§ MR. CAIRD* said, that he had to bring under the notice of the House the system of management adopted by the Office of Woods and Forests on the Hainault Estate, in Essex. Last year, when he (Mr. Caird) took occasion to comment on the general management of this department, the then Secretary for the Treasury instanced Hainault as an example of the inauguration of a better system. A return has since been presented to Parliament which shows, within a narrow compass, the kind of management which the Office itself puts forward for criticism, and affords to this House an example of the general system on which the whole estates of the Crown are conducted. Within the last three years the gross revenue of these estates has considerably increased—from £383,757 to £445,688. But the surplus income is chiefly swallowed up by increased expenditure. Thus, with a gross income in 1856 of £410,330, the surplus balance handed over to the Exchequer was £281,515; while, with a gross income in 1857 of £445,688, the surplus handed over to the Exchequer was not more than £284,857. With an increase of £35,300 in the revenue, there was an increase of only £3,342 to the Exchequer. While the revenue increased between 9 and 10 per cent, not a tenth part of that increase reached the Exchequer. The expenditure was thus increasing more rapidly than the income, and it might be useful to the Commissioners themselves that their proceedings should be reviewed by Parliament. On a private estate of any magnitude constant vigilance was needed to keep the staff of management within bounds. Much more was it needed when that staff was not under the vigilance of personal interest.
That branch of the Crown Estate which he now proposed to examine was the Royal Forest of Hainault, in Essex, ten miles from London. It was originally 3,000 acres in extent, and the average net income derived from it for the five years preceding the disafforestment was about £500 a year. It was much frequented by the people of London for recreation, during certain seasons of the year, and was full of beautiful forest scenery. The propriety of enclosing it at all, and thus excluding the public was very open to question. It might well have been doubted, even in an economical view, whether the gain of a few thousands a year is worth a moment's compa- 609 rison with the advantage to the pent-up thousands of London of an open breathing space to which they can easily resort. A tract of 3,000 acres of wild forest scenery, within half an hour of the most crowded part of the City, has been changed into a vast garden farm of 1,900 acres, the remainder being likewise about to be subdivided and enclosed. Nothing could justify this, short of the prospect of a vastly increased revenue. What are the money results of the change? The future gross rental at which the Crown Allotment has been let for the next thirty years is £4,248 a year, from which must be deducted 10 per cent. for costs of management, leaving a net annual income of £3,824. But the capital expended in the change, £67,600, if invested at 5 per cent. would have yielded £3,380—and when to this is added the average net return formerly realized from the Forest, £500, the advantage as a mere money speculation is less than nothing. Under a more business-like management the result would, no doubt, have been different. But the Commissioners of Woods would have exercised a wiser discretion by commencing their improvements on some of those numerous unproductive tracts of country in more distant localities, where their operations could not have interfered with the convenience of the public, but would have been undoubtedly beneficial to all. However, after due consideration, the policy of breaking up the ancient Forest of Hainault was decided on. An Act was obtained in 1851, and in 1852 an allotment of 1873 acres was awarded to the Crown, besides the timber, worth £21,500, on the remainder of the Forest, allotted to the commoners. In May, 1853, the Office of Woods began their operations, and within three years and a half the Crown Allotment was cleared of timber, grubbed, drained, enclosed, and provided with roads and farm buildings. In that time they managed to spend, one way and another, £67,606! and the gross produce realized from the timber, bark, and underwood, on the whole 3,000 acres, was £79,322. Here it is worth while to pause a moment, and consider the actual receipt for the entire timber on this Forest, which had been growing to maturity for many hundred years, under a system of which the defence was, the vast value that would at some future day be realised from it. It is totally cut down and disposed of, and it realizes exactly £26 13s. an acre! After the dis- 610 turbance which occurred in the Office of Woods a few years ago, the Treasury sent three gentlemen to advise on the future management of the Royal Forests. They were not persons known to the public, but believed, nevertheless, to be highly respectable men. These advisers recommended a continuance of the system of management hitherto adopted in the Royal Forests. They deprecated the impatience of the public, "who, ignorant of the main object for which the Royal Plantations were made," expected some annual income from the 150,000 acres of forest property, and consoled us by telling us to wait for seventy-eight years longer, and then the crop would be worth £600 an acre! The same excuse was made to Nelson more than fifty years ago, when he complained of the inadequate supply of navy timber from the Royal Forests. We have been waiting since the time of the Conqueror—some eight centuries—and are told to wait only seventy-eight