Sitting of 11 March 1851

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Dungarvan, v. the Rt. Hon. Richard Lalor Sheil, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Religious Houses.

THE INTERMENT BILL.
MR. MOWATTsaid, the right hon. Ba-
1242
ronet the Home Secretary must be aware that great anxiety was felt throughout the metropolis respecting the Bill of last Session for interments out of large towns. He wished to know when the Bill would be carried out, and what were the difficulties standing in the way of its being acted upon?
SIR G. GREYsaid, the change effected by the Bill had been a very extensive one, and that many preliminary measures were necessary before that change could be made. The attention of the Board of Health was directed to the subject, and they had made arrangements with a view to the general adoption of the provisions of the Bill. They must, however, obtain the metropolitan cemeteries in order that they might be made cemeteries under the Act. Negotiations with that view had been going on with the different companies, with some of whom he was afraid that there was no great prospect of coming to any voluntary arrangement. Still, it was only right that the board should have made the attempt; and, if the attempt eventually failed, the requisite notices would be given, and matters would go to a jury, or be settled by arbitration. The desire, however, was to bring the Act into operation at the earliest possible period.

WOODS AND FORESTS.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he deeply regretted that it had fallen to his lot to bring forward this important Motion, the substance of which was, that the gross income derived from the Woods and Forests should hereafter be paid into the Exchequer, and I that the necessary expenses for collecting and managing the same should be voted by the House upon estimates annually submitted by Her Majesty's Government. He had most anxiously expected that a similar Motion would have been made by his noble Friend at the head of the Government; and if his noble Friend had shown any disposition to deal with the subject, he (Viscount Duncan) should not have been bold enough to come forward with the present proposition. But, having sat as Chairman of a Committee of that House on the subject of the Woods and Forests, and being well acquainted with many irregularities in that department, he should have been wanting in his public duty if he had failed in bringing forward the Motion on the present occasion. Now, it would be in the recollection of the House, that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had

1243
last year proposed to bring in a Bill on this subject. The Bill was brought in and laid on the table; it was, however, postponed from week to week, and at the end of the Session was consigned to the "tomb of all the Capulets," whither so many other Bills had been consigned before it. At the commencement of the present Session, he (Viscount Duncan) had taken the liberty of asking a question with regard to the renewal of that Bill. Having received an unsatisfactory answer from his noble Friend, he now brought forward his own proposition, which was calculated to apply a remedy to the evils of which he complained. Now, he should wish to recall to recollection the year 1848—a year in which various Committees were appointed with regard to various portions of the revenue. Committees were then appointed with regard to the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Miscellaneous Estimates; but one of the most important provinces of that House was, to institute an inquiry into the revenue of the Woods and Forests, which appertained to the Crown, and to Her Majesty, and which were placed under the guardianship of the House of Commons. He had moved for a Committee on the subject. A Select Committee was appointed. That Select Committee placed him in the chair, though they might easily have selected a more experienced Member. He had never had an opportunity of serving on a Public Committee before; but he thought it his duty during that inquiry to visit various portions of those domains of the Crown, and he was thus enabled to bring forward in the Committee-room upstairs, and to call attention to, various irregularities which had escaped notice. Now, he desired it to be distinctly understood that he wished to make no attack on his noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests. He believed that noble Lord had done his best to remedy the various irregularities; but his wish on this occasion was, not to bring any public charge against a public department, but simply to vindicate a great principle, and to raise the question, Whether it was for the advancement of Her Majesty's service to expend the public money without the control of Parliament? The control he wished to see exercised, was not only over the Office of Woods, but over Government Offices generally, for many of the charges in this department of the Woods was the same as those in the Miscellaneous Estimates; and, therefore, if they wished to
1244
incur an expense without the knowledge of Parliament, they had only to defray it out of the land revenue, and omit it altogether in the Miscellaneous Estimates. The management of the revenues was intrusted to three Commissioners, who were responsible only to the Treasury; and the only cognisance the House had of these transactions was a roll of paper, which was brought to the bar about the 12th of August, when the person bringing it in was asked by the Speaker, what he had in his hand? and he replied, "A report." This was printed, and was not in the hands of Members till the end of September or the beginning of October, which was certainly not the best time for Members to study it. No estimates were ever laid on the table. With all due submission, he did not think that this was the way that property should be managed which was intrusted to Parliament by the Crown during the life of Her Majesty, and for which, if by any sudden accident the House was called on to do so, they would be unable to account. He believed that the gross rental of that property, if duly administered, would suffice to maintain the Crown with befitting splendour. He found that the revenue in 1849–50 was 350,000 l., and the expenditure 192.000 l.; a sum of 192,000 l. was thus spent in the management of a revenue of 350,000 l. He thought this was a sufficient reason for his demanding estimates on the subject. The land revenues of the Crown were derived from three sources. The first was household property in London (in Whitehall, St. James's, Regent's Park, Tower, &c.); leasehold estates in different parts of the kingdom; fee-farm rents, manors, mines, parks, and other property in the immediate occupation of Her Majesty; the Rolls estate, and several other smaller branches of revenue in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, committed by Parliament to the custody of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The great national bailiff over all this property was his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury; and, considering the demands on his time, however great his respect for him, he (Lord Duncan) could not but protest against his having so much property committed to his management. With regard to much of this property, when inquiry was made by the Committee over which he had presided as to the rental, the answer returned was, that there was no rental. There was no rental from the property in Wales, in Ire-

