HC Deb 21 April 1863 vol 170 cc468-80
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and the Office of Public Works. The hon. Member said, that the attention of the House and the public had for some years past been directed to the increased and increasing Estimates for the different Departments of the Civil Service. He regretted, that in those Estimates for the present year, there were no sensible reductions. It might have been expected, that when they saw a million saved in the Army Department, and another million on the Navy Department, some considerable reduction would also have been proposed in the Civil Service Estimates, the complaints of the growing increase of which had always been stronger than against any other Department of the State. That increase existed more particularly in the expenses connected with the public offices; and in no Departments was it more remarkable than in the two to which he was about to call attention—namely, the Office of the Woods and Forests, and the Office of the Board of Works. It appeared to him that this was a favourable time for entering into an examination, before a Committee of that House, of the effects of the Bill passed ten years ago for the separation of those Departments. In his last Report, Mr. Gore gave an account of the Woods and Forests up to March, 1862, and, alluding to the change which took place ten years ago, said "that the best criterion of the success of any system of management of property was the permanent pecuniary result." That was quite true; but the result should be tested, not as regarded the receipts only, but as regarded the expenditure also. Mr. Gore then drew a comparison. He took the gross receipts for three years previous to the passing of the Act of the 14 & 15 Vict., and then also took those of the last three years under his own administration— namely, 1860, 1861, and 1862. Mr. Gore did not draw a very fair comparison. He took the years 1849, 1850, and 1851, and showed that the receipts were on the annual average, under the old system, £339,000, and under the new, £414,000, showing an increase of £75,000 a year, or 22 per cent. But, instead of there being an increase of £75,000, it amounted, in reality, only to £67,000, as the year 1852, instead of 1849, ought to have been taken. The comparison, however, he should have drawn was between the whole ten years since the passing of the 14 Vict, and the last ten years of the old system, and then a very different result would have been shown. He (Mr. Augustus Smith) found that the receipts for ten years, from 1843 to 1852, amounted to £3,495,000, from which must be deducted the receipts from Parks and Gardens, about £40,657, leaving a. sum of £3,455,000; while under the new system ten years had produced £4,090,000, giving an annual average, for the former period of ten years, of £345,500, and for the latter period of £409,000, showing an annual increase of about £63,000 instead of £75,000 as asserted. It was difficult to draw an exact comparison, the mode of keeping the accounts being different, and various payments formerly allowed being now transferred to the Consolidated Fund. Under this head no less than £209,000 must be classed during the last ten years. Mr. Gore took credit to the Office for improvements which had taken place; but he should have entered a little more fully into the case, because there were various circumstances which of themselves must satisfy every one not only that there should have been an increase, but that the increase should have been much greater than it was. Thus the great outlays fur improvements paid out of income, not only during the last ten years, but during former periods, are now beginning to tell. Next, many payments were formerly allowed out of the receipts which had been discontinued. Then, again, there bad been a vast acquirement of new properties, either by encroachments on the public or private individuals. Through the foreshores alone, above £200,000 had been extracted, and great additions through Hull Citadel, Culmore Fort, and other similar properties. There was one source of improved income — namely, the large rentals charged to the public for the accommodation of several Departments of the public service. Almost in every instance this practice had commenced within the last ten years, and gives above £10,000 a year. The particulars are specified in a Return he moved for last Session (No. 8). He might mention the case of the Museum of Practical Geology in Jermyn Street. The country bad laid out the sum of £111,000; but at first the Museum sat rent-free. Since then, a heavy rent of about £1,000 a year had been charged; therefore, not only was the money of the country spent upon an institution which it had no security for retaining beyond the lifetime of the present Sovereign, but the country was called upon to pay a large rent. There was also au item for timber cut down in the forests, the receipts for which were larger under the present Department. Of course, that result bad been arrived at simply because more timber had been cut down in the forests during the last ten years than during the previous decennial period. The excess of timber cut down during the last ten years bad been of the value of £160,000, which gave a sum of £16,000 a year. But, as the money of the nation had been annually voted for enclosing and planting, he thought the produce of the timber thus grown should be paid direct into the Exchequer. Mr. Gore went on to specify the outlay under different heads during the last ten years: 11,000 acres had been drained, and 546 different buildings had been built or altered; but the Report gave no intimation of what had been the cost. It did appear that no less than £72,000 had been expended during the last ten years upon drainage, exclusive of the forests; and as drainage was a permanent improvement, it was not right that it should be effected at I the cost of the country, unless the country was allowed to enjoy a permanent interest in the results or improved value. The total outlay upon the Crown Lands, since the commencement of the present reign, had been upwards of a million and a half. The success of the Department must be judged, not only by the receipts, but by the expenditure. Mr. Gore stated that the land revenue before the passing of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 42, was charged with a number of payments from which it was now free; and there-lore the net income paid into the Consolidated Fund could not be compared with the net income of former years. That was quite true; but as Mr. Gore had the materials to set forth what those charges were, it would have been convenient if he had done so. According to that gentleman's statement, in the three years 1853–4–5 there was paid into the Consolidated Fund £784,571, or an average of £261,500; while the amount paid in the years 1860–1–2 was £870,000, or an average of £290,000 a year. Nothing could be more delusive than that