The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-16 00:00:00

IRICHMOND PARK.
The attempts made lately to shut out the
. public from Richmond-park have attracted ge-
neral notice. The subsequent paper will show
that this is no new measure. One of our Kings
exerted all his power to enclose it for his own
use, but the people triumphantly resisted it;
subsequently a Princess Royal made a similar
attempt, but was defeated in a Court of Justice.
By the cases adduced below it will be seen that
right of free passage and commonage is so vested
in the people of the locality that it will be as
easy to confine the free air as to usurp the free-
dom of the park.
Richmond Park covers in the .whole 2,053
acres, and is enclosed by a wall of brickwork, of
eight, or, as some say, eleven miles in circuit. '
To form some idea of the various interests con-
nected with this park, it is sufficient to state that
of these acres 265 are in Petersham; 483 in the
Manor of Ham; 6.50 in Mortlake; 230 in
Putney ; about 100 in Richmond, and as many
more in Kingston. Such are the villages, pa
rishes, and hamlets, interested in the common-
age and open wayfare of the park.
The first attempt to deprive the public of the
right of common in Richmond Park was made
by Charles the First. This Prince, being much
addicted to the chase, was desirous of having a
large park for red, as well as fallow deer; and he
considered this place, which had large tracts of
waste land and wood, as every way fit for his
purpose. The consent of such parishes, how-
ever, as had a right of common on these wastes
was necessary even before a King's wishes could
be carried into effect, as also the consent of such
gentlemen and others as had estates thereon.
Charles accordingly granted a Commission, un-
der his Privy Seal, empowering the officers of the
Exchequer to treat with the proprietors and
others for the necessary purchases, and a treaty
was soon concluded by many of the freeholders,
copyholders, and inhabitants of the place.
But, although the greater part of those that
were interested in this proceeding were soon pre-
vailed upon to concur with the King in his
design, yet, says Lord Chancellor Clarendon,
in his " History of the Rebellion, "
" Many very obstinately refused, and one
gentleman in particular, who had the best
estate, with a convenient house and gardens,
would by no means part with it; and the King
being at earnest to compass it, it made a great
noise, as if the King would take, away men's
estates at his own pleasure. The City of Lon-
don, as well as the public in general, (fearing the
roads would be obstructed by the inclosure) had
taken alarm on the first notice of the. King's in-
tentions, and were confirmed in their suspicions
when they saw the building of the -wall going
forward before the several proprietors had con-
sented to part with their lands and commonage.
Understanding also that the King would compel
the owners to sell, whether they would or not,
London grew more and more urgent with the
officers of State to stop the further progress of
his design. From day to day, Laud Archbishop
of Canterbury; Juxon, Bishop of London; and
Lord Cottington, then Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, were so constantly solicited, that at
length they could not resist the importunity,
and warmly represented to the King the im-
policy of resisting the public will. These
Ministers had, indeed, been averse to the
design from the beginning; and Cottington
in particular had thrown all the impediments he
could devise in the way of the bargains that were
to be made. Yet this had no other effect than
that of exposing them to their Royal master's
displeasure, who declared himself "resolved to
go through with it."
But though the King was not to be diverted
from the execution of this favourite project, yet
so far did he profit by the advice and remon-
strances of his friends as to obviate, by his subse
quent conduct in this affair, whatever might ap-
pear to give offence, or be urged against him as
Just complaint.
.Care was accordingly taken to have gates at
'convenient distances in the walls, with permis-
sion to use the roads as before ie ground was
enclosed; and step-ladders in proper places for
the accommodation or rum pabsengers. the poor
also of the different parishes into which the in-
closure extended were permitted, as heretofore,
to take and carry away the fire-wood.
Sir Robert Walpole was one of those who at-
tempted to shut out the public, and the inhabit-
ants of Petersham on one occasion were refused,
at his instance, gravel out of the park. Sergeant
Darnell, who had a house there, sent the ranger
word, that if the teams were not immediately
admitted, he himself would come and order the
gates to be pulled down. After this, there was
an end of the grievances of which the people had
been apprehensive, and no farther matter of
reasonable complaint subsisted.
The Rangership of this park was given by
George 11. to Robert, son of Sir Robert Walpole.
That statesman himself spent much of his leisure
time in this retirement, where he is said to have
expended 14,0001. in the repairs of the Great
Lodge, and other improvements.