1245
land, in Scotland, or the Isle of Man. There were certain fee-farm rents, which were committed to the care of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, that were valued at 1,000 l. a year, and yet, would the House believe it, that these fee-farm rents had never been collected—that they had been totally lost, and that the account of them had only been found, after a long search, in a drawer of the office of Woods and Forests, after the appointment of this Committee. The second branch of the Crown property was the Royal parks of St. James's, Hyde Park, and others in various parts of the metropolis, the produce of which was 11,026 l., and the gross expenditure, 64,729 l. The third portion was the Royal forests, seventeen in number, comprising the New Forest in Hampshire, of 60,000 acres; the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, about 20,000 acres; and others, containing altogether about 110,000 acres. This property had been valued at two millions, with an income of 36,393 l., and an expenditure of 37,684 l., there being an excess of expenditure in a property of the value of two millions. He saw many hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were intimately acquainted with the value of land, and he would ask them if it was not a monstrous thing that property of the value of two millions should produce absolutely nothing to the national exchequer? Do not let the House run away with the notion that this money was not paid for out of the public purse. Let them recollect that this property had been made over by the Sovereign to Parliament to pay for the Civil List, and that if the property was mismanaged, the blame must fall upon the House, and upon no other person whatever. The kings of England were formerly supported by the soil, and not by the system of revenue organised in later times. The estates seized by William the Conqueror, and which had formerly belonged to Edward the Confessor, were of vast extent, and formed "the ancient demesnes of the Crown," as distinguished fom those acquired by escheat, forfeiture, or feudal delinquency. These ancient demesnes it was held impious to alienate. The Crown had, in those feudal times, various modes of augmenting its estates, particularly from forfeitures, and in time might have become possessed of all the land in the kingdom. But the kings of England had ever exercised their right of disposing of the Crown lands to needy favourites and courtiers, and such aliena-
1246
tions necessarily made them resort to the Commons for supplies. The Commons were in the habit, at the commencement of every reign, and whenever they were asked for a supply, to have recourse to resumptions of improvident grants, held to be granted only for the life of the Sovereign. Accordingly, in almost every reign, from William the Conqueror to that of Henry VIII., there was a resumption, preliminary to or accompanying a vote of supply. Henry VIII. acquired immense possessions by the destruction of the monasteries, and a vast part of these estates was handed down to his descendants. Charles I. supported himself and maintained his army during the civil troubles by alienating those very estates; and the Long Parliament got rid of almost all that remained in paying the army. At the Restoration Parliament had recourse to a resumption; many of the old estates it was found impossible to resume; but Charles II. in the debates of those times is said to have succeeded to a clear income of 360,000 l. in money of those days from land alone. On account of the lavish grants made by Charles II., Parliament frequently interfered, and threatened to resume the grants so lavishly made, even as early as 1663. At the end of the reign of William III., the question was again agitated on account of the numerous grants made by William III. to parties who had favoured the Revolution. A Bill for resuming all grants made since the commencement of the reign of Charles II. passed the Commons, but was lost in the Lords. At the accession of Queen Anne, a Civil List Act was passed, by which, in return for 700,000 l. a year, the Queen placed the hereditary revenues for her life at the disposal of Parliament. A similar arrangement has been made at the commencement of the reign of each of her successors. The wording of the Act is—
"That the land revenues may be increased, and consequently the burthen upon the estates of the inhabitants of these realms eased and lessened in all future provisions to be made for the civil government."
And it was enacted that no further alienations of the Crown property should be made, and no leases should in future be granted for more than thirty-one years. Within a very short time after the passing of this Act, the Queen sent a message to the House, acquainting them that she had granted a pension of 5,000 l. a year to the Duke of Marlborough on the Post Office.

