§ Order for Committee read.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he bad given notice that he would move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Woods, Forests, &c. Bill, to make provision therein, in conformity with the terms of the Resolution to which this House agreed on the 11th day of March last, relating to the payment of the gross income of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown into the Exchequer, and the expenses necessary for collecting and managing the same being placed under the control of this House. Mr. Speaker, with that kindness and urbanity by which he was distinguished, had, however, informed him that such a Motion would be irregular, and he, therefore, had taken that opportunity of informing the House that it was his intention to test its opinion on the fourth clause of the Bill. He had to ask his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests if he would have the kindness now to state the nature and provisions of the Bill. It was one of the most important Bills which had been brought in this Session.
LORD SEYMOURhad no objection to 175 answer any question which might be put to him when the House was in Committee.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the House had as yet had no opportunity of learning the principles of the Bill, as the second reading had been carried at such a late hour that discussion was impossible. He had read over the Bill several times, and must confess that he could not well understand it. The noble Lord would save a good deal of discussion if he would kindly explain its principle and provisions.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that a Bill on the subject had been introduced last year, from which the present Bill differed in some details, but not in principle. Last year he stated that the blending together the management of Works, and of the Woods and Forests, had led to inconvenience; and what the Government proposed generally was, that the Office of Works should form one department, and should be represented by a Member of Government in that House, who should bring forward and explain the estimates relating to his department, but that the persons employed in the Woods and Forests and Law Revenues Department should only have to consider the best means of managing them as a source of revenue.
§ MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he must complain that the Bill was merely a new arrangement as regarded the mode of governing the Woods and Forests, and did not go into the evils which were so justly complained of, in order that they might be eradicated. At present the forests were almost unproductive. The New Forest, extending to about 60,000 or 70,000 acres, which ought to be worth about 1,500,000l., produced almost nothing. These forests had been intended to supply the Navy with timber; but for the last ten years scarcely any of the wood had been used for such a purpose. The accounts, too, of the department were in a very unsatisfactory state. This was sufficiently demonstrated by a return which he had obtained of a letter of Mr. Anderson. That letter exposed, in connexion with the accounts, a system of great abuse. Under the present system they were wasting the public resources, and some method ought to be devised whereby such valuable property might be made as productive as it possibly could be.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that the more he considered the subject, the more he was convinced of the great griev- 176 ance the country suffered under from the management of the Crown property. He thought, however, that this Bill did not carry out the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It was a Bill to make the department of the Woods and Forests more a matter of Treasury benefit than hitherto. Were the department placed under the management of a Board similarly constituted with the Poor Law Board, the affairs might be conducted with greater efficiency and economy.
§ SIR CHARLES BURRELLrecommended that the forests should be disposed of in small allotments. This would prove beneficial in various ways, and would make the property much more productive.
§ MR. GOULBURNapprehended that the Bill went no further than to improve the constitution of that court by which the Crown lands were managed, and that it would be left to that court afterwards to carry out the necessary reforms in the system of management. He thought the Bill might have been more definite in its provisions. It prescribed first the continuance of the present Board, or at least the continuance of a Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests with two subordinate Commissioners; and for the better management of the department the Bill provided that these two subordinate Commissioners should have different departments to manage. This was the first arrangement. Then, about the third or fourth clause of the Bill, another arrangement was proposed. Power was there taken to appoint a surveyor-general, who was to supersede these Commissioners, and to have absolute control. He wished to know from his noble Friend if he had stated the provisions of the Bill correctly?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that objection had been taken to the Bill on various grounds. The unsatisfactory condition of the forests had been mentioned. He had to assure the House that he had done what he could in this matter. He had brought in a Bill regarding the New Forest, which had passed the Committee upstairs. By this Bill the management would be simplified, the Lord Warden's office would cease, the deer would be removed, and that would afford them an opportunity of letting the farm lands. It had been objected that the forest had not supplied timber to the Navy. He had been on a Committee on this subject upstairs in 1833, when a letter had been laid before them from the Admiralty, which recommended 177 that in time of peace no timber should be cut except what was going to decay. Now, they had either to allow the timber to grow, and have a large quantity of it at hand when the exigencies of the country might demand it, or else cut it and sell it when ripe. The latter was not considered an advisable course. The next objection that had been made was as to the accounts; but he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Trelawney) that if he examined the blue book he would find that the accounts were now kept in the very manner which Mr. Anderson recommended. That gentleman, who had been employed on them for about two years, had satisfactorily arranged them. It had also been complained that the forests law led to great expense. On this point he had to inform them that he was bringing in a Bill to relieve the Crown from the feudal system of forest law. Another hon. Member (Sir W. Jolliffe) had said the present was a Treasury Bill, and not a Woods and Forests Bill. It appeared to him (Lord Seymour), that the best mode of securing economy was to put a department under the control of the Treasury, who were answerable for the expenditure of the country. He conceived that to be, therefore, a recommendation rather than an objection. The Bill gave an alternative. It left the office of Woods to two