§ MR. JAMES HOWARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, 1868 after the additional information which has been supplied to him in respect to the Crown Estate at Stagsden, Bedfordshire, he is prepared to grant the inquiry into the management of the said Estate asked for in the House on 20th May?
§ LORD ELCHOasked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, before he answered the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, to allow him to put a further Question: Whether, since his last statement on the subject, in which his right hon. Friend had said there was nothing like hardship or severity inflicted in the general management of the estate, any additional information had been received from Mr. Gore; whether the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to doubt the general accuracy of the Report which had been made to him by the Department of Woods and Forests; and, whether, if he had received any further information on the subject, he would kindly state from what quarter it had come?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that since he made a statement on this subject, it had been made known to him that a certain error, not of very great consequence, had crept into it. In the summary he gave him, Mr. Gore omitted to deduct the acreage of plantations and other allotments, and in consequence the average rental was misstated by him at 25s., instead of which it ought to have been 28s. Apart from that error, which was admitted to have taken place since that time, his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) had supplied much information which he relied upon to a different effect. In this conflict of opinion it would certainly not be right for him (the Prime Minister) to propose that there should be an inquiry into the management of this particular estate, because that would imply an unfavourable judgment with regard to the statement of Mr. Gore, in whom they reposed as much confidence as in any public officer; but, on the other hand, in justice to his hon. Friend, he thought the proper course would be this—not that he (Mr. Howard) should be dependent on a verbal statement made by him (Mr. Gladstone), but that Mr. Gore should make a special Report with regard to this estate. When that Report was made, his hon. Friend would form his own judgment on the points with 1869 which he had to grapple, and the House would also be put in possession of the facts, and in a position to judge of them.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARD (who rose amid some interruption)said, that, to put himself in Order, he would conclude with a Motion. He had been many years a Member of the House, and he thought there were few Members who would charge him with having wasted its time. He would not have taken the present course if he did not feel that he owed a duty to a certain number of his constituents that he should call attention to this subject. In this matter he had been met in the most unfair manner by the Government. In the first place, when he brought the question privately under their notice, he was met by the most erroneous statements, which, however, he was at once able to disprove; and then, when he asked a Question in the House, the Premier made a statement based upon an over-estimate of the size of the estate to the extent of 25 per cent, which completely upset all his other calculations; and the House was left with the impression that he (Mr. Howard) had brought forward a trumped-up case. He would tell the House some of the leading facts of the case. This estate was purchased by the Crown seven years ago from the trustees of Lord Dynevor; and since then the imperious treatment and the rack-renting of the tenants had been a public scandal throughout the county. Not long since one of these tenants committed suicide, leaving behind him a memorandum, which was so shocking that he would not read it to the House. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Read!" from the Irish Benches.] Well, if the House desired to hear it, the memorandum was, so far as he remembered, to the effect that the Crown Agent was his murderer; and there was evidence produced at the Coroner's inquest to show that this man had repeatedly declared that he could not live under the Crown. The Prime Minister had understated the rent of this unfortunate man, and had said nothing about the tenant having to pay the tithe, insurance, and other matters. The rent altogether was 38s. 5d. per acre, and this for some of the poorest land in Bedfordshire. He would also let the House know what other tenants on the estate had to say.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose to Order. There was a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), who proposed to move to reduce the salaries of the officials of the Woods and Forest Department by £2,100. The Notice of the hon. Member would raise the whole question now being dealt with by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. He wished to know, therefore, whether that hon. Member was in Order in anticipating the judgment of the House?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Notice of Amendment referred to by the noble Lord is not of a character to exclude the observations of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he would mention several other cases in which the rents on the estate had been greatly raised by the Crown Agents. For instance, in another case, a farm had been in occupation of a family for more than a century. The original rent was £323; in 1854 the farm was re-valued, and raised to £432; but in 1874, when the Crown came into possession, the agent, Mr. Clutton, raised the rent to £808, besides miscellaneous charges for drainage, fire insurance, and so forth, making £838 in all. Again, in another instance, the rent was raised from £771 to £1,140; in another, from £299 to £521. The tenant of this last-mentioned farm was 76 years of age, and he was allowed just one month to decide whether he would sign the lease, of which he disapproved or be turned out of his farm. But the imperious conduct of the Crown Agents was not confined to the tenants upon the estate; for they did not scruple to set the rural sanitary authority, of which he (Mr. Howard) himself had been a member, at defiance, and, rather than carry out the orders of that body, they had pulled down between 20 and 30 cottages. All he wanted was an inquiry into the circumstances by an impartial body. Was it to go forth to the country that respectable tenants, holding under the Crown, were to be treated as vassals, as they had been, and to be rack-rented in the fashion he had described, and yet an inquiry into the facts refused; and this, forsooth, under a Liberal Government! He would never rest until the facts of the case were fully before the public. The hon. Gen- 1871 tleman concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. James Howard.)
