He was thus swept away from his cot-
tage, and thrown upon the wide world. The Commissioners
of Woods and Forests were only exercising their rights, from
a sense of duty ; bat he trusted that that House would
manifest such a strong expression of feeling which would
operate on the kind feelings of the Attorney-General,
with a view to induce him to dispense with further proceedings.
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that in consequence
of the notice he had received from the Hon. Member, he had
thought it his duty to attend in his place, and to inquire be-
forehand into the facts of the case. He had received infor-
mation on which he could place the greatest confidence, and
he would state what the facts of the case were, on which he
thought the House would agree with him, that nothing'had
been done that gave just cause of complaint. As the Hon.
Member had stated, the Crown was possessed of extensive
manors in Radnorshire, and a large portion of this which
was public property had been taken in enclosures. In
1826 these manors were to be sold.—(Cries of " Hear.")
It was the duty of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests,
at that time, to dispose of the interests of the Crown. The
property was public property, and it was for the public interest
that the property should be disposed of. Every one had ac-
knowledged the title, except Mr. Parsons an attorney, and con-
sequently the action which had been alluded to was brought.
Upon that action it had been clearly proved the Crown had
a title. Mr. Parsons had refused to acknowledge the right
of Mr. Watts, and bad stirred up those who before had ac-
knowledged his right, to deny that be had a title to any part
of the manor. Under these circumstances Mr. Watts had,
as between himself and Mr. Parsons, laid his case before the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests. An information had
been filed against Mr. Parsons for this act, which would be
tried at the next assizes of Hereford, when the question would
be decided.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not think that Mr. Watts had
evinced any liberality in the case, because he exacted a rent
which gave him dominion over their property, and which en-
abled him to turn those poor people out, after they had im-
proved and cultivated the land. In his opinion the Hon.
Member for Southwark should move for a Committee, and if
necessary, address the Crown ou the subject.
Mr. ORMSB Y GORE could assure the Hon. Member
that cases of equal hardship existed in North Wales; and he
now gave notice that he would move for certain documents
when the Report of the Woods and Forests was laid on the
table.
Mr. F. LEWIS could not agree with the Hon. Member
who had just sat down that there were many such cases. On
the contrary, the prerogative of the Crown was in too
many cases neglected, and advantage was taken of that
circumstance.—(Hear.) He would venture to say that no
landed proprietor in Wales would allow of encroachment upon
his property for a single day; but the Crown allowed an enjoy-
ment of its property to a certain extent, arid must, therefore,
enforce its rights. If the Hon. Member would move for a
Committee to inquire into the rights of the Crown in North
and South Wales, he (Mr. Lewis) would second it with plea- j
sure.

Mr. TOOKE defended the conduct and character of Mr.
Watts, which had been alluded to in rather harsh terms by the
-1-1-67-n. and Learned Member for Kilkenny.
, - mr.. OICONNELL explained.
"..;:' - Mr. 11 y. HARVEY complained that the Attorney-Ge-
new had - deucrously handed over the petitioners to grapple
.r. ._ withi mriParons, the attorney. lie only wished the Atter-
:-
ley' Genaviind his predecessors had been as careful of the
-‘
i','..,',"` --- -", butilic...Ci.own property in bygone times as they now seemed
"ftr"4-
_tore. conduct of the Woods and Forests had been
41bit :t live and flagitious, even to the extreme; but
a o A

that tne otnce wow(' tie uegracieu.