The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-25 00:00:00

CENTRAL ARGENTINE (LIMITED).

The report of the directors states that the capital
expended to Dec. 31 last amounted to £426,010, and
that £427,758 had been received on the 50,000
shares of the company, leaving a balance of £1,748.
The balance remaining to be paid on theshares would
probably be called up at intervals of three months.
The works on the line and shipment of sleepers and
rails were proceeding satisfactorily. Every means
would be used for ensuring the completion at the
earliest possible period of the 124 miles of railway
extending from the port of Rosario to the town of
Frailey Muerto, when the line could be opened for
passenger and goods traffic. The site for the station
buildings at Rosario had been chosen, and would
occupy a river frontage of 1,093 yards by 131 yards
wide----about 30 acres. The Boatd recommended
the proprietors to empower the directors to take
the necessary steps to sell, let on lease, mortgage,
or otherwise dispose of the lands ceded to the com-
pany on each side of the railway, or any part of
them ; also to borrow any sum, not exceeding
£lO,OOO, for bringing under cultivation, or other,-
wise developing, the resources of the lands. The
directors, in conclusion, expressed their increased
confidence in the undertaking, and belief that it
would prove highly remunerative to the proprietors.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 25, 1866

and at times one of the most touching it has ever
been the lot of a reporter to witness. The bodies
lay on an extemporised platform formed by means
of a few boards and boxes in a work-room, from
which the light was excluded, in order to prevent
the crowds of spectators from gazing through the
windows of the charnel-house.

Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces.

Yesterday a public meeting was held in the Egyp-
tian-hall of the Mansion-house, with the view to
promote the objects of the society recently estab-
lished to assist in maintaining, preserving, and im-
proving the commons and open spaces in the neigh-
bourhood of the metropolis, to further the passing
through Parliament of a measure for defining and
amending the law, in accordance with the resolu-
tions of the committee of the House of Commons,
and generally to watch the interests of the public in
respect to all commons and open spaces which it is
important should be preserved. The meeting was
exceedingly influential, and was remarkable, more-
over, for the great unanimity which prevailed upon
the subject. The Lord Mayor acted as chairman,
and there were present besides, among others, Sir
T. F. Buxton, M.P., Sir W. Fraser, Mr. J. Locke,
Q. C., M.P., Mr. Shaw Lefevre, M.P., Mr. Chambers,
M.P., the Deputy-Recorder; Mr. R. Hanbury, M.P.,
Mr. C. Buxton, M.P., Mr. T. Hughes, M.P., Pro-
fessor Fawcett, M.P., Mr. Alderman Lawrence,
M.P., Mr. Alderman Lusk, M.P., Mr. T. Alcock,
Sir R. Carden, Mr. Le Breton, Mr. J. P. Gassiott,
Mr. C. Pollock, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Toynbee, Col. S.
Adair, Aldermen Besley, Hale, Rose, Finnis, Allen,
and J. C. Lawrence, Dr. Laukester, Mr. Scott, the
Chamberlain of London, and Mr. Nelson, the City
Solicitor.

The LORD MAYOR, lu opening the proceedings,
dwelt upon the great public importance of the sub-
ject, having regard to this vast city with its 3,000,000
inhabitants, its narrow streets, confined courts,
smoke, and other evils. Referring to the proposition
to invest the Metropolitan Board of Works withthe
control of the open spaces in and about the metro-
polis, he said he had great faith in the efficiency of
that Board, but he held this was rather a matter for
the Government to undertake, if it was to be dealt
with efficiently, not merely for the present, but for
all time.