statement, because many charges bad been transferred from the Woods and Forests to the Consolidated Fund; but large sums by Votes of this House were given in aid of the actual expenditure, which therefore ought to be set against the receipts, Those charges in the last year of which they had any account amounted to upwards of £43,000. The proper comparison to make was to take the whole sums paid during the ten years, and to set off the expenses The total receipts during the ten years had been £4,090,000. There had been paid to the Consolidated Fund £2,777,000 leaving a balance of £1,313,000. which the Commissioners had laid out. without any Vote of Parliament and entirely upon their own responsibility. On thy other hand, there had been laid out. about £1,300,000 in addition to the sums annually voted by Parliament for the expenses of the office, making the total expenditure £1,707,500, which sum. deducted from the total receipts, left a balance of £2,383,000. The net income for the last year was only a few hundred pounds more than the net average income of the last ten years; so that then had not been that improvement in the management of the office for which Mr. Gore claimed credit. Since the appointment of a president of the Board of Works, and the substitution of that more high-sounding title for the title of Commissioner, there, had been a great increase of expenditure both for the office expenses and for the maintenance of Parks and Gardens. The comparison of the office expenditure was most instructive and suggestive. The united offices of Woods, Forests, and Works, for ten yearn, from 1842–3 to 1852, cost £259,627; the Office of Woods and Forests for ten years, 1853 to 1863, £236,978; Office of Works, for the same period, £256,980; making together £493,958, and showing an increased office expenditure of £234,331, But if to this sum were added the various sums that properly belonged to these two Departments, as they were found spattered through the various Estimates for superannuations, stationery, postages, and similar charges, the actual increase in consequence of our having two offices instead of one amounted to the large sum of £321,830. While the charge for official management had thus nearly doubled, the expenditure on the Parks and Gardens themselves, which in the ten years previous to the appointment of a President of Works amounted to £640,000, was during the last, ten years £1,050,000. The Parks themselves were under the Hoard of Works, but the fringe of the Parks was reserved to the Office of Woods; and he submitted that it was unreasonable that there should be this joint exercise of power. The principle seemed to be this— that, if there was anything to receive, it went to the Woods; but if there was anything to pay, the Hoard of Works took charge of it, mid saddled it on the public. This principle pervaded all the Crown properties. Thus the expense of keeping up Victoria Park was defrayed by a public grant; but the Office of Woods preserved all the building ground, though it was the park which made the building ground valuable. Again, the tithes annexed to Glasgow Cathedral were received by the Office of Woods, but the painted windows were put in by the Board of Works at the public cost. The Report of the Committee on Public Monies expressed the opinion that nil these matters should be brought within the control of Parliament; but a Treasury Minute said that "my Lords" were of opinion, that considering the peculiar nature of this revenue, it was advisable to postpone any further consideration of the point until a further investigation took place, preparatory to a new surrender of the Crown Lands to the public, and the grant of a new Civil List, Considering the enormous grants of public money which were made in connection with this Department, he thought that the House ought to have an explanation of the peculiar circumstances alluded to in this Minute. These Commissioners seemed to suppose that they were trustees of the Crown, whereas they were nothing but stewards or clerks under the control of the Treasury. Up to this time this recommendation of the Public Monies Committee had been resisted and set at nought on no valid grounds. Originally, the Royal forests were kept for the purposes of the chase, and afterwards they were retained as nurseries for the naval yards. But it appeared, that for many years past, the Admiralty had refused to receive the timber grown in these forests, because it cost £8 10s. per ton, while they were able to procure timber from contractors at about £6 3s. Therefore, as a Hording supplies for naval purposes, the forests were useless; but a great deal of expense had been incurred in growing the timber, and he wanted to know whether the country should not have the money that was received for it when cut down. From 1853 to 1862, the total receipts from the forests were £578,600, of which £496,000 was for timber, which the Commissioners of Woods coolly pocketed as profits of Crown Lands, though the result of outlays taken from the public purse. During the ten years preceding 1853, the Commissioners only cut £330,000 worth of timber, so that £166,000 worth more had been cut within the last ten years than in the ten years preceding. The expenses of the various officers and departments for the management of these forests were very large. Indeed, the payments were so great that the net income was actually nil. This gave rise to the question whether it would not be better to ascertain the nature and extent of the Crown interests and of the interests of the public, and to dispose of the forests to the best advantage. He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, by the sale of portions of these forests, funds might not be procured for the purchase of sites for public offices. It was full time it should be ascertained whether, according to language now so frequently used, the Sovereign really had an interest in what are called the Crown Lands antagonistic to the interests of the public, and whether Crown property and public property were not one and the same thing. Lord Ellenborough once very correctly described it in a debate in the Lords on the King's Property Bill, in 1823, when he said, "Crown property belonged to the kingdom, not to the King." It appeared to him that the severance of the two offices, instead of leading to efficiency and economy, had led only to confusion and expense. On these grounds he asked the House to grant him a Select Committee; but in asking this he was, in fact, only asking for a re-Vote, for a Select Committee had been granted in a former Session, and he would therefore ask those hon. Members who supported him on that occasion to give him the same assistance on this.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and the Office of Works and Public Buildings, and the operation of the Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 42, by which these were constituted as two separate departments.

