SITES FOR DWELLINGS FOR THE POOR. (Hansard, 5 August 1846)

§ VISCOUNT MORPETH
moved for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods to sell, on certain conditions, sites for dwellings for the poor out of the hereditary estates of the Crown; and another Bill, empowering the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods to sell, on certain conditions, sites for dwellings for the poor out of lands vested in them under Acts for the improvement of the metropolis. These Bills would, he considered, have a very beneficial effect upon the present most deplorable condition — so far as regarded the comforts of their habitations—of the poor. Several benevolent persons, having formed themselves into societies, had undertaken to build suitable lodgings for the working classes; and as, in the improvements frequently taking place, the poor were driven from miserable abodes into localities still more miserable, he thought it only right that the Crown, and the Commissioners under it, should have power to counteract a mischief to which they were, involuntarily, parties. As the law now stood, they could only grant leases at the full value; and what he proposed by this Bill to effect was, that the Commissioners should be authorized, for the purpose of providing dwellings for the poor, to dispose of the Crown estates upon such terms as might seem proper to them, and as further might be approved of by the Treasury.

The EARL of LINCOLN
, while he hoped there would be full opportunity given before the second reading to consider the whole subject, must even at that stage of the proceedings enter his protest against the Bill. The noble Lord, he assured him, could not be more anxious to better the condition of the poor, whether by improving their dwellings or otherwise, than he was; but he did not think the course about to be adopted by the noble Lord would effect the desired end, whilst it would very prejudicially affect the whole system of 348 management of the Crown Property. It was well known that the hereditary revenues of the Crown were guarded, and in the most stringent manner, from any diminution. Those hereditary revenues of the Crown were placed at the commencement of each reign, by an arrangement with the Sovereign, in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods, as trustees between the Crown and the public; and they were bound, in the execution of that duty, first on behalf of the public, to see that the income was appropriated in the best possible way; and, secondly, on behalf of the Crown, to see that the estate was not diminished in any way whatsoever: so that in the event of the demise of the Crown, the now Sovereign (who might not like to renew the present arrangements with the public) on his accession might receive those estates which belonged to him, undiminished and undeteriorated. If the noble Lord were allowed to take this first step to the diminution of the revenues, there would be no knowing where the noble Lord and his successors might stop. Indeed, the probability would be, that the noble Lord would be overwhelmed with applications to infringe on that property, either by making grants of land, or (as in the present Bill) by selling at a high price under its real value. He was opposed, therefore, to any diminution of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, for any, even for charitable purposes. If the object were to meet the circumstances of the poor, who might suffer injury by improvements of the streets of the metropolis, rather let money be voted for that purpose. But to the Act of the 10th Geo. IV., they should rigidly adhere, which regulated the administration of the revenues of the Crown. He had, however, another objection to this Bill. It was proposed to sell these lands below their value to an incorporated company formed to provide dwellings for the poor. Now the charter of this company allowed a dividend not exceeding 5 per cent upon the shares; and in the very probable event of that amount not being realized, it was obvious that the Crown lands would be sold not for the benefit of the poor, but for the benefit of the shareholders. He felt strongly therefore that, though the object of the noble Lord might be good, in the first place the means by which he proposed to attain it were not legitimate; and in the second place, even if legitimate, they would not be successful. Having stated generally those objections, he would re- 349 serve farther observations until the Bill was before them.

§ MR. HUME
considered that the Bill was a direct invasion of the principle so long recognised, the making the people dependent upon their own resources; and he strongly objected to it.