Mr. LOCKE, M.P., moved the first resolution, that
the preservation of the commons and open spaces in
the neighbourhood of the metropolis was absolutely
essential to the health and recreation of the people.
He adverted to the great unanimity in favour of
their preservation shown in the House of Commons
on the motion of Mr. Doulton in 1864, and to the
recommendations of a select Parliamentary committee
of last year, after sitting for 16 days and hearing
many witnesses familiar with the subject—among
others Mr. W. Cooke, a gentleman of great talent,
who had devoted much time to its consideration,
and whose loss they had since had to deplore ; Mr.
Ridley, an Enclosure Commissioner, Sir John
Thwaites, and others. That inquiry established be-
yond doubt the urgency of some legislation on the
subject. It was a popular notion, he said, that the
interests of a lord of the manor were much greater
than they really were. For instance, some people
fancied that he had a right to all the game, but, in
fact, he was only entitled to the game on the waste
of his manor, and before he could enclose any part
of the manor he must take care that he did not
infringe any rights of the commoners. In the
metropolis it was extremely difficult to ascertain
who those commoners were, and to that very uuccr-
tainty we owed at this moment the numerous com-
mons and open spaces all round London. (Hear.)
There was a proposition to empower the Metropo-
litan Board of Works to purchase all the rights of
the lords and commoners of manors around the
metropolis for purposes of public recreation and en-
joyment, but to sell certain portions of the existing
commons and open spaces in order to meet the ne-
cessary expenditure, which was a most objectionable
part of the scheme. The committee of the House of
Comnions in effect protested against any portion
of them being sold. 'hat, in fact, was the objection
raked to the proposition of Lord Spencer, and
which led him eventually to abandon it. What
the community wanted was au act prohibiting in
future all enclosures with respect to commons and
open spaces within 15 miles of the metropolis, and
he believed the Government would bring in such a
bill if pressed by public opinion.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Alderman LAW-
RENCE, who dwelt in indignant terms on the
manner in which open spaces and commons in and
about London were being filched away, bit by bit,
and on what he called the great dereliction of duty
on the part of the Government, when they gave up
the Crown rights in the forests of Epping and Hai-
nault, in not securing the rights of the people.
Mr. Alderman ROSE commented upon the vague-
ness and uncertainty of the rights attaching to the
lord of the manor, and held that some legislative
enactment was urgently wanted to define what those
rights really were, for in many cases the lord of the
manor was selling that to which he could given° title.
He also protested against the Metropolitan Board
of Works or any other body who might be intrusted
with the management of open spaces having power
to sell any part of them for any purpose whatever.
Mr. LE BRETON, member of the Board of Works,
explained that it was not from any desire of aggran-
disement that the Board wished to have the control
but solely because as the repre-
great metropolis they had the
soefntthaet
iov pe
se nosfp atcheiss,
deepest interest in seeing that they were preserved.
Mr. Scow, the Chamberlain of London, observed
that it would not be taking a fair view of this ques-
tion to presume that only a population of 3,000,000
was concerned in it. They should look a few years
in advance. According to the Census of 1861 the
population of the city and metropolitan police dis-
tricts, about 16 miles on an average from Charing-
cross as a centre, was 3,222,717. The ratio of in-
crease of population since 1801 had been very steady,
and had averaged 19.6 per cent. on each decennial
period from 1811 to 1861. The population of Lon-
don, taking the police districts, would therefore be
in 50 years' time 8,532,000 souls. In 60 years it
would exceed 10,000,000 at the same ratio of in-
crease. Then as to proximity of inhabitants one to
another, or density of population, for that was in-
creasing in the same ratio. In 1801, each inhabitant
(if population were tlistributed over the area at
equal distances) would be distant from his neighbour
on an average 21 yards ; in 1851, 14 yards ; in
1866 over nine yards only ; and in 50 years' time
there would only be standing room for the popula-
tion in the given area. (A laugh.) His argument,
therefore, was that a wider radius of protection of
open spaces than one of 15 miles should be enacted
by Parliament—that an area of breathing ground
and standing room of at least 50 miles radius was
indispensable. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Scott also called
attention to the active enclosure of portions of
Leatherhead-common, just beyond the area of 15
miles, which was now going on, and to the cutting
• down of much of the stately timber there, and lie
urged that there should be immediate and decided
action.

The resolution of Mr. Locke was then put and
carried unanimously.
Mr. G. S. LEFEVRE, in moving the second re-
solution, dwelt upon the great use which the public
had for- years past made of the commons of
London, thousands of persons leaving their crowded
haunts on holidays to recreate themselves
there. The law, however, had been very chary of
allowing anything
like a public right to grow out of
all that user. It recognised the right of a village
to its green, acquired by user, but hesitated to draw
an analogy between the village and its green and
the great city and its commons, however natural
that might appear to ordinary men ; the ground
being that customs must in their nature be local and
confined to the inhabitants of a village, and that
the custom of all London was too large to be good
at law. So again the law had shown regard for the
great interests of cattle and sheep, but little or none
for grown people and children in respect to com-
mons. The position of the public, however, was not
quite so hopeless as might seem, because when re-
gard was had to the condition of the other parties
interested in the commons—viz., the lords of manors
and the commoners, it was seen that their relations
were such as to render it very difficult for any one
to enclose the commons. It was almost impossible