MR. PEEL

said, he was quite ready to admit that the condition of the Crown Lands was a fair subject to be brought under the consideration of the House, both on account of the largo revenue derived from them and the considerable number of persons interested in the just and prudent management of them. They formed the subject of a compact between the Crown and the country, by which, in return for the Civil List, the Crown made over to the public the net revenue derived from the Crown Lands, after paying the expenses of management. The system under which these lands were managed, all the proceedings connected with the outlay of capital and the application of income, were strictly regulated and defined by law. They had always been administered by Commissioners expressly and exclusively appointed for the purpose, except between the years 1830 and 1850, during which, period the management of them was combined with the management of the Public Works and Metropolitan Improvements. That experiment having proved a failure, the Offices of Commissioner of Woods and Forests and Commissioner of Works were separated by the Act to which the hon. Gentleman had referred in his notice of Motion. To decide whether that Act had worked successfully it would be necessary first to consider what were the objects with, which it was passed; and the Prime Minister in 1850, in first introducing the Bill to Parliament, thus defined its intention— By the proposed separation we get rid of what has frequently happened—namely, that when large expenses have been incurred for certain public works, the sums were raised by making them a charge on the Land Revenues of the Crown. This was calculated to keep from the public view the large expenses incurred in those cases. According to the statement I have now made, the Land Revenues will be in future managed as a Department of the Revenue. The persons employed in that office will have only to consider how best to manage the rents they receive from that property which is leasehold, and also what is the best mode of managing the Woods and Forests; and they will have nothing to do with the consideration of any expenses, except such as every owner of property would think it necessary to incur for the preservation and improvement of his property." [3 Hansard, cviii. 1319.] The first object of the Act, therefore, was to remedy an evil which had arisen from the union of the two offices—that when large public works had been undertaken, the cost of which it was not thought expedient to lay before Parliament altogether, money was provided for by drawing on the land revenues. In this way these revenues appeared smaller than they really were, and expenditure was kept from Parliament which ought to have been sub- mitted to it. Nothing of the kind had happened since the Act was passed; but, according to the hon. Member, an evil of the opposite character had followed. The hon. Gentleman complained that where public Departments required the use of Crown property they were not allowed to have it rent free, and he had referred to the Museum in Jermyn Street, and certain property in the temporary occupation of the War Department. Certainly, it could make no difference to the public whether the Departments paid rent or not, because the rent was of course transferred to the Exchequer; but it was important that the Commissioners should maintain the principle of making a fair charge for the use of Crown property in every case. If once a departure were allowed from that principle, the door would he opened to numerous claims which would not be altogether so clear and simple as those which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. For instance, public bodies or corporations, or companies projecting schemes said to be for the advantage of the public, but often intended for their own profit, might claim the use of this property on the ground of public convenience. Another object of the Act was that the Department of Crown Lands should be a department of revenue, and that the administration of those lands should be such as would bring in as much as possible to the revenue consistently with a proper regard for the permanent improvement of the property; in fact, that they should be managed in the same manner as a private proprietor would manage his own property. Of course, it was a fair question, whether this attempt to improve the Crown Lands had succeeded. There could not be provided a better test in answer to this question than to refer to the revenue derived from the Crown Lands. The hon. Gentleman said it was not fair-to include in the account the income derived from the Woods and Forests; and taking, therefore, the account of the lands solely, and the houses under lease, it would be satisfactory to know that there bad been a consistent and progressive increase in the income derived from this portion of the property. In the year ending March 1851, the income derived from the Crown Lands, excluding Woods and Forests, was £301,000; in the following year it bad risen to £311,000; in 1858 it was £330,000; in 1859. 