HC Deb 29 March 1883 vol 277 cc1023-32
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD,

in rising to call attention to the Reports of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues: and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, should make any further purchase of land, said, the facts he had to submit were not only novel, but had a direct bearing upon the Motion which had just been carried; for if Her Majesty's Government desired to find a place where they might save not less than £50,000 a-year, the Department of Woods and Forests was that locality. His proposals would be in the direction of the recommendations contained in the Report of a Committee in 1854, which had never been carried out. When this Department was established, the Crown Lands were divided into two categories, the one producing no revenue being placed under the Department of the First Commissioner of Works, and that which was held to produce revenue being placed under the Department of Woods and Forests. From that arrangement Windsor Forest was excepted, on the ground that it produced revenue, and the domain of Windsor extended over 14,000 acres. In principle, however, there was no difference between Windsor Park and the Royal Parks in London, for all produced revenue for grazing or sundries. There was no good reason why the £20,000 a-year excess of cost at Windsor should be charged to the Land Revenue which did not apply to the £110,000 a-year voted for the maintenance of the Royal Parks in the Metropolis. Besides parks, the Department of Woods and Forests had 70,000 acres of agricultural land, of which 17,000 were in Lincolnshire, 13,000 in Yorkshire, and 8,000 in Wiltshire, producing an annual rental of more than 32s. an acre. There were also 500 houses let at rack rents, and 5,000 houses built by lessees of Crown Lands. In urging the sale of the saleable portion of this property he was proposing no change of law, but only that the Commissioners should do what their Act already permitted to be done. The public supposition was that the Department of Woods and Forests dealt only with a grand domain; but in reality it was a land jobbing business, dealing with estates in various parts of the country. In 30 years it had sold more than 20,000 acres for £1,000,000 sterling. The Land Revenue was increasing mainly because of such matters as the new lease of Messrs. Spiers and Pond's premises, of the "Unicorn" in Jermyn Street, and of the Old Colosseum in Regent's Park, where the land had been let from time to time at advanced rates. Within the last three years the Department had spent £80,C00 in the purchase of ground rents in Shoe Lane and Farringdon Street, and they had sold £80,000 worth in Pimlico to the Metropolitan Board of Works. These were specimens of the traffic in real property which was carried on by this Department, to the great advantage of the agents and solicitors who managed the business, and who made very considerable fortunes through their connection with the Department. In his opinion, a Department of the State ought not to compete with the middle classes in the purchase of ground rents. No doubt the income of the Department was paid into the Exchequer, but only during the lifetime of the Queen; and whatever augmentation went on until the demise of the Crown would be of advantage, not to the public, but to the inheritor of the value of the land revenue on the demise of the Crown. He wished particularly to call attention to the deduction which was made from the gross income received. If, say, the Land Revenue Department received £390,000 a-year, the total deduction, including the Vote of £22,000 by that House, amounted, according to one of the Commissioners, to the amazing amount of 22½ per cent, or £110,000 a-year. The disadvantages under which the Commissioners laboured as agricultural landlords had a direct bearing upon the discussion which would go on for many years as to the advantages or disadvantages of State ownership of land. The cost of managing farms by this Department was not less than 13 per cent. In letting a farm in Hampshire one of the Commissioners declared that he never had so much trouble in getting rid of a tenant, and that a private landlord could have got rid of him much quicker. It was one of the obligations of the Crown in letting farms that it should be done by tender. With regard to the letting of a farm in Scotland, the Commissioner regretted that he was not able to accept the second tenderer, as he was sure it would have saved the Crown and the public £7,000. It would not be possible to make a statement showing more clearly the disadvantage of Corporations being in possession of land. The Crown lands might be divided into two categories—Royal parks and forests, over which there were no powers of sale; and other lands, with regard to which such powers existed. The former were lands which the nation ought to dedicate to the Royal dignity and public recreation. And as to all the other class which had been placed in the commercial category, the Commissioners ought to be encouraged to exercise their statutory powers of sale, and to invest the proceeds in the Funds. All he asked was, that Her Majesty's Government should encourage the sale of the saleable lands. Her Majesty had made a request that she should be permitted to purchase the Claremont Estate. It was for the public advantage that Her Majesty should become the purchaser of Claremont, and he desired to extend a similar privilege to every other person, as that would be for the public advantage. There was nothing in the Crown Lands Acts which pre- vented the Commissioners of Woods and Forests from selling those lands. The advantage of such a policy would be that it would put an end to the present traffic in real property by the Department. The State or any other Corporation ought to be permitted only to hold such lands as were required for the purposes of the State or of the Corporation. That change would promote the abolition of the Department of Woods and Forests, and would save directly the sum of £22,000 a-year, which was voted by the House. But that would be only a small part of the saving. The value of the lands over which the Department had now absolute powers of sale, if invested at 3 per cent, would produce £440,000 a-year, which, compared with the present net income of £390,000, and taking into account the annual Vote by the House, would involve a saving of £70,000 a-year; in fact, he believed it might be made £100,000. He would only add that the policy he advocated was not a new one. His object in bringing forward this Motion was to effect a large economic change, as well as to secure, as far as possible, a reduction of the extent of land held in mortmain, and the abolition, as soon as might be, of the practice of Corporations holding real property under that condition. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.

