§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, he rose to call attention to the administration of the Woods and Forests Department. He had intended bringing forward the subject in Committee of Supply on the Vote for the salary of one of the Commissioners; but he thought this was a good opportunity to bring the matter under the notice of the Government. As the House was, no doubt, aware, the theory generally held was that at the commencement of the present reign a bargain was struck with Her Majesty the Queen to give up all the Crown lands in consideration of an ad- 1788 dition to the Civil List. The cost of the Office of Woods and Forests in London alone amounted to £16,738; and, in addition to what appeared in the Estimates, there was a detailed account of receipts and expenditure in regard to Crown lands, which he supposed was laid on the Table of the House, because it was to be found in the Library. As an example of what was going on, he would take Windsor Park and Woods. There was an Estimate of £2,307 for the Windsor Home Park and Kitchen Gardens; and besides that there was the Windsor Forest. It must be remembered that a quid pro quo was given yearly for the income supposed to be derived from these properties, and the business of the House was to look at the matter in its commercial aspect. Most men would say that if the Crown would give them a lease for nothing of the Windsor Park and Forest they would accept it, and would expect to make a good thing out of it. But the Commissioners, whose receipts were £4,885, expended £26,218, so that there was a loss of £22,333 per annum. The outlay was accounted for by there being a Ranger and a Deputy Ranger and other officials. There was £327 for gamekeepers, and £245 was spent in improving the head-keeper's lodge. This was in the year 1884–5, and appeared in the Abstract of Accounts in the Library. There were repairs to lodges at Ascot and Datchet and the Royal stables and kennels, and these were put down at £4,815. Food for deer cost £418, and food for game—that was, for pheasants—£500. Who shot the pheasants? He believed it was Prince Christian. But it was never understood that in taking over this as a matter of business we were to provide game for His Royal Highness. There was £180 for a chaplain, but it was difficult to say what there was for him to do. The case of the New Forest was not so bad. The receipts of the New Forest were £13,632, as against an expenditure of £11,885; but, considering it was said that this Forest was kept up to obtain Wood for the Navy, it could not be supposed that the sole amount of profit obtained was a little over £2,000 a-year. One item of expenditure was £103 for dog kennels, which presumably were required only by some Inspector or Ranger, and were therefore ordered at the public expense. Spread over the 1789 pages were items for schools and churches, sometimes not distinguishing what was given to each separately. The question arose whether these donations were confined to the Established Church, and if so why? When he was asked recently for a subscription to a church he said to the applicant—"No; go to your Bishops and ask them for a portion of their salaries; I shall give nothing."
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not know how the hon. Member proposes to connect his remarks with the Estimates. It is altogether out of Order to enter into details on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and further it is out of Order to refer to Estimates which are not now before the House, but which have been already disposed of in the previous Session.
§ MR.LABOUCHERE (Northampton)Perhaps you will allow me to explain that the Vote I was referring to is not in Class I., but is Vote 25 of Class II., which includes the salaries of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. On that Vote I wish to raise the point that the administration is bad, and that something ought to be done in the matter. I have no desire to go into the details of the Vote.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt would be irregular to go into any details on any Vote submitted in Committee; and I understood that the hon. Member was referring to the Vote for Windsor Park, which has already been passed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would give way at once, but that the difficulty was that part of the expenditure was in the Vote, and part was shown only in the Return in the Library. However, as he was out of Order he would not discuss the matter in detail now; but he trusted the points he desired to raise would be looked into. In the Vote there were a Receiver General at £900, an Assistant Receiver General at £400, and £100 for clerical assistance; and in the Library it was shown that there were charges for professional services amounting to £5,800. He was given to understand that the gentleman who received the rents was paid 4 per cent thereon; and if he received £1,000 he would, as a matter of course, keep £40 and pay over £960. By an Act of George IV. the Department had the right to sell land and to grant leases, and in the 1790 shape of leases some persons got uncommonly good bargains. One gentleman had 2½ perches of land, with conveniences thereon, and part of the Grand Stand at Ascot, for £1 10s. per annum; and, as they knew, a box on Ascot Grand Stand was worth £30 or £40 per annum. Then, the Royal Yacht Squadron had Cowes Castle for £225 per annum; whereas, as a speculation, he would give £500 a-year for it if he could get a long lease. He thought he had at least made out a primâ facie case for some sort of investigation. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would agree to the appointment of a Committee next Session. He understood there was to be a Committee appointed to look into the spending Departments of the State, and perhaps this matter might be investigated by that Committee. The expenditure he had pointed out ought to be upon the Estimates for the year, and as it was not it was just possible it might be excluded from the purview of such a Committee.