The Crichel Down Case
| Published date | 01 December 1954 |
| Author | D. N. Chester |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1954.tb01211.x |
| Date | 01 December 1954 |
The
CricheZ
Down
Case
By D.
N.
CHESTER
The
Editor
reviews the Report
of
Sir
Andrew
Clark
and
considers rhe
HE
chief
dramatis personae
were a piece of land some 725 acres in extent
T
in the County of Dorset known as Crichel Down; the Minister of
Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale, Bt., M.P.)
;
Lieutenant-Commander
Marten-a local landowner who desired to purchase the land and reunite
it
with the family property of which some 15 years or
so
earlier 328 acres
of
it
had been part
;
Mr. C.
G.
Eastwood, Commissioner of Crown Lands
and until a short time before this a senior official in e Colonial Office;
Mr. C.
H.
M. Wilcox, an Under Secretary at the Midistry of Agriculture
and Fisheries
;
Mr.
H.
A. R. Thomson, a partner in a firm of estate agents,
who was acting as an agent for the Crown Lands Commission; the two
Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry (Lord Carrington and Mr.
G.
R.
H.
Nugent)
;
and the M.P. for the area (Mr.
R.
Crouch). The cast also included
sundry officials at various levels of the Ministry or of public bodies closely
associated with that Department.
Act
I
concerns what happened to the piece of land after it was com-
pulsorily acquired in 1937 by the Air Ministry for use as a bombing range.
How
it
passed into the hands of the Ministry
of
Agriculture in 1949 (a Ministry
which would not have been able to acquire it compulsorily for their purpose).
It
tells of the decisions that were made and how they were made about the
use to which the land should be put
;
of how various farmers were officially
promised a chance to bid for the tenancy and of how
it
came about that this
promise was not honoured
;
and of how Lieutenant-Commander Marten,
not being satisfied that his offer to acquire the land
was
being properly
considered, with the help of his M.P. took the matter up with the Minister
;
and of the subsequent agitation which finally led the Minister to ask Sir
Andrew Clark, Q.C., to enquire into the procedure adopted and report.
Act
I1
starts with Sir Andrew’s seven-day public inquiry held in
Blandford, Dorset, at which almost everybody concerned (except the Minister)
gave evidence. Some of the more exciting parts of the testimony were
reported in all the leading newspapers and
so
whetted everybody’s appetite
for the Report (submitted to the Minister in May and published1 a month
later) and possibly stimulated a public desire for heads to fall.
The Third Act sees the initial statement by the Minister in the House
of Commons on the day that the Report was published (15th June, 1954).
To the horror of the onlooker who knows that something dramatic is required,
Sir Thomas Dugdale plays down the whole affair. The inquiry, he says,
has achieved his main purpose because it has found no trace of bribery or
corruption; he takes full responsibility for the actions of any officials
criticised in the Report and announces that after hearing further explanations
from those concerned he has formed a less unfavourable view
of
many
of
their actions. On the 20th July, on that most harmless of House of Commons’
’Public Inquiry
ordered
by
the
Minister
of
Agricultuie into
the
disposal
of
land
at
Crichel Down. Cmd.
9176.
389
consequences
and
implications
for
the
Civil Service.
To continue reading
Request your trial