View report page

22
have crept in, shewing that the class of persons spoken of as the Inhabitants
must mean the same class as the Lord's Tenants.
Remembering the conclusion arrived at, that nearly the whole Parish is
included in the Manor, it is obvious that all the holders of the lands and
tenements in the Parish must at one time have held them of the Manor,
and therefore, the owners and occupiers of all lands held of the Manor
must be the Inhabitants of the Parish.
Therefore, whether the claim is made in one form or the other the result
is the same; but I shall refer again to this point.
It would not be right to conclude my remarks upon the documentary
evidence witheut making reference to the numerous papers which are in
existence relating to previous enquiries respecting the Lammas Bights.
The West London Extension Railway Company took a portion of the
Town Meadows some 20 or more years ago, and the Company so far
admitted the existence of Lammas Rights, that it put the Bishop of
London under terms to pay the sum of £7.50 to anybody proving the
existence of such Rights as Consideration Money for the acquisition of
the Rights over the lands taken by the Company, and Messrs. Lee and Co.'s
letteis of 13th June and 29tli September, 187G, admit this, as well as the
Bishop's liability to pay it to the persons entitled to Lammas Rights. Those
letters coupled with an admission made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
in their Action with the Metropolitan Board of Works, are almost conclusive
evidence against the Lord of the Manor that the lands in question were
subject to Lammas .rights.
I have also had before me several other papers, all of which tend to
prove the existence of the Rights claimed and their actual user.
There are in Fulham, as is well known, several Commons, in the
ordinary sense of the word, such as Wormwood Scrubbs, Eelbrook, and
Shepherd's Bush; there were also large open Common Fields besides the
open Common Meadows.
Throughout the Court Rolls there is abundant evidence that, in early
days, Rights of Common over the whole of these lands enumerated were
exercised by one and the same class of persons, and that the right of
pasture throughout all the Commonable Lands—whether wastes or open
fields—and Meadows was the same, except that, in the case of the Common
Fields and Meadows they were not commonable until after the crops were
carried, and, finally that the exercise of the Rights was subject to such
Bye-Laws and Regulations as the Homage of the Manor Courts from time
to time prescribed.
Having thus given a general idea of the evidence upon which I found it,
1 proceed to state the conclusions to which I have arrived.
Opinion. In forming my opinion, I have not been unmindful that the
learned Counsel (the present Mr. Justice Manisty) who successfully.
led the plaintiffs in the great Epping Forest Suit has expressed an
opinion upon the question before us.
I am not prepared to differ with Mr. Manisty's opinion, and when it is
borne in mind that he had far less material before him than I have, I have
less hesitation in agreeing with it.
I am of opinion (1) That the lands set out in Schedule I, and commonly
snown as the Town Meadows, were—and such of them as have not been
acquired by the Railway Company are still—Lammas Lands, subject to a
Right of pasture after the removal of the annual crops. '2.) That the
persons entitled to such rights are at least the Owners and Occupiers of a 11
Freehold and Copyhold lands and tenements within the Parish held of the
Manor of Fulham. (3). That the enjoyment of the right is subject to such