MR. JAMES HOWARD,

in seconding the Motion, said, that the management of the Crown lands was most expensive. He certainly must condemn a system which enabled Corporations to abstract land from the general market, and to hold it in mortmain; and to his knowledge there was a strong feeling springing up in the country against any Corporation holding lands, especially agricultural. The management of Crown lands in his county—Bedfordshire—had not been wise or proper; and it might be remembered that, two years ago, he had brought that fact under the notice of the House. Among other matters, he would call attention to the fact that no less than 28 cottages on these estates had been sold, and to the great mistake which had been made in the management of the estates by so doing; and he asked would any landlord adopt such a policy on his estate? In his opinion, the fact showed the utter unfitness of the Department of Woods and Forests to manage property. He contended that a lack of interest had been shown by the Administration, not only in the condition of the farmers, but also in that of the labourers, in support of which contention he read a report of the sanitary authority of Bedfordshire having reference to those estates. He would pass to another feature of the case, and would see how the interests of the public had been looked after; and, in the first place, there could be no doubt that far too much money had been given for those estates. But, leaving the Crown estates of Bedfordshire, he would ask what had been the history of the management of Delamere Forest, which contained something like 5,000 acres? He was informed that in 1851 Mr. Naylor was anxious to purchase the property, and offered £370,000 for it, but it was refused. A few years afterwards a clearance was made, and some of the lands and three farms were set out; but the expenses were very large and swallowed up all the proceeds derived from the sale of the timber. The revenue from the property had never been more than £4,000 a-year, and for a considerable period it was not more than £2.000 a-year. He had made a calculation that if Mr. Naylor's offer had been accepted, and the money invested at the time in Consols for the public benefit, the income would have been about £12,000 a-year; consequently, the country had lost £250,000.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, should make any further purchase of land,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I hope it is not the intention of my hon. Friend to press this Motion on the House. At the same time, I speak with a good deal of sympathy for the general views which he expressed in very distinct and definite terms—at the time he brought forward the larger and, in my view, the clearer question last year, the question of the land held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The effect of the debate on that occasion was, I think, to place the question more favourably before the public, and to clear the ground for ulterior proceedings. My hon. Friend appears not to have thought fit not to return to the discussion of that subject, but rather contemplated a kind of circuit amongst the different classes of property held in mortmain. That is a very large question, and I will just say a very few words on the Motion, and then on the views he entertains on the subject of mortmain. I am not able to follow the Mover of the Motion into the particular propositions he laid down, and I may perhaps observe, I hope in no censorious spirit, that the Motion which he has just made does not appear to me to be in entire conformity with his speech or entirely adequate to the purpose he has in view. He says there have been expensive transactions in the Office of Woods and Forests, to the management of which he has paid a marked and, I think, a very just tribute. But he has found fault with the practice that has been largely in use in that Department of investing the proceeds of sales in the purchase of ground rents. He objects to the purchase of ground rents, because he says the Office of Woods and Forests becomes a competitor with private individuals desiring an investment, and he recommends instead that they should purchase in the Funds. But he refutes his own objection by recommending a purchase in the Funds. It is perfectly clear that in purchasing in the Funds the Office would compete with private investors as much as in the purchase of ground rents; and looking at the law as it stands, and considering we are not about to recast the law—which in point of fact we could hardly do without opening all the questions which are more conveniently considered at the commencement of a Eeign—I am myself disposed to give relative commendation to the purchase of ground rents, because it tends in the direction of economy. It very much simplifies the operations of the Departments, and so far is, I think, entitled to the sympathy of my hon. Friend and those who think with him. Not only so; but I think both the Mover and the Seconder will agree that if there is to be mortmain at all, mortmain appears before us in a much more innocuous form and entails far less inconvenience when it is confined to ground rents, than when it embraces the management of agricultural land. Therefore, I should be sorry if it were supposed I am prepared to concur in the censure as to the purchase of ground rents. And with respect to the purchase of these ground rents, they have a more profitable investment. I understand the net income obtained by them is not less than £3 18s. per cent, and besides the net income there is undoubtedly the expectation of a large additional value in reversion, some portion of which may accrue to us during the present Reign, and the rest of which, of course, comes in the first instance to the Throne, but still would probably be made the subject of negotiations at the commencement of a new Reign similar to those which took place at the beginning of the present and the past Reigns. My hon. Friend suggested that a very simple process, as he appeared to think, would be to carry over to the Office of Works the ownership, or at any rate the maintenance and management, of forests, which, as he says, ought to be preserved for the purpose of public recreation. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I referred only to the New Forest.] I will take it that way, and must say that my hon. Friend is extremely liberal to the happy and fortunate individuals who enjoy recreation there; but I am by no means sure that my hon. Friend is equally liberal to the public. If we are told that as a perpetual institution of this country the New Forest is for ever to be held for public recreation, I must ask myself some questions. At what cost to the public will it be so held, and what number of individuals and what proportion of the public will be able to enjoy the recreation which is secured for ever at that cost? I do not know whether my hon. Friend has gone into that question, which is undoubtedly a very large question; but I am not by any means prepared to say at this moment that we can sanction the transference of these forest properties to the Department of Works. With regard to Delamere Forest, it appears, from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. J. Howard), that there has been an opportunity of making a large increase of the revenue, and I am inclined to believe that the same thing would apply to the New Forest. I do not know whether it is intended to convey a censure on the Department for not accepting the offer of Mr. Naylor. I rather apprehend that the Commissioners would not have been, permitted by law to accept the offer.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