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, that the several points raised by the hon. Member were quite susceptible of explanation. The hon. Member had made this subject his own, and had, indeed, made it an annual Motion. [MR. LABOUCHERE: I never brought it forward before in my life.] It would be annual. However, he had not the smallest fault to find with the manner in which the subject had been brought forward. As to the donations to churches and schools, the Treasury must accept the responsibility for them. The principle on which they were made was that those who managed the property recognized as devolving upon them the same duties and responsibilities as were generally recognized by private landowners, and on this ground it had always been the custom to contribute to the erection of churches and schools on the estates. This might or might not be wrong, but it was the custom. Much of the expenditure on Windsor Park was incurred in the maintenance of roads and in other expenses of like character, about which there could hardly be much question. With regard to the suggestion which really was the core of the hon. Member's speech—if there was any core in it at all—it would be obvious that he was not in a position, in the first place, to remark upon a Commission which had not yet been intro- 1791 duced to the House. It appeared, however, that the hon. Gentleman had got some information that a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the great spending Departments. Although, for his part, he had no knowledge on the subject, he would say that he thought that such an inquiry as had been suggested by the hon. Member might very properly be undertaken by the Members of that Commission. Further than that he would only say—and he did not say it as a mere matter of form—that in consequence of what the hon. Gentleman had said he would endeavour to make himself acquainted with the details of that particular office; and if he found the facts to be as the hon. Member had stated them he would endeavour to effect some improvement. He hoped the House would now be allowed to go into Committee.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said, he felt bound to say, having recently held the Office which the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) now held, that he was very pleased to hear an inquiry would be granted into the management of the Woods and Forests, because he believed it to be absolutely necessary in order to bring about effective Parliamentary control over the current expenditure of that Department. The Committee would be asked to vote £30,000 for this Department; but that by no means represented the expenditure, which would be much greater, and there were some very serious items in connection with the Crown lands. As a matter of fact this Department had borrowed between £200,000 and £300,000. He thought the House would agree that there should be an effective inquiry with a view to reducing the cost of management and increasing—as he was sure it could be increased—the income of that Department. He had himself intended next Session to move for the appointment of a Committee on the subject; but if the hon. Member thought the work could be better done by the Commission he had nothing to say.
§ MR. PYNE (Waterford, W.)said, he thought that the Constabulary had been employed unnecessarily in very many cases. He knew of a gentleman who had got himself "Boycotted," and then applied for police protection, his object being to become a stipendiary magistrate. That gentleman was himself a tenant, and while he was extorting his 1792 rents from his own tenants he did not pay his own rent. He made an arrangement with his landlady, and subsequently became a bankrupt; so that his landlady got no rent. That was the sort of men the police were protecting. The hon. Member also referred to his own imprisonment for using his influence with the people to protect his landlord.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe matter to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring has no relation to the Constabulary Vote.
§ MR. PYNEsaid, he was alluding to evictions by the police, and what he would do in case it was proposed to evict him. He was intimating that it would take more than one policeman to turn him out. He had a very great respect for the Police Force themselves; but it was well known that the police behaved in the most arbitrary manner when engaged in suppressing prohibited meetings. He denounced the employment of constables as spies. One such, in his own part of the country, was relieved of the trammels of discipline in consideration of his labours in this direction, and was in the habit of coming to the barracks late at night and drunk. When asked where he got his drink from the reply was that he had been getting information. Those were the men to whom he objected.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid), who was called to Order for irrelevancy, complained of the way in which the Constabulary were utilized in Ireland. They were employed to extract rack rents for the benefit of extravagant landlords living in London under the control of Jews. The Constabulary were used really by the classes against the masses. He hoped that the two democracies of England and Ireland would be enabled to say that the police would no longer act in this outrageous way in carrying out unjust evictions against an unfortunate people.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The remarks of the hon. Member have nothing whatever to do with the Constabulary.
§ DR. TANNEROf course, Sir, I bow to your ruling. I do not wish in any way to go outside the subject which has been brought on for discussion. I was trying as far as possible to confine my remarks to the employment of the police in evicting Irish tenants.
§ MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)rose to call attention to an item in the Estimates—
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)I rise to Order. After the ruling you have already given, I submit that the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing, in detail, the items which appear in the Estimates.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member in taking that course would be altogether out of Order, on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.