The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-20 00:00:00

Great Berkhampstead Common.

The exceptional character of the recent proceed-
ings at Berkhampstead must not blind us to the
real question at issue. Underlying the dramatic
element, upon which sufficient stress has been laid,
is an important constitutional principle, and one
the public would do well to consider. The point is
not whether an experiment is bold, but whether it
is necessary ; not whether an act be spiritedly de-
vised and skilfully executed ; but whether the chief
actors have had the common good at heart, and the
broad principles of justice on their side. It is the
more necessary to insist on this, from the fact of
the Daily News' narrative having gone the rounds
of the press, and elicited comments, some of which,
as it seems to us, have been altogether beside the
question. What we have to consider is whether
Lord Brownlow had a right to convert an open
common into a private park ; and, if not, whether
the practical rebuke just administered by his neigh-
bours was constitutional and sound. We will not
hamper our argument by reference to past negotia-
tions, or local gossip. Whether a particular vestry
meeting was more or less packed; a nominally public
gathering more or less under influence and control ;
a talked-of compromise between one landed pro-
prietor and another more or less irregular ; the
proffer of a swamp for (we presume) amphibious
" recreation" more or less worthless ; are matters of
profound indifference to the public at large. What
England generally wishes to be informed on is the
extent of the powers of her great landed pro-
prietors. If these may use their giant's
strength cruelly, and by negotiation, inti-
midation, and, finally, by confiscation, take
the people's commons to themselves, we may
be sure that the toilers of great cities—
the rank and file of humble bread-winners
will soon find their knowledge of nature con-
fined to a surreptitious peep through a rich man's
railings, at a rich man's park. We protest, how-
ever, against any such conclusion, and are satisfied
that the common law of England is sufficient for its

purpose.
We protest, too, against the spurious generosity
which would, in the exercise of an assumed right,
confer a purely imaginary benefit to the lasting
injury of the recipient. The kind thoughtfulness
which seeks to substitute a play-ground, or a huge
trimly-kept garden, for the wild luxuriance of a
breezy heath, is to be especially dreaded, for it is
invariably accompanied by an unconcealed hostility
to ancient landmarks, and a scarcely hidden
covetousness after adjacent, lands. But when, in-
stead of this mock regard for the interests of the
poor man, those concerned take the law into their
own hands, and acting on the fine old border motto,.
Thou shall want ere I want," deliberately filch a
track of country from the neighbours who have
enjoyed it from time immemorial, it may be fairly
asked what legal redress the latter have ? If, as we
believe, the pulling down a fence is the only effec-
tive protest in their power, then fences must be
pulled down. If, as the law stands, disputes of the
character under discussion between lords of manors
and their fellow subjects can only be brought to an
issue by resorting to such measures as have been
successfully adopted by Mr. Augustus Smith, the
inference is that his public spirited example must be
followed, until an amendment of the law is brought
about. There is something grotesquely unfair in the
idea that rights of a shadowy and undefined cha-
racter are to be suddenly endowed with form and
substance by their possessor ; that no breakwater
is provided against the interest of one man and the
inheritance of many, and that, by the simple process
of putting up a stout railing, an earl's possessions
may be substantially increased, and a people's pro-
perty ruinously destroyed.
It is not too much to say that the matter under con-
sideration is one involving the liberties of the people
of England. The spirit of encroachment is abroad,
and Lord Brownlow's " bold experiment" has been
attempted on a smaller scale by landowners else-
where ; and is, it is said, meditated by many others
who look wistfully towards Berkhampstead for ex-
ample and encouragement. In the vicinity of
large towns, where land is valuable for building
purposes, and where grazing is impracticable, the
aggressor's cry frequently is let us " preserve" the
common for the public ! Let us have lodge keepers,
drainage, gravel walks, flower beds, and formality;
and let us defray the cost of all by the sale of out-
lying portions of inconsiderable value, and which
interfere with the symmetry and usesulness of our
benevolent plan. But the answer to these fair-
spoken proposals has hitherto been, let us keep our
common to ourselves. The evils you wish to pro-
tect us from we do not feel; the good you promise
we do not appreciate ; and the public injury you
seek to inflict is only equalled by the vast private
benefit you endeavour to insure. _

It is impossible to gainsay the fact that a com-
mon, as a common, whatever imperfections and
shortcomings it may have, is of infinitely more ser-
service to the public, on all grounds, whether pic-
turesque, sanitary, or moral, than any " gift" they
are likely to receive in exchange. What if clearly
wanted, therefore, is some simple legislation to
confirm existing rights, It should not be lest either

to Earl Bre, wnlows, or Mr. Augustus Smiths, to
decree or dis pute as to the limits of trespass, or the
form of admonition to be visited on trespassers ;
and while we congrr4ulate the public upon the con-
stitutional protest just made, we earnestly hope its
effect will be, ncrt merely to preserve Berkhampstead
Common from further encroachments, but to so
simplify the law, that " annexing" our neighbours'
commons will be as severely prohibited as filching
our neighbours' goods.---Hertford Mercury.