I merely wished to show how unfit the Department were to manage such property.

MR. GLADSTONE

The question is whether by law the Department could have accepted the offer.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

There were certain negotiations.

MR. GLADSTONE

Unless the hon. Gentleman is in a position to say that the Commissioners were free to accept the offer, he cannot use the point to show their incapacity. Looking to the Motion before the House, and after what I said as to the purchase of ground rents as a profitable, safe, and secure proceeding, and one which is provident with reference to the future, and tends greatly to diminish the inconvenience of the mortmain, and to simplify and cheapen the management, I think it would hardly be desirable that the House should arrive at a general proposition, which would, as I understand it, distinctly condemn the purchase of ground rents. Of course, the Resolution would have no effect upon the law as it now stands; but it would be an expression of the opinion and judgment of this House, which is no slight matter. It is not desirable that we should go to a vote on this subject; it is a subject which is conveniently considered at the commencement of a Reign, and there are considerable difficulties in approaching it at other periods, because we rest on a contract in regard to our power over the management of Crown lands, and an alteration of that contract might be attended with some difficulty. Here is another argument which ought to have great weight with the House. It is true that there is an element of mortmain involved in the holding of Crown land, and especially a strong element of mortmain as regards the agricultural part of it. But the agricultural land is but a small part of the whole and the great mass of the whole leasehold property and ground rents is very much less obnoxious to the argument against mortmain than the holding of agricultural lands. Both on that account, and because in respect to other descriptions of mortmain there is no question as to compact with the Crown to be considered, I submit that in the natural order of things we should do well first to consider a case where the objection to mortmain applies with very much greater strength, and where there is no embarrassment in approaching it, if we desire to approach it, and to postpone to a more convenient season the passing of a Resolution with reference to Crown lands, at any rate, with respect to the principle of holding property in the land. There are vast masses of agricultural land held, first of all by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—the richest Corporation in the country—and secondly, by endowed institutions of every description. I suppose I am correct in saying that it is millions, and not hundreds of thousands, that they amount to. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: £2,000,000.] It is a grave and serious question whether some attempt ought not to be made for the liberation of that land. I think any hon. Gentleman would be well employing his time to examine into that subject with the view to practical results, whatever form and degree and in whatever direction it might seem desirable to apply his efforts. I think in saying this I am only repeating what appeared to be the general feeling of the House when the question was discussed last year with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Undoubtedly this time is not favourable, because the market is not in a strong and healthy condition for receiving any large portion of property of this description; but, on the other hand, those who have been accustomed to attach in former times a very high and perhaps exaggerated value to the holding of land as by far the best form of holding property, have had a lesson during the last few years which perhaps may tend to open their minds on the subject, and diminish the resistance which, at another period might have been experienced in introducing some modification of the present law. Therefore, while I retain my general good will to the general purposes of my hon. Friend, I would point out that it would be premature in us to pass a Resolution of this kind, which certainly, if it were passed, ought not to remain without result, and which, at the same time, it would be difficult and contrary to usage to follow up by attempts to alter the conditions of the law at the present time. Likewise, I think it is too wide an assertion to make, that no portion of the proceeds of Crown lands ought to be invested in the purchase of ground rents. There is really an element of reform and improvement involved in that kind of transaction, and we should be inconsistent in condemning such a course as that before we took any effective steps for dealing with the general question of the Law of Mortmain, where property is held in mortmain, under conditions the most unfavourable that can be conceived, and which is managed in a great number of instances by bodies that are essentially and practically unfitted to deal with it or turn it to good uses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."