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he gathered from the speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Howard), that he attributed to him the responsibility for the statement he had made and the interruptions it had caused. He could only say that he was very sorry if, in any of the particulars of his answer to his hon. Friend, he had failed to satisfy his hon. Friend. It was not intended, and he was still more sorry that he had obliged the hon. Member to make the Motion. His hon. Friend had said that he was not one of those who were in the habit of wasting the time of the House, and that he (Mr. Gladstone) believed to be entirely true; but if that were to imply that those hon. Gentlemen who had not been in the habit of wasting time were to choose the present juncture to begin the habit of taking up the time of the House, the position of the House in regard to Business, which was already serious, would become woeful indeed. As to the immediate subject of the Motion for Adjournment, he might say that he had not measured the estate or inspected the books; and his hon. Friend had had the advantage, whatever it might be, of putting forward a number of statements which he had, no doubt, given in perfect good faith, but in regard to the correction of which, or the filling up of which, or the further illustration of which, no person in the House at that moment, he would venture to say, was in a position to take any action. In these circumstances, he trusted that the House would reserve its judgment, and that his hon. Friend would see the propriety of withdrawing his Motion. He ventured to think that if his hon. Friend would allow the matter to go forward in the manner suggested—namely, by obtaining a statement from the proper officer responsible, that would be a preferable mode of dealing with the subject. The error of stating that the rent was 25s. an acre, instead of 28s., was not an error of the proper officer, but an error committed by those who made the summary for him (Mr. Gladstone) in the 1872 statement he made. With regard to what had been said as to the cruel suffering of tenants of the Crown, he would only venture to say one thing, and he thought it absolutely necessary to say it, and that was as to those who managed the Crown estates. He thought the House would appreciate the significance of his statement, when he informed them that the agricultural interest of the Crown property was considerably over £100,000 a-year, and at that moment there were but three farms in land.
§ LORD ELCHOsaid, he would not have interfered in the discussion; but the accusation of murder against Mr. Gore obliged him to say one word in his defence.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARDI rise to Order. Mr. Speaker—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERruled that the noble Lord was in possession of the House.
§ LORD ELCHO,resuming, said, he certainly gathered that such a charge was made. Now, whoever had had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Gore knew that there was not a more able servant, or one more just. The fact stated by the Prime Minister showed that the Crown Estates were managed well by the officers of that Department. With regard to Mr. Gore's management, the figures were these. The estate contained 3,097 acres; £119,000 were paid for it, and £21,000 were expended by the Crown in improving it. In 1878 there was a reduction of 11 per cent; 1879, 17 per cent; 1880, of 22 per cent; and in 1881, 22 per cent reduction had been promised. Further, it must be borne in mind that these estates were administered, not for the benefit of the Department, but for that of the nation, and that the Agents were bound to do their duty under an Act of Parliament. The statute in question, the Land Revenue Act, provided that no land should be let except upon valuation, and that valuation must be made by a competent surveyor, who was bound to swear that the land was let at a reasonable rent. Upon these terms this land was let, like all the rest of the Crown Lands. He protested against a charge being made in this manner against a Crown Agent, in an unexpected way sprung upon the House without Notice on the Paper.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he fully admitted the general inconvenience of such 1873 impromptu debates; but would remind the House that in the state of Public Business now-a-days a Motion for Adjournment was sometimes the only means which the House possessed of controlling the actions of officials. He could not say he was very much struck with the eulogium which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had pronounced upon the Agent, because whenever a public officer was spoken of in that House in any terms except those of the most extreme praise, then every Member who had the honour and advantage of his acquaintanceship felt bound to testify that those who had that honour and advantage must admit that that particular public servant was as near a paragon as anyone could be. He was sure, from what he knew of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Howard), that he had not introduced the subject except under the spur of necessity.
§ MR. JAMES HOWARD,in withdrawing the Motion, begged the House to understand that he did not for a moment endorse the dying statement of the deceased tenant of the Crown; and, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had put words in his mouth which he had not uttered or entertained. He had simply stated a fact elicited at the Coroner's inquest. He did not know the gentleman in question (Mr. Gore); but he would embrace the opportunity of saying that it would be better for the nation if our public offices were not filled with aristocrats or their connections, who had to depend on more practical men to do the work for which they were paid.
§ LORD ELCHOrose to explain, and was met with loud cries of "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the noble Lord desires to make any explanation, no doubt the House will give him indulgence.
§ LORD ELCHOexplained that he understood the hon. Gentleman to accuse one of those who had to do with the administration of the Department, for which Mr. Gore was responsible, of murder. [Mr. JAMES HOWARD: No, no!] That was what he understood him to say.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.