years longer for their full maturity! Instead of £600 an acre, Hainault has yielded only £26 13s. But if the yield of timber has come short of what we have been always led to expect, the money laid out on improvements far exceeds ordinary experience. The total expenditure was £67,606 6s. 8d., of which £4,674 13s. 10d. was paid for the expense of the Commission, for compensation, police, and law, and for hewing timber: so that the net expenditure on the 1,900 acres allotted to the Crown was £62,931 12s. 10d., or £33 2s. 6d. an acre! Let us briefly analyze this. The drainage of 1873 acres, including outfall, cost £18,581: very nearly £10 an acre. The average distances apart were eight and a half yards, and they were four feet deep. Drain-pipes were made on the spot, at a very central and convenient point for carriage, and about a tenth part of the extent was executed by Fowler's steam drain-plough at a low rate of cost. A full estimate for drainage, under all circumstances of time and place, and computing all to have been done by hand, would be £6 10s. an acre; so that on this item alone there appears an access of £6,407. Two circumstances are mentioned by the Commissioners as excusing this vast excess, namely—the unusually short period of time in which the work was executed, and the cost of cutting drains in a soil intersected with roots. The first, instead of being an objection, is an advantage, for all works of this kind can be done more 611 economically on a large than a small scale: and as for the second, the Commissioners seem to forget that an expenditure of £15,586 had been previously made in grubbing up the roots and preparing the land for subsequent operations. There were thus no circumstances in the case which should have led to an excessive outlay on drainage. Nor is this extravagance exceptional on the Crown Estates, for on a purely agricultural farm in Sussex the Commissioners are now laying out upwards of £9 an acre in drainage. Farm buildings next demand our attention. The cost of these may be put down at £14,000. For this sum there is a plain farmhouse, three stables for twenty-eight horses each, three barns and cart sheds, and thirteen labourers' cottages. The greater portion of these buildings, notwithstanding this enormous outlay, are unfinished, the stables unpaved, the roads around them unformed, no means of enclosing them, no piggeries, no accommodation for cattle. There is not even adequate accommodation for the horses of the farm, a great number of which are lodged in the cart sheds, and the carts and waggons are houseless; at the best the buildings cannot house all the horses and implements of a market-garden farm, and should that system be found unprofitable on so large a scale, a new outlay must be made to provide accommodation for farm stock. He did not hesitate to say that one half the cost of these buildings had been thrown away. £7,000 prudently and wisely expended, would have produced accommodation greatly superior to what has here been obtained for £14,000. The clearing of the land and the preparation of the roots for sale cost £15,586. It is difficult to test this outlay, and he was unable to offer any opinion upon it: and the same may be said with regard to the subdivision and boundary fences. The roads have been very costly, upwards of £5,200 for five and a half miles of road. The public roads, however, are wide, with footpaths and fences. But there was subsequently constructed one mile and a half of farm road, which furnishes a test of this branch of the expenditure. This road cost £1,000; it is about ten feet wide, with no inclosure, no drainage specially constructed for it, not more than fifty yards of cutting, and that only three feet in depth, and the gravel was got on the adjoining hill. Part of this road, between the farm buildings and the public road, had been so badly constructed 612 that the surface had become a mixture of clay, gravel, and root-wood, the latter placed on it by the tenant to keep his carts from sticking fast in the ruts. The cost of this road is about one fifth the cost of a cheap line of railway! It is literally a gross imposition. A good, thoroughly-drained road might have been made for £400. So that on this small item there has been £600 thrown away. And, if we add the sums charged for repairs on roads, fences, and ditches (all of which should have been completed for the money expended on them), there will be a sum here altogether of £1,400 which has been needlessly expended. But the most startling charge in this account, and the one most deserving of the attention of the House, is that which is scattered through the account, in many separate items, for Surveyor's Commission and Superintendent's Wages. These items amount, in the aggregate, for the three and a half years' management, to the modest sum of £7,870! This is equal to £1 3s. 6d. per acre per annum, which is a little more than the Estate has been let for, exclusive of interest to be paid on improvements—so that the clear annual value of the land has been exhausted in paying for professional superintendence. But even this is not enough, for the principal surveyor is likewise the receiver on the estate, and is allowed a separate commission on the rental. Let us analyze this account. For mapping, and valuing, and perambulating the land before the improvements began, three sums, amounting to £1,294 3s. 7d. are charged. This is equal to 8s. 7d. an acre over the 3,000 acres. The odd 7d. should have nearly paid for this duty. The Irish surveyors are at this moment complaining that the Attorney General for Ireland, in his new Irish Land Bill, intends to