Commissioners, and then he inserted a clause to have a surveyor generally responsible and controlling the whole, and to have under him a practical land surveyor as a deputy, whom he might send about to different parts of the country, bringing back to him that information which a person in an office in London could not by any means obtain. It was impossible, with the land revenues of the country spread over forty counties, that gentlemen sitting at Whitehall could manage them properly, without this kind of information and assistance. One great and important object of the Bill was to facilitate the understanding of the complicated accounts of the office. They had now got accounts of so many different kinds of property, of land revenues, and of metropolitan improvements, that it was difficult, without the accounts were very well arranged, to understand them. If he wished to give a proof of the errors into which persons might fall, he would instance the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan), who, in speaking of the land revenue law expense on a former occasion, said the solicitors' bills amounted in seven years to 178 79,000l. This at the time he thought was more than the usual Parliamentary exaggeration; and he afterwards looked into the accounts, and so far from finding that the sum was 79,000l., he found that more than half the charge was for purchases of land for metropolitan improvements. A new street was to be made through a pauperised and crowded district. Many of the houses were mortgaged, and the Commissioners bad to obtain possession of each separate property, and then to sell the property on each side of the street afterwards. They were told, "Make the new street, but don't let us have any legal expense." Then they were told to make a new park at Battersea. He would show the House a plan of the land, with each plot differently coloured, and which resembled a tailor's pattern card. A right of common was also claimed over a considerable portion of this property, and these claims the Woods and Forests had to arrange and satisfy. Yet they were told, "You must not run into any legal expense." He supposed he should go on as his predecessors had done, incurring considerable legal expense. All that could be done was to take care that the business of the office should be conducted as economically as possible,
VISCOUNT DUNCANbegged to explain that he took the statement as to the solicitor's expenses from a return which had been made to that House, and, therefore, if any blame was to be attached, it was to those who made the return, and not to him.
§ MR HUMEsaid, the question was one of great importance. The country were aware of the gross abuses of the Crown revenues, in consequence of the statement of his noble Friend (Viscount Duncan), Now, what was it the Government proposed to do? He did not object to the Bill being a Treasury Bill; but he asked the House to recollect why they had the management of the Crown revenues. They were yielded to the country in lieu of 385,000l ranted to the Crown in lieu of the Civil List. He asked whether any individual, having property much scattered and very much mismanaged, would not desire to see it differently managed? The noble Lord had referred to the Admiralty letter; but it should be recollected, that the reason why the Admiralty did not buy the New Forest timber was, because about 2l. a load more than the fair market price was asked. He was confident if the Crown 179 lands were properly managed, they would produce enough to defray the expense of the Civil List. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) tried to cover some of the grossest jobs by producing a statement of legal proceedings. But the abuse of legal proceedings was, that the suits were going on for ten or twelve years, fees going on all the time, and no apparent termination of these suits. It was madness to attempt to retain the management of property distributed over forty counties. The question was, whether they had not arrived at the time when the sale of all the smaller properties and fee-rents should take place.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, the very fact of this Bill being brought forward, was a proof that there had been mismanagement of the Crown estates. It seemed to him, however, that this Bill was so curiously contrived as to prevent any one from being responsible, and that did not augur well for the future good management of the property. It did not make the Treasury responsible. If it did, he would be satisfied, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests would be present, who could be found fault with, and cross-questioned, as occasion might require. The Bill appeared to him to invest all power in two irresponsible gentlemen who might be at liberty to appoint irresponsible deputies to act for them. This was unsatisfactory, and he feared the House would find some difficulty in redressing any evil which might arise from neglect of duty. In the case of the land revenues the Treasury was mixed up with it, but in such a way as not to be responsible. He thought the three Secretaries of State were sufficiently overburthened with work already; but the Bill proposed to drag them in without making them responsible. The First Commissioner of Works was not responsible either. He could not say that the Bill offered any security to the country that the property would be managed better for the future than it had been in times past.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it would be useless to occupy the time of the Committee in going back to abuses which had occurred ten, twenty, or forty years ago. All that they were concerned with at present was how to get rid of those abuses, and how to place their affairs on a better footing. His hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) thought there ought 180 to be in the House some person responsible for the Woods and Forests, who should be amenable to all their questions, and ready to give explanations on all subjects connected with his department. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) quite agreed with the principle. He thought there ought to be in the House a responsible head of every department; but there was an uncommon jealousy against increasing the number of official Members; and so they must rest content without having such ample opportunities of asking questions. As the matter stood, the Treasury would be responsible, as it were, for the Post Office or the Customs; and, as in those cases, it would have a check over the expenditure, inasmuch as any outlay would have to be sanctioned by it. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, namely, the insertion of other persons upon the Commission, it would be similar to what was the case with the Board of Control and the Poor Law Board, of which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the honour to be a member, not that he actively interfered with the business of either; but in the case of the resignation or death of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baines), for instance, it would be found convenient to have ex officio Members to carry on the business till his successor should be appointed.