350,000; in 1860, £352,000; in 1861, £360,000; and in 1862, £370,000. Taking the gross receipts, including Woods and Forests, the average for the three years; ending March 1851 was £339,000; the, average gross receipts for the three years; ending March 1855 were £384,000; and for the three years ending March 1862, £414,000. He was sorry to find that the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with this large increase, and that he had endeavoured to diminish it in every way, or to ascribe it to any other cause than improved management. The gross annual receipts for the three years ending March 1841, averaged £330,000, and they had only increased by £9,000 up to 1851; whereas in the ten years which had elapsed since the passing of the Bill, they had increased £75,000. The question was, to what cause this increase was owing. These Crown Lands were scattered over the whole country — the property was, in fact, situate in thirty-two counties, and in many counties there were detached outlying portions. One of the principal objects of the Commissioners had been to consolidate the property as far as possible by disposing of these out lying portions, and purchasing other lands; more conveniently situate. It appeared from the Returns ending March 1862, that during the last ten years the Commissioners had sold in England and Wales 7,520 acres, of the annual value of £11,350, for which they had received £410,000, after all expenses had been paid, being at the rate of thirty-six years' purchase. They had also, during the same period, sold property in Scotland and Ireland, for which they had received £325,000; and they bad sold waste lands and foreshores, which were producing nothing, to the amount of £209,000; making altogether £950,000. The whole of that sum had been, as was required by law, laid out in the purchase of new property, and it was invariably laid out in the purchase of that which adjoined property already belonging to the Crown. Up to March 1860, £785,000 had been expended in the purchase of 18,420 acres, and £25,000 in improvements of those and other properties; and these properties together produced a rental of £27,810 per annum; or a rental equal to about twenty-nine years' purchase on the amount paid. Although the property sold was usually unimproved and the property bought was in a valuable situation, the work of consolidating the Crown Lands had been carried on for ten years not only without loss, but with an increase in annual revenue amounting to the difference between £11,000 and £27,000 a year. He had stated that it was intended that the Crown Lands should be administered as a department of revenue, and it was not unnatural that observations should be made upon the expenditure out of the revenue before it passed into the Exchequer. It appeared from the last Report of the Commissioners that the expenditure, whatever the amount, was. at all events, not increasing. Upon an average of three years, ending March 1855, the gross receipts were £384,000, and the sum paid into the Exchequer was £261,000. Upon an average of the last three years, ending in 1862, the gross receipts were £414,000, and the sum paid into the Exchequer was £290,000. The increase, therefore, in the amount paid into the Exchequer was equal to the increase in the gross receipts. The total expenditure was about £125,000, and might he divided into three parts—first, the expenditure on Windsor Park; second, the expenditure on the Woods and Forests; and third, the expenditure upon Crown Lands under lease. The sum expended on Windsor Park was about £20,000 a year, and the sum received was £6,000. It ought to be borne in mind that Windsor Park was maintained for the enjoyment of the Sovereign, just as the London parks were maintained for the enjoyment of the public, and that no reduction could be made in that item. The Woods and Forests produced £40,000, and the expenditure was £30,000. The annual revenue of the Crown Lands under lease was £370,000. and the annual expenditure was £75.000. To the nature of that expenditure he wished to call attention. No less than £24,000 of that expenditure consisted in payment of taxes, ancient stipends charged by former sovereigns, and charges attached to the lands before they were acquired by the Crown. The next item of £35,000 was the amount expended in the improvement of the property. What had been done in Hainhault Forest was a very good illustration. When first disforested some years ago, it was let at a rent of £2,839 a year. In building farm-houses and cottages and in drainage £29,000 had been expended, and the tenants paid as interest £1,548 a year more, which brought the rent to £4.388 a year. What had happened in that case happened in every case. The outlay bore interest, and the occupier paid the amount in audition to his rent. It was said, that if these lands belonged to private, owners, they would make no outlay from income, but would borrow money fur the improvements; but inas- much as he imagined that the Civil List and the Crown Lands would always he arranged upon the basis upon which they stood at present, it must be a matter of indifference whether the money was advanced from the revenue of the country or from the revenue of the lands, provided that in every case a fair interest was paid and a fair return obtained for the outlay. He had accounted for £59,000 out of the £75,000, leaving £16,000 as the actual cost of management; and as that was only 4¼ per cent on the amount of rents received, he could discover no proof of extravagance or had management. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the circumstance that these expenses were not voted by Parliament; but it was provided by the Act that the cost of management, including all improvements, should be a first charge on the gross revenue, and he had only to say that after full discussion and a division the House decided in 1851 against the expenditure being made part of the annual Votes. It was quite true that the Committee on Public Accounts had pointed out the advantage of these expenses being placed on the annual Estimates, but they only made the recommendation provided that no objection whatever was offered to the change; and the Treasury, by their Minute, had dissented from that view, and advised the postponement of any alteration.