cut them down unfairly from their present rates of 3d. per acre for survey, and 4d. for valuation. In their wildest imagination their claims have never approached within 1,000 per cent of that which is given as a matter of course to the Surveyor of the Royal Estates. We find next £164 16s. 1d. charged for commission on the sale of £1,990 worth of timber, rather more than 8 per cent. There is next a charge of £925 17s. 3d. for selling the timber on the Commoners' Allotment—£18,015 worth—a little over 5 per cent. Then we have £918 charged for valuing the timber on the Crown Allotment. Now 613 this requires peculiar notice. For this modest sum the surveyor told the Commissioners that their timber was worth £36,749. It actually fetched £48,319, or £12,000 beyond the valuation. This may have arisen, and probably partly did arise from an increase in the value of timber at the time, but the Commissioners might have been misled to sell the timber at one-third below its real value,—and at all events, it is quite clear that this valuation, which cost £918, was utterly thrown away. However, the surveyor was not done with this yet. He had taken only the first bite. He took a better hold the second time, as he now charged his commission on the total sum realized, including the £12,000 beyond his own valuation. This time he charges £1,182 10s. 4d., and, when this is added to the £918 already charged for the same timber, we find that he nets £2,100 on this branch of the business! Whether this exhausts the professional charges on the timber was more than he could say. As the surveyor is also the receiver on the estate, he may, perhaps, with perfect fairness deduct likewise his commission as receiver of the price before passing the balance to the hands of his superiors. Then follow a series of separate charges for commission and superintendence on pipe drainage, arterial drainage, grubbing roots, farm buildings, roads, &c., amounting in the whole to £3,486 14s. 8d. The grand total for three and a half years' management of this estate of 1,900 acres being thus close upon £8,000. Now, let any gentleman apply this to his own property. Would any sane man suffer this waste, even if he could afford it? What would have been the course followed on a private estate? A properly qualified resident agent would have been appointed, who would have devoted his sole attention to it, under whose eye and authority every operation would have been skilfully and economically carried out. He (Mr. Caird) could get a dozen perfectly qualified men of character and reputation within a fortnight who would gladly undertake the duty for £500 a year. If that course had been adopted, the direct saving in the cost of management alone would have been £6,240; and, adding this to the sums he had already shown to have been wastefully expended on drainage, buildings, and roads—all of which would 614 have been avoided by a competent resident agent—there might have been a total saving of upwards of £21,000. Having thus shown the excessive character of the costs of management, he would proceed to the second branch of the subject—namely, the unsatisfactory nature of the subsequent arrangements, and the policy adopted in letting the land. There was evidently no plan or forethought, for at page 3 it is stated that an ineffectual attempt having been made to let the land for grazing without clearing it of the underwood and rubbish, and without under-drainage, it was then determined to drain and otherwise improve the estate. Shortly after this commenced, about two-thirds of it was let for a term of thirty-one years, at 5s. an acre for the first year, 10s. for the second, and 23s. an acre for each of the remaining twenty-nine years. In the following year the remainder of the land was let to the same tenant, at 9s. an acre for the first year, 14s. an acre for the second, and 40s. an acre for the remaining twenty-eight years—the tenant engaging in the first case to pay interest on drainage and farm buildings, and in the last on drainage only. Now, there are two points which would have struck a competent land agent as to the disposal of the estate in connection with its proximity to London and the nature of the soil. First, the prospect of progressive increase of value, and therefore the impolicy of letting on a thirty-one years' lease; and, second, the advantage of subdividing the estate into moderate-sized farms, suitable to market-gardening operations. When a landlord parts with the control of his estate for so long a term as thirty-one years, it is done in consideration of the tenant undertaking permanent improvements at his own cost. In this case, however, the most lavish outlay was made at the sole cost of the landlord, and the inconvenience that the tenant might be put to at the commencement of his lease in bringing this new land into cultivation was fully compensated by the reduced rent charged for the first two years. For the prospect of an increase of value he could appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, a few nights ago, in speaking of the increased value of the Exhibition Estate at Brompton, said, that it would be a sign not merely of the decay of London, but of that of the Empire, if such property had not materially risen in value within only 615 five years. It was clearly impolitic, then, to part with the control of this large tract for thirty-one years without an adequate return. Here is fresh land of good staple and quality, tithe free, within ten miles of London, let for thirty-one years at 23s. an acre, exclusive of interest on permanent improvements. Two-thirds of the estate were so disposed