§ House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
§ Clause 1.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he found that two Commissioners of Woods and Forests were to be appointed, with a salary of 1,200l. each, and that in the 11th Clause the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) contemplated afterwards the appointment of a surveyor-general with a salary of 1,500l. a year. He thought that they had better at once place the matter under the care of the surveyor-general, for he perfectly concurred with the noble Lord that the management of this property would be much better done by one person, especially as the two Commissioners were to keep, according to Clause 5, separate accounts.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that as, in addition to the surveyor-general, there was to be a practical surveyor, the expense of the two systems would be much the same. It had long been the custom that the business of the office should be divided between the different Commissioners, as he believed was the custom at all other Boards: and he had provided that the Treasury 181 should make the division in order to define more clearly each Commissioner's responsibilities. He considered that in some things they might be jointly, and in others separately, responsible. The present mode of management was through surveyors of different districts; but whenever it should be in the power of the Treasury to substitute a surveyor-general for those surveyors, much economy would be the result, and they would obtain a better mode of management.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYdid not see why they should appoint two Commissioners, when the noble Lord seemed to admit that it was impossible for two commissioners living in London to manage the business.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was better to retain the present Commissioners, because, if they were not employed, they would put in a claim for compensation.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEconsidered both of the plans defective. There was responsibility in neither; and an efficient management could not be procured without having some responsible officer in that House.
§ MR. HENLEYthought the best way would be, to take the opinion of the Committee upon that part of the first clause which related to the appointment of two commissioners. If Government was of opinion that the estate could be better managed by a surveyor-general, they should at once adopt that course.
§ Amendment proposed, "In page 2, line 33, to leave out from the words 'this Act' to the words 'and the,' in line 38."
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, that if, after five or six years, they appointed a surveyor-general, they would lose the benefit of their previous experience. Besides, as both commissioners could not be expected to die at one time—whenever they determined to resort to the new plan, they would still have to make compensation. They had better, therefore, make up their minds which was the better system, and adopt it forthwith.
§ MR. SLANEYthought the measure of the Government would effectually lessen the abuses which all had admitted to exist. If the Committee looked at the matter as men of business, he thought they would see that the Government were doing their best, and that by such remarks as had been made they were unduly pressing upon 182 a Government willing to apply the necessary remedy.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLentirely dissented from the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, for he believed that the Government were proceeding on an entirely wrong basis. The question before the Committee was nothing but a question of patronage, if they might judge of the future from what had taken place, when a late Commissioner, who had enjoyed a salary of 1,200l per annum, had retired on a pension of 1,500l. He objected strongly to the appointment of the last Commissioner, who had been appointed since the report of the Committee of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, had been presented. He thought the entire constitution of the board required changing He would have the Government choose at once whether they would abide by the system of Commissioners, or go to the management of a surveyor-general.
