PAPERS MOVED FOR. (Hansard, 13 May 1862)

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
, in moving for papers connected with the transfer of Hull Citadel from the War Department to the Woods and Forests, said, that when the Citadel was no longer wanted for military purposes, it might have been supposed that the property would have been sold, and the proceeds applied to the construction of similar defences in other parts of the Kingdom. But no sooner had the War Department determined to give up the works as a fortress, than the Citadel was claimed by the Board of Woods and Forests as the property of the Crown. A case was drawn up and submitted to the law officers of the Crown; and on the opinion they gave the Board of Ordnance gave up the property to the Woods and 1622 Forests. Now, when public property was thus given up, the public had a right to know what were the legal grounds of the transfer. The value of the Property was not less than £100,000; it had been in possession of the Board of Ordnance for 300 years; and he wanted to know why it had been transferred to the Woods and Forests instead of being sold. If the principle acted on in this case was held good, it would be applied to all similar cases of public buildings when no longer required for their public purpose. They might also be handed over to the Woods and Forests as the property of the Crown, instead of being considered the property of the public. If at any time the seat of the Legislature should be changed, the Palace of Westminster itself might, on the same principle, be handed over to the Woods and Forests as Crown property. He would therefore move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Case prepared in the War Office, and settled in the Department of Woods and Forests, which was submitted to the Law Officers of the frown, respecting Hull Citadel; and of their Opinion given thereon.

MR. PEEL
said, that the property to which the hon. Gentleman referred was for a long time in military occupation by the War Department. When it was no longer required for that purpose, a question arose whether the title to it was vested in the War Department or in the Crown as part of its hereditary revenue. That question had been submitted to the opinion of the law officers of two Governments, and their opinion was that it belonged to the Crown in respect of its territorial revenue. It was not usual to lay before the House the cases that had been prepared for the opinion of Her Majesty's law advisers, and there was nothing peculiar in this instance to call for a departure from the ordinary practice. The case in question was prepared jointly by the solicitors of the War Office and of the Woods and Forests. There was every reason, therefore, for presuming that the whole matter was fairly set forth as between those two departments. The War Office was reluctant to part with the property; but submitting to the opinion of the law officers, they gave it up to the Woods and Forests. The present Lord Chancellor and Mr. Justice Keating were the law advisers when an opinion was taken in the first instance, in 1857; subsequently an opinion 1623 was obtained from the law advisers of the late Government, and on both occasions the opinion was that the property was in the Crown; and consequently the Woods and Forests took possession of it as trustees for Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. The hon. Gentleman seemed to complain that the Office of Woods, when any property vested in them was required by the public, exacted occupation rent. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that this property was in the nature of an entailed property, of which the life interest was in the public, with the Crown as reversioner. The Office of Woods were the trustees, and were obliged to manage it in accordance with the Acts of Parliament, which directed that the income of the property should be first applied for its maintenance, and that any surplus income should be paid over to the Exchequer. Any rent, therefore, that might be charged to the public, went exclusively to the benefit of the public revenue.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, that the property now in question never was the property of the Crown, except as a portion of the defences of the kingdom. Great complaints were on one occasion made, that the gates had been shut; and a representation having been made to Parliament, it was distinctly stated that the citadel of Hull was purchased by the public money. What he complained of was the large expense the country was put to in the shape of Crown revenues.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he should vote for the Motion if the hon. Member divided the House. It was a most important question, because, in point of fact, it involved the property in the foreshore of the whole coast of England, and the public were entitled to the fullest information. It might not be advisable as a general rule to give the opinions of the law officers, but this was an exception.