of, and the following year the remaining third—contiguous land, but more remote from London, and of inferior quality—was let to the same tenant at 40s. an acre on a thirty years' lease, the only difference in the latter case being that no interest was to be charged for farm buildings and road. Here was at once a practical illustration of the impolicy of letting on so long a lease, for within one year the same tenant takes inferior land at nearly twice the rent. Up to this point the Office of Woods and their Surveyor clearly misapprehend the value of the land, for, after the bargain for thirty-one years was concluded, the tenant kept in his plan, and determined to turn the whole tract into a vast market-garden for the supply of vegetables to London. To this they at once assent; and no one can inspect the ground without seeing at a glance how correctly the tenant estimated its capabilities for market-garden cultivation. But the change from common farming to market-garden cultivation may involve a future responsibility on the part of the Crown of which they may be unaware. A market-gardener's claims for manure, and compensation on giving up possession, are sometimes equal to the value of the fee simple. And landowners do not commonly let lands suitable for market gardening at the same rent as for ordinary farming. In short, if the land is suited to market gardening, it is worth more than twice the rent; if it is not, it was imprudent to allow the system to be so altered. His own impression was, that the greater portion of the estate is suited to market gardening, and he believed that a competent land agent would have perceived this at once, would have arranged the estate accordingly, and would have let it in several moderate-sized farms, not too large for the personal superintendence of the occupier, without which it is extremely questionable whether market gardening can be made remunerative.
If the wasteful expenditure which he had shown, and the impolicy of the disposal of the property were confined to 616 Hainault, the matter would be a comparatively small one in the grand scale of our public expenditure. But it is not so, for he found on going through the General Report of the Commissioners of Woods for last year that the same policy governs other branches of the Crown property. Other estates are being let on thirty-one years' leases, the landlord making the whole permanent outlay. A series of forests are going through a like process with that of Hainault. Requisitions for the drainage of ordinary farm land, at an estimated cost of more than £9 an acre, are being complied with, and the ubiquitous surveyor not only conducts all these operations, but buys and sells estates for the Crown, and receives the Crown rents in Kent, Surrey, Lincoln, Essex, &c. His total remuneration for these duties last year from the Office of Woods was probably not much, if anything, under £10,000. He could trace upwards of £5,000 of it; and on the same scale the surveyor's fees for other services done will amount to nearly as much more. Now, who is this gentleman who receives from one department of the Government for his services as much as we pay to both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His name is Mr. John Clutton, a highly respectable land and timber surveyor, but a name quite unknown to the public as having taken any part in the advancement of agriculture. If Government desire to improve their property, why should the best men not be called in? Men like Josiah Parkes, Hewitt Davis, or Mr. Bailey Denton, who are not only celebrated drainage and agricultural engineers, but are men who by their writings have rendered the State some service? The truth is, the error is more deep-seated. You have appointed gentlemen as Commissioners who have less confidence in themselves than you have who appointed them. Distrustful of their own practical knowledge, they lean with absolute confidence on that of another. Anxious to remove the blot that has so long lain on the Crown Estates, they let themselves be led into a lavish expenditure. It is another case of double Government. We pay the Office of Woods to manage the Crown Estates, and give them an ample staff for every necessary duty. But their functions resolve themselves into little more than a record of what is going on. The real manage- 617 ment of the property is devolved on a surveyor. He does the work£is well paid for it, and has none of the responsibility. He advises what should be done, orders its execution, buys and sells property, receives the rent, and charges his commission. We have two Offices of Woods and Forests in Whitehall Place£the one, the ostensible one, which we pay by an annual vote of Parliament of more than £20,000; the other, Mr. Clutton's office, where the real business is done, and the cost of which, not much short of the chief office, is dispersed in separate scattered items through the annual account, or never appears at all, as it is deducted from receipts, and the balances only brought to the public credit. Now, either Mr. Clutton should at once be put at the head of the office with a suitable salary, or the Commissioners themselves should do their own work. He had not the least doubt that either of the gentlemen who at present hold the office, could, if they would only rely on themselves, and throw themselves heartily into the business, transact it with greater economy and efficiency than at present. A man of honour and sense, who is not afraid of work, will soon become more capable than any irresponsible agent, whose other multifarious duties necessarily compel him to rely on clerks and subordinates.