As to the Woods and Forests, the hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension with regard to the nature of the Crown interests. The whole extent of forest lands was about 100,000 acres, but only one-fifth of these belonged exclusively to the Crown; with respect to the remainder, it was subject to rights of common. At the beginning of the century there was alarm lest the supply of timber for the navy should fall short, and Acts were passed by which power was given to the Crown to enclose a portion of the forest lands and plant timber upon the enclosed portions. About 30,000 acres out of the 80,000 had been so planted, making altogether about 50,000 acres which were planted with growing timber. The subject of the forests was inquired info by a Committee as late as 1854, and the Committee reported that they were satisfied with the manner in which it was being managed; and there was no doubt that the forests were of great value, and that they increased in value every year by about £60,000. The annual revenue which was derived from the forests arose from the necessary thinning of the wood, and amounted to about £10,000, being £10,000 more than the annual expenditure. There could be no question whatever that these forests would ultimately be of very great value, and it would be a most unwise proceeding to cut down the timber before it had arrived at maturity. He need not say much about the expense of the Central Office of Woods, because that subject was investigated in the year 1859 by a Committee of the Treasury, which made a very full Report on the nature and constitution of the office, and observed, in conclusion, that they had much satisfaction in reporting their opinion that this branch of the public service was in a very efficient state, adding that the value of the Crown Lands had been greatly improved, and that the arrears of rent were but trifling when compared with the large amounts which were received. He believed that the only arrears were rents which had been owing for a great number of years, principally quit rents in Ireland, which had not been collected for 120 years, and were now perfectly irrecoverable. The annual cost of the office was about £26,000, of which £9,000 was for the legal Department; but of this hitter sum a considerable portion was repaid by persons in whose favour leases and conveyances were executed. It was not necessary for him to go into the question so far as related to the Office of Works, because his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would be ready to give any information on that subject which the hon. Gentleman might desire. A proposal for an inquiry was undoubtedly a very specious thing, but he thought an inquiry into these Departments ought not to be instituted unless it could be shown that the present system was working badly, or that some better system could be adopted. He ventured to say that the hon. Gentleman had not been able to make out either of these cases, and he trusted the House would not give any encouragement to the notion which was rather implied in the hon. Gentleman's Motion than expressed in his speech—namely, that it was desirable to re-unite the Departments of Woods and Works. They were united for twenty years, and their union was attended with many evils—such, for example, as that of one Department making use of part of the revenue of the other for the purpose of carrying out public works to a greater extent than Parliament had sanctioned. He be- lieved that this property was as well managed now as it was likely to be after any inquiry which the hon. Gentleman wished to make. It should be recollected, that if this expenditure was incurred without the previous sanction of Parliament, a very full account was rendered to Parliament of the manner in which the money had been expended. The accounts were rendered year by year, and so clear was their arrangement that anybody who examined them carefully could make himself master of them, He therefore trusted the House would not adopt the Motion.

MR. CAIRD

said, that having, some years ago, called the attention of the House to the management of the Royal forests, he was bound to say that he believed that the discussion which then took place had bad a beneficial result. The Report made by Mr. Gore in 1862, showed that a great improvement had taken place in the management of the Crown estates, the value of which bad, by judicious outlay and judicious investment of money, been considerably increased. Even now, however, large sums were expended in the remuneration of law agents for the management of property which he should himself like to see administered by Mr. Gore himself, or some of the officers of his Department, During eleven years, the rental of the Crown lands had increased from £329,000 to £414,000, or about 22 per cent. Only 10 per cent of that increase had yet found its way into the public exchequer, the remainder being absorbed by the large outlay upon improvements. This result was a good illustration of the effect which free trade had had in improving the value of land. He did not know any example more clearly proving the increase of rental, not from mere outlay and improvements, but from the great advance which hail taken place in the value of land, resulting from the greater demand that had arisen for it since the repeal of the Corn Laws. As to the Royal forests, he suggested a few years ago, when the House discussed the question of the camp at Aldershot, that instead of purchasing land such as Aldershot, they should appropriate part of the unproductive land in the Royal forests to the purposes of a camp, for which some portions of them were very well adapted, whereby the value of the surrounding land would be increased.

Question put, and negatived.