HC Deb 28 July 1854 vol 135 cc909-10
MR. DISRAELI

said, he was anxious to correct an error which he made last evening in Committee of Supply, in respect of the renewal of Crown leases. In speaking on the Motion of the Government for the purchase of Burlington House, he impugned their conduct because they had renewed the lease of a house in the vicinity of the public offices, which he thought was detrimental to the public service. Now, it turned out that Her Majesty's Government were exempt from all blame in that respect, and that if any blame was attached to the renewal of the lease, strange to say, the blame was upon him, and that he was responsible. He hoped the House would allow him to explain the reason how he fell into so strange a mistake. In the summer of 1852 the question of the renewal of the Crown estates came to a considerable extent under his notice, and his attention was brought especially to the renewal of the leases of premises which were in London, and also in the vicinity of the public offices. He endeavoured to lay down certain principles which he thought ought to guide them in the renewal of leases of that sort of property, but with regard to the leases of houses in the vicinity of public offices he did not think they ought to be renewed. A minute was drawn up embodying his views, and it so happened that the question of the lease of Montagu House was brought before him in the middle of the summer, and it was refused, and last night, speaking from recollection, he really did believe, so far as he was concerned, that the renewal of the lease of that house had not taken place at the time, and he concluded that Her Majesty's present Ministers were responsible for that act. But it so happened, very shortly before the termination of the Government of Lord Derby, that the question of the renewal of that particular lease was again submitted to the consideration of the Treasury, and it was thought that there were certain equitable elements which he had not taken into consideration, which rendered it just that the lease should be renewed. At that time the new Parliament had just met, there was a very strong strain on his energies, and he was unable to give that attention which he ought to have done to that particular subject. His colleagues he was sure gave the subject the consideration it deserved; they arrived at a different conclusion from that he had arrived at, and he had not the slightest doubt that their decision was a just one. However, it received his sanction, and for that decision he alone was responsible. He need not say how much he regretted that he should have brought the charge against the Government for having done an act for which he himself was responsible. Perhaps the House would allow him to say, that notwithstanding the circumstance to which he had adverted, ho was still of opinion that leases of houses in the vicinity of public offices should not be renewed, and that it was highly expedient that the House should support Government in obtaining the possession of any plots of ground near the public offices which they had an opportunity of obtaining.