There is an important question involved in the right management of the hereditary Estates of the Crown. The Civil List of the Queen, £385,000 a year, would be repaid to the country if the surplus income of the hereditary estates could be made to exceed that amount. An addition of 10 per cent to the income, and a reduction of 10 per cent from the present average expenditure, both perfectly practicable, would leave the country a debtor to the Sovereign. It is now twenty years since Her Majesty came to the throne. During that period similar estates have vastly increased in value. Building land in the better parts of London and in the manufacturing districts, mineral property, and all those sources of wealth, which almost without an effort on their part have so vastly increased the wealth and incomes of several of the great landholders of this country, ought equally to have raised the income of the Crown Estates. If that has not been so, it is the fault of the management. He had shown in the case of Hainault that the 618 management had been wasteful, and the expenditure excessive; it was the duty of Parliament to mark this with its disapproval; and he therefore called on the House, in no party spirit, for party had nothing to do with it, to affirm the Motion.
§ MR. LINDSAYseconded the Motion.
§
Motion made£
That it is the opinion of this House, that the costs of management on the Crown Allotment of Hainault, since the date of the Act under which it was disafforested, have been excessive, and that the management generally has not been satisfactory.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the Resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman was in effect a condemnation of the management of the Woods and Forests in reference to this particular estate known under the name of the Crown allotment in the Forest of Hainault. The Resolution was virtually a censure upon a gentleman (Mr. Gore) who he (Mr. Hamilton) had no hesitation in saying was one of the most efficient and useful officers in the service. He would shortly state to the House the real circumstances of the case. The hon. Member began by stating, that his Motion had reference to the Forest of Hainault, comprising 3,000 acres, but the expenditure upon which he proceeded to comment was the expenditure upon the Crown allotment of 1,900 acres. The truth was, however, that Hainault Forest comprised an area of 17,500 acres. In 1851 Commissioners were appointed to ascertain the boundaries of the forest, and to allot to the Crown such parts as might be deemed compensation for the forestry and other rights which the Crown had agreed to abandon. For the discharge of those functions the Commissioners themselves, and not the Woods and Forests, were answerable. Under the authority conferred upon them by the Act of 1851 the Commissioners, after making the necessary surveys and inquiries, allotted to the Crown, 1,900 acres in full satisfaction of all the rights possessed by the Crown in the forest, with a few trifling exceptions, including, likewise, compensation for timber cut on parts not allotted. The Act of Parliament directed that the expenses connected with the various functions of the Commissioners should be defrayed by the Woods and Forests, and afterwards, in the 15th section, that those expenses should be re- 619 paid out of the timber that might be cut on the common. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an expenditure of £67,000 on 1,900 acres, but he (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) would state the real facts in respect to that point. The total expenditure connected with the whole process of disafforesting and reclamation in reference to this forest amounted to £67,660, but of that sum only £42,000 were properly expended in reference to this Crown estate of 1,900 acres, the remainder being expenses not of the Woods and Forests but of the Commissioners under the Act, for the various duties they had to discharge; and, therefore, when the extravagant management of the Woods and Forests Department is spoken of, he must confine the hon. Member to that sum of £42,000 expended on the 1,900 acres, constituting the Crown estate, which, including the expense of reclamation, amounted to £21 15s. per acre. From a passage in a Report laid on the table, the House might judge of the nature of the works which the Woods and Forests had to engage in with respect to the reclamation of this part of the forest. First, there was the grubbing and the clearing of the land, which formed a laborious undertaking in consequence of the close growth of the timber trees and under-wood; and the total expense in the first instance of grubbing, making roads, and of arterial drainage amounted to £11,415, or about £6 4s. an acre. The hon. Gentleman admitted, that previous to the reclamation of this forest the whole of it produced about £500 a year, but by the process of reclamation, grubbing, making roads, and effecting arterial drainage, the 1,900 acres produced a rent of about £1 5s. per acre. The next point on which the hon. Member touched