MR. VERNON SMITHunderstood it was the intention of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to negative the first part of the Clause. There certainly was some embarrassment in the Bill. He should have thought, looking to the Bill, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to appoint a surveyor-general, but was hampered by the present Commissioners, because he had said that those gentlemen would be entitled to compensation. But he had left the Commissioners in an awkward position, because any Government might turn them out without compensation. The Bill provided for no compensation. His opinion was, that the appointment of a surveyor-general would be the best constitution; and if that step were taken at once, an opportunity would be afforded for deciding what should be done in the case of the Commissioners. But he could not see why it should be left to the Treasury to alter the scheme again, and to abandon these gentlemen without any compensation to which they might be justly entitled.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that objection was taken against inquiry into the management, while no objection had been made to the management. The opposition was merely because the Government had inserted a clause in the Bill to the effect that, if at a future time it should appear that the appointment of a surveyor-general would be a better course, the Treasury might resort to it.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had arrived at the opposite conclusion from that of the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) upon the same premises; and, judging from the very fact to which that right hon. Gentleman had referred, he drew a contrary inference, for the Government would not have appointed a third Commissioner if they had not intended to continue the Commission. He thought the contingencies of appointing a surveyor-general were very remote. Upon the whole, he considered that the best mode of management would be to take the first clause as it stood, to place the Commissioners under the strict control of the Treasury, wait till they arrived at that clause, and then the weak points of the Bill could be removed. If his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) should be withdrawn from the Woods and Forests in the division of the duties—and he doubted if that would be an expedient change—he thought it desirable that the control of the Treasury should be stringent over the department of Woods and Forests. He should, therefore, support the first clause, but vote against the eleventh.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the case was this:—The gentleman who had been a Commissioner had resigned, on account of age and infirmity rendering him incapable of executing the duties of his office. He was unable, as he (Lord John Russell) had himself seen, to go to the various places he ought to have visited; but he had, however, thought it right to delay his resignation, in order to bear any charge that might be made against him; but as soon as the inquiry of the Committee was over, he said that he really could not carry on his duties longer, and requested to be relieved. He (Lord John Russell) should be of opinion, that the department had been very ill-managed if that gentleman had been continued in an office he was no longer able to fill, and therefore he had appointed a person whom he believed to be fully competent to the duty. At that time he doubted of such changes as those in the 11th clause, and had no view to the appointment of a surveyor-general in the Bill of last year. But it might be a desirable change if one person were appointed in that department, whose duty was actually to visit the various parts of the Crown lands, and, therefore, the Government had taken power by the eleventh clause, to make that change. But that was no reason for objecting to the 184 whole plan. It was no objection to the plan proposed, that a further improvement might hereafter be made, and that the Treasury should have the power to make that improvement, if they deemed it necessary.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 70: Majority 53.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 and 3.
§ Clause 4.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that his object in moving the Amendments of which he had given notice, was to carry out the resolution to which the House had agreed on the 11th of March last, relating to the payment of the gross income of the possessions and land revenues of the Crown into the Exchequer, and the expenses necessary for collecting and managing them being placed under the supervision of Parliament. The land revenues were only 350,000l. a year, and the Crown made a bad bargain in compounding it for 387,000l. During seven years the Crown only obtained 744,000l., whilst the charges of collection were no less than 1,672,000l. If a future monarch should make a bargain with Parliament, the actual revenue of the Woods and Forests ought to be taken strictly into account. The gross income of the Woods and Forests had fluctuated but little, whilst the sums paid into the Exchequer had varied exceedingly. The income during the years 1847, 1848, 1849, was about 340,000l. a year, whilst in 1847, 61,000l. was only paid into the Exchequer; in 1849 the gross income was about the same, whilst the sum paid into the Exchequer was no less than 200,000l. The sums paid to the lawyers of the Woods and Forests in five years was 48,000l. The revenues of the Woods and Forests consisted of land in every part of the kingdom. One provision of the Act 10 George IV., was to secure the capital of the Crown, but that provision had been violated. A sum of 43,000l. was, for instance, allowed for the improvement of Barrack-street, in Dublin. That sum was voted by Parliament, but the improvement having cost more, that additional cost was ordered to be paid out of those land revenues.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, lines 13 and 14, after the words 'First Commissioner,' to insert the words 'and
185