The office of Ranger was in 1751 conferred on
the Princess Amelia, daughter of George 11.,
when the great case for decision came on re-
specting the right of the people to the park.
Whilst the Princess was in this office, complaints
were, in 1752, set on foot by the inhabitants of
Richmond and the surrounding parishes against
the. Deputy Ranger, and other keepers of the
park and gates, for obstructing the footpaths
through it. After various trials and different
verdicts, a decision was at length given in their
favour at Kingston Assizes, in April, 1754, when
their right was fully established. A report of
this case is not easily now to be met with, but it
will readily be seen by the high legal talent
employed upon it, that the arguments on both
sides were thoroughly sifted, so as to leave little
hope f.n• successful litigation on the part of the
Crown at the present time.
The counsel for the prosecution were—Sir John
Phillips, of Norbiton Hall, in Kingston; Mr.
Starkie, Mr. Crowle, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Parrott
(afterwards a Baron of the Exchequer), Mr.
Beckford, Mr. Morton (afterwards Chief Jus-
tice of Chester), and Mr. Clarke. For the
Crown, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-
General; Mr. Hume Campbell, Mr. Pratt
(afterwards Lord Camden), Mr. Luke Robinson,
and Mr. Bishop.
The subscription set on foot to raise money
for trying this cause amounted to 1,095/. it
was tried at Bar 12, Nov. 13, 1754, in an action
brought by Symons against Shaw, Deputy-
Ranger of the Park, and a verdict was found for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Lewis, a brewer, of Richmond, took a
very active part in this business, and was on
that account held in such 'esteem by the inhabit-
ants of Richmond, that a subscription of three
hundred pounds was raised to defray the damage
done to his brewhouse by a flood in 1774; and
he, becoming unfortunate in business, the inha-
bitants raised an annual subscription fur him, to
the time of his death, in 1792. The Princess
having surrendered her interest in this ellietas it
was bestowed on the Earl of Bute, and on his
death it fell into the hands of the,Royal Family.
in conclusion, We. would only add, that any
attempt to shut out the public from the park
will be met 'with strenuous and successful
resistance. Looking at it in only one point
of view, it is unreasonable to suppOse that
so large a tract of land, very near eleven
miles 'in compass, within less than the same
number of miles of the capital of the king-
dom, and great part of it common, should
be shut out from free passage. Can the
most stolid reasoner imagine that parishes, Whose
boundaries meet in the park, should have no way
for the inhabitants of those parishes to pass and
repass for the transaction of the necessary atlldrs
that people so situated must have with each
other, without going many miles about through
other parishes? There is no other place in the
kingdom similarly situated; and we arc con-
vinced that the inhabitants of London and the
suburban districts will not allow this spot to be
an exception to the general rule.

DUNDEE TRADE.—We have as yet experienced
no decided improvement in the state of our general
trade ; at the same time we are happy to say that there
is now more confidence felt amongst mercantile
people in doing business than has been the case for some
time past. The hopes of benefit froaa the harvest have
completely vanished, as all our crops hare suffered se-
verely by the late rains, and it is now said that very little
of the new wheat in this county will be fit to be used
fur bread, so that our bakers will have to look fur their
supplies elsewhere. Flax is still dull of sale, at prices
same as this day week. Several vessels with flax and
tows have arrived during the last eight days, so
that our supplies are fully kept up, and there is no
longer any fear of a scarcity of the raw material
being felt during the ensuing winter. During the past
month the importation hero amounted to about 4,000
tons of flax and flax codilla, which left an increase of
our whole importation from Ist January to 30th Septem-
ber, 1841, of about 3,600 tons beyond that during the
sante' period last year. Tows continue to be inquired
after, and maintain their prices. Hemp of all sorts is
quite nominal in price. Hemp codilla finds buyers from
171. to 171. 10s. per ton, to be used as a substitute for flax
codilla, which costs more money. Jute is in fair de-
mand at our last quotations of 17k. to 4 71. 10s. per ton,
according to quality.—Dundee Courier.
TROTTING MATCH.—On the 27th ult., a
trotting match between Captain Yelverton's Brown Bess,
and Mr. T. Patch's' Rainbow, came off on the ground
from the eight to the nine mile stone, on the road from
Exeter to Honiton. It was down hill, the whole way, and
Rainbow -was the winner by About 200 yards.-... Exeter
Flying Post.