was the expenditure upon drainage, which amounted to £8 19s. per acre. He was ready to admit, that £8 19s. per acre formed a large sum for drainage. He had not himself inspected the estate, but he had been informed that the ground was a complete mass of entangled roots, and the cost of drainage was therefore necessarily large; but if the cost was large, the expenditure had been made with the consent of the tenant, who paid 5 per cent upon it, and if the tenant was satisfied with the expenditure, it was a primâ facie and rather strong proof that the expenditure had not been so extravagant as the hon. Gentleman seemed to consider. The third item of expenditure referred to was that which arose out of 620 buildings, and which made up the total sum of £42,000. As he had observed, he had not had an opportunity of inspecting these buildings, but an expenditure of £14,000 had been incurred for these buildings with the consent of the tenant, who paid 6 per cent on the outlay. Therefore these expenses, with the exception of the expenditure for disafforesting, grubbing, making roads, and arterial drainage, had been expenses incurred with the consent of the tenant. The general result was, that previous to the disafforesting the forest produced £500; and four years after the reclamation, the 1,900 acres, the portion of the forest allotted to the Crown, being cleared and fenced, and furnished with buildings, produced a rental to the Crown, including the payment of interest, of £4,250. A tenant of one of the farms had written to say that the drainage on all the lands, with slight exceptions, was very effective, the work having been faithfully done, and, though the expense had been great, that gentleman did not think that it could have been done at a cheaper rate; and though the buildings were insufficient, he considered the scheme successful in converting in so short a time what was a useless piece of land into a productive and valuable farm. That was the testimony of a tenant mainly interested in this matter. The hon. Member had spoken of the payment to surveyors, and he must complain that the hon. Gentleman, having access to the information contained in the paper on the table of the House, had not done justice to the surveyors, whose emoluments he stated to be so very great. He spoke as if the payment made to the surveyors was simply for their business in connection with these 1,900 acres. The total of £5,888 paid to them in respect to the process of disafforesting was not paid by the Woods and Forests, but by the Commissioners under the Act, who paid £3003; so that the sum paid by the Woods and Forests to the surveyors was only £2,885 with respect to the reclamation of the 1,900 acres. The whole payment made to the surveyors in respect to this portion of Her Majesty's estate was somewhat less than 5 per cent on the buildings, and 5s. an acre for drainage, the latter being the sum allowed by the Inclosure Commissioners, and both being upon the ordinary scale of allowances. He thought, therefore, that the House would be indisposed to pass a 621 vote of censure as regards the management of this estate, for so he considered the Motion in reference to this matter. The hon. Member had from the outset confounded the expense connected with the disafforesting the whole forest with the expense connected with the Crown allotment of 1,900 acres. With respect to the general management of the woods and forests, the hon. Gentleman repeated a statement he made last year, that by increasing the amount to be received by the Woods and Forests by 10 per cent, and diminishing the cost by 15 per cent, a sum might be obtained equivalent to the amount of the Civil List. But the House should bear in mind that the property of Her Majesty, managed by the Woods and Forests, was of a peculiar nature. The total annual rental of lands and houses was £300,000, but no less than £80,000 were in fee farm rents admitting of no increase, and £90,000 were ground rents for such places as the Athenæum, the Carlton, and Reform Clubs, built on Crown property, let for long leases at a small rent. With respect to the payments to surveyors, he was informed that the hon. Member was inaccurate in his statements; but as the hon. Member gave no notice of his intention to bring that point under the notice of the House, he was not prepared with details in respect to it. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a surveyor receiving £10,000, but he had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would find himself mistaken in that statement. On the whole, he trusted that after the facts he had mentioned, the House would agree with him that it would be most unjust to visit the Woods and Forests with the censure conveyed in the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman, for their management of this particular portion of the Crown estates.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it appeared the tenant had agreed to pay 5 per cent for drainage by wood, and he could only express his surprise that any man should have made such an arrangement.