so much of the said Acts as makes the Salaries of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and the costs, charges, and expenses attending the management of the Possessions and Land Revenues of the Crown chargeable on the annual income thereof.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the noble Viscount had stated what he (Lord John Russell) thought a very considerable public evil, namely, that a very large proportion of the income of the lands of the Crown and Woods and Forests were applied to other purposes, and were not paid into the Exchequer. But if the noble Viscount had gone rather more into the subject, he would have seen, so far from there being, as he stated, expensive collections of those revenues, they were, in fact, sums applied generally according to Acts of Parliament, and sometimes by orders of the Treasury, for the purpose of public improvements, and almost invariably sanctioned by that House. He (Lord John Russell) thought that was a very great error. If it was thought proper that Regent-street should be built, or that a park at Battersea, and another at the other end of the town, and other improvements should be made, the proper way of doing it would have been to have asked the House to vote money for the purpose, to have taken the money out of the public revenue, and left the land revenues untouched. But when the noble Viscount proposed his remedy, he (Lord John Russell) thought it was far less efficient than the remedy which the Government proposed. The source of the evil had been in the two offices being united, the Commissioner of Woods and Forests having in his office the land revenues, and also the duty of undertaking great public works and improvements, and he had either brought in a Bill or applied to the Treasury for an order by which the land revenue was applied to those purposes. The remedy the Government proposed was to separate entirely those two parts of the office, and to leave the Commissioners of Public Works to come and ask for money out of the public revenue for any public improvement. If Regent-street was to be whitewashed, if a museum of economic geology was to be completed, they would have to ask for a sum, and then it would he seen whether the House approved the expenditure or not, and the revenue of the Woods and Forests would go into the Exchequer. That was exactly the Government Bill, and a complete and effi- 186 cient remedy for the evil. He thought what the noble Viscount proposed would add another to the evils which now existed. He (Lord John Russell) begged the Committee to consider before they adopted the proposal to have- all the expenses of management, and all the details of the Woods and Forests, brought annually before them. If four labourers were employed in one place, upon that estimate, it would be asked if two were not enough. If a person had 200l. a year to look after a certain estate, it would be asked whether 150l. would not suffice. That would be the infallible, course of discussion in the House; but the consequence would be that they would be unable to consider those Bills and measures which they desired to see passed, such as the Bill with regard to the Court of Chancery. The whole Session would be taken up by votes and estimates on these matters of detail, and it would be impossible to transact any of the public business of the country. It was part of the noble Lord's (Viscount Duncan's) plan that the salaries of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, should be defrayed out of the moneys to be from time to time provided by Parliament, making the expenses matter of estimates, and leaving the details of cost and management matter of account to be laid annually before Parliament. They were now laid before Parliament, and a greatly improved form of accounts had been adopted; but if the House were to insist that all public expenditure of every kind should be laid annually before Parliament, the result would be that they would have nothing else to do, and it would be impossible to carry any Bill in the course of the Session.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the argument was very convenient for the Government. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) wished to retain the power of squandering this money as it had been squandered now for a number of years past. The Crown revenues were as much public property as any part of the taxes; and he would ask if there was any greater difficulty in voting the expenditure necessary for the maintenance of the Crown estates, than in voting the Miscellaneous estimates, or the Army and Navy estimates? How could the time of the House be better employed? He never heard reasons more fallacious than those which had been adduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government against the proposition of the 187 noble Viscount the Member for Bath. On an average of years, something like 75l. per cent of the revenues of the Crown estates had been squandered away. He thought it high time that such extravagance should be put an end to, and with that view he hoped the Committee would sanction the proposition of the noble Viscount.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, it appeared, from a paper which had recently been laid upon the table, that during the last seven years the sum of 1,118,000l. had been expended on palaces and parks; 471,000l. of that sum had been voted by Parliament, and the remaining 647,000l. had been paid out of the land revenues without the knowledge of Parliament. The request embodied in the Amendment of the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) was a reasonable one; it was carrying out a good system; and he (Mr. Hume) submitted that the Government ought not to refuse their sanction to it.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, when the hon. Gentleman complained of sums being spent upon the parks, of which the House was not cognisant, he should remember that it was the House which pressed the formation of parks upon the Government. Complaints had been made of the number of nights occupied in the House by Government; but if this Amendment were carried, it would add greatly to the duties of the House. He did not think the proposal of the noble Viscount the M ember for Bath accorded with the spirit of the Bill; and if it were agreed to, it would be found exceedingly difficult to make it coincide with the principle of the measure.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, if the Treasury were to be entirely responsible for the sanction of all those expenses, he did not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the noble Lord the First Commissioner of the Treasury, should not be able to give some account of the expenditure of the money over which it was said they exercised so much vigilance. The House never heard of want of time when the Government wanted money. He should vote in support of the Amendment, if it went to a division.
MR. VERNON SMITHwould remind the Committee that the accounts relating to those matters were annually laid before Parliament, so that any hon. Member might inspect them from time to time.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he pro- 188 posed to agree to so much of the Amendment as had reference to the salaries of the Commissioners of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should support the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Member for Bath. He (Sir H. Willoughby) could not understand how the Committee could resist the evidence which was before them. It was perfect moonshine to talk of the control of the Treasury.
§
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment—
To leave out the words 'and the costs, charges, and expenses attending the management of the Possessions and Land Revenues of the Crown.'
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 99: Majority 26.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed; Committee report progress.
§ The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.