§ Mr. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he had not referred to drainage by wood, but drainage through a wood.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYHe understood, however, that Mr. Alison had only held the farm two years, that he had only recently come to this country, and that he was imperfectly acquainted with the profits likely to be derived from the farm. He could not, therefore, consider of great importance the fact that he had agreed to pay 622 the interest which had been mentioned upon the outlay. He thought the sooner they got rid of these small forests the better, if the cost of improving them was to be anything like the sum that had been expended on Hainault Forest.
§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that if the Forests of Hainault were adapted for building purposes, it would have been far better for the Crown to have sold the land in small lots, than to have spent a large sum in reclaiming it. The work must necessarily be done by deputy, and that deputy must have a deputy, each of them getting his commission. If private individuals managed their land in the same way that the Crown managed its land, they would soon be compelled to go into the market to sell it. He objected to the Crown selling land, and their going into the market to buy other land, for the public had then to pay two commissions. He should prefer that the money be paid into the Exchequer. It appeared to him that ¢8 19s. per acre for draining was excessive; £5 per acre was the maximum, and, allowing £1 extra for the nature of the ground to be drained, £6 was the utmost that ought to have been paid. He thought this large expenditure was owing to want of supervision. He did not wish to join in a vote of censure upon any public officers, but he thought that it would be well if at the head of the Boards charged with duties of this kind they had a man of practical knowledge.
MR. WILSONobserved that no man who had the common feelings of honour towards public servants who were not present to defend themselves, could be deserving of the respect of the House if he were not prepared to defend the character of those public servants when unable to speak for themselves. As far as Mr. Gore was concerned, he had the honour of knowing that gentleman, and he assured the House that no public servant had ever discharged his duties with a more conscientious sense of what he owed to his employers. The right hon. Baronet opposite had asked why the Government had not sold this property, but he must remind the House that the Government only held the property in trust for the Crown. It was true that some small outlying plots of land in the neighbourhood of Stamford and other towns had been sold on very favourable terms under the authority of an Act of Parliament, but the proceeds of these sales had been in- 623 vested in the purchase of property contiguous to other Crown estates. The value of the Crown property had thus been increased, while its management had been economized. It had been suggested, that the land in Hainault Forest might have been sold for building sites; but that experiment had been tried and had failed, because the Government could only grant leases, and could not give a freehold title. He denied, however, that the operations carried on in that forest had been unprofitable; £42,000 bad been expended in the improvement of the forest. Before these improvements, the annual income derived from it was £500. Since then an income of £4,280, or a profit of £3,700, had been obtained in the short period of three years, thus giving interest at the rate of about 9 per cent upon the outlay, Was it, he would ask, unprofitable, to let land on a thirty-one years' lease at such an improved rental to a tenant with a capital of £35,000? Instead of proving that the Crown had been embarking in unwise and speculative operations, he thought the facts showed that, although they were constrained by Act of Parliament to do what they had done, it was about the most profitable operation which they could have undertaken. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Member.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not understand how the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) made out his calculations of profit.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the property consisted of 1,900 acres. Before the improvements this forest land brought in a net income of £500. The sum of £42,000 was laid out in drainage, farm buildings, and other improvements, and an improved rental of £4,280 was then obtained.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that was what he understood. The £42,000 must have been provided by some one, and must bear interest; and therefore the only gain was the difference between 5 per cent upon £42,000, and the £3,700 improved rental that had been obtained. The Committee upon Crown Property, of which Lord Seymour was the Chairman, declared that there was no conceivable abuse to which property was subject that could not be found in the Crown property. The Committee suggested that it was not only desirable the account should be presented 624 to Parliament, but that an estimate of expenditure ought to be laid upon the table before it was actually incurred. Parliament might have concurred in this outlay of £42,000, but he thought that its assent ought to have been given to this expenditure before it was incurred.
§ MR. CAIRD, in reply, reasserted that the whole expense he had mentioned applied to the 3,000 acres, but whether £67,000 or £42,000 the House must agree that it was a wasteful expenditure. That the drainage was more difficult than usual was contradicted by the fact that it had all been done by the steam plough, and the same charge was made to Government for ordinary agricultural land in Sussex. As he was satisfied with the discussion he had obtained, he would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that the Government would in future remember that the public had an eye on their movements, and that they would see the necessity of doing their own work.