1247
"This threw the House into a maze." They addressed the Crown on the subject, but the pension was granted, nevertheless, the Commons stating their alarm lest this should be drawn into a precedent for future alienations of the revenues of the Crown. This grant formed a precedent to numerous other grants of a similar nature; and during the succeeding century one Minister after another, with the consent of Parliament, lavished away the fair demesnes of the Crown upon their supporters. In some instances the Crown property was valued at nothing; in others as much as 10,000 l. was given by individuals to secure a portion of the property of the Crown. And when, in 1797, commissioners were at last appointed by Mr. Pitt to inquire into the state of the land revenues, they reported that the receipts had dwindled down to somewhere about 5,000 l. a year; but the commissioners reported that hereafter they might eventually be worth 200,000 l. per annum. Mr. Fordyce was fortunately at that time Surveyor General, and during the time of his active management the estates of the Crown rapidly augmented in value. On the death of Mr. Fordyce three commissioners of woods, forests, and land revenues were appointed, who were ordered, at first triennially, and, since 1829, annually, to make the fullest reports to Parliament of everything connected with the management, &c., of the Crown estates. Under their management, for a time the Crown rental increased, but unfortunately, in 1832, the Board of Works and other multifarious duties have been subsequently committed to their charge by Parliament, which have very much interfered with their original duties of managing the Crown estates. The first witness examined by the Committee over which he (Lord Duncan) presided, was the Earl of Carlisle, then Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests. The Committee had not proceeded far in its labours before they became aware that considerable confusion and irregularity existed in the keeping of the accounts. In order to show this, he would read a copy of a letter from Mr. Anderson, who had been appointed to look into the accounts. He said—
"The present state of the accounts is as follows:—The ledgers of the department have only been completely posted and balanced to the 31st of March, 1839; all the ledgers subsequent to that date are deficient in consequence of the entire omission of the accounts of the agents or sub-accountants of the department. I need not point out that such omissions affect the whole
1248
results of the books for the last nine years. The accounts have only been made up and transmitted to the commissioners of audit for examination up to the 31st of March, 1843, being an arrear of five years. These arrears sufficiently indicate that the system upon which the accounts are kept is wanting in that simplicity and celerity which are essential to the proper despatch of business; but it is also defective in other respects. In addition to complicated transfers between accounts, occasioned by the temporary use of funds belonging to particular accounts to defray services for which the balance may be deficient, the system does not follow out that clear separation of the funds which is required to enable the board to regulate their proceedings with certainty. Thus capital has been blended with income, and the books do not show how far the payments to the Exchequer are justified by surplus income."
The reading of that letter alone would have justified him in making a Motion for estimates being laid before the House. If there had been an annual report of the accounts, such letter could not have been written. After the Committee had examined the Chief Commissioner, by his recommendation they selected the Forests as the first subject of inquiry, because that branch of the department had not been inquired into since 1797. The Royal forests were originally set apart as places of sport for our kings, and being watched with great jealousy, no irregularity took place; but in time the forest laws were not so strictly kept. The forests were governed by officers and laws peculiar to themselves. The forest courts were three in number: the Attachment Courts were held monthly; the Verderers' Courts held three times a year; and the Court of the Chief Justice in Eyre held once every three years. Three sets of officers were appointed: the ranger's establishment to look after the deer; the verderers appointed by the freeholders to look after their rights; and the third were appointed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to look after the growing timber. The duties of looking after the growing timber and attending to the deer did not seem to be very congenial. When he (Lord Duncan) went to visit the New Forest, he discovered that the greatest confusion and irregularity prevailed. The Earl of Carlisle had placed him in communication with the deputy surveyor, Mr. J. Reid, who was then manager of the forest. He had not gone far into the forest when he saw timber lying by the road, which did not agree with the catalogue sent to the commissioners. Mr. Reid, in reply to his inquiries, referred him to his solicitor, and set off for France. One of the foremen

1249
cut his throat, and another bolted out of the forest. On his coming back and stating what he had seen, the Government appointed Major Freeman to inquire into the matter, and who made a report, which stated in effect—
"That a great quantity of timber was stolen by purchasers at the time of the periodical sales, and that there was a great deficiency in the lots, and that a great many more trees were accustomed to be cut down than the number stated in the reports."
Major Freeman said that a system of robbery had been going on for years, and every one in the neighbourhood seemed to think that the forests belonged to them. This could not have happened if annual estimates had been laid before the House. He would not go at length into the case of all the forests which he had visited, beginning with the New Forest, and ending with Chopwell, in the county of Durham. In respect to Whychwood, the Committee found that the Crown had been at law with the hereditary ranger, Lord Churchill, for many years; indeed, since 1834; that during that period, though the timber was too thick, no wood had been cut by either party, and that the lawsuit, though it had never been heard, had cost the Crown 7,000 l., and that it had never been alluded to in the annual reports to Parliament. The suit had only abated by the death of Lord Churchill, and it was only a chance that it had not been renewed long before this. Before such suits were commenced, the opinion of that House should have been taken as to whether so great an expenditure should be incurred. With regard to another forest, that of Waltham, when he visited it he found it in the greatest confusion, and that almost all the land was appropriated by the neighbouring proprietors, and various lawsuits had been commenced. One lawsuit had been commenced in 1843, and was going on in 1848, which had never been heard of, as usual, and which had been postponed from year to year. He (Vise. Duncan) had asked the Solicitor of the Woods and Forests if many witnesses had not been taken to the assizes at Chelmsford; and he stated that about thirty had been taken there for the defendants. A great expense had been thus incurred, while the trial of the case had been postponed, the reason assigned being that the Judge, Mr. Justice Coleridge, had not time to try it. The Attorney General had received a special retainer of three hundred guineas besides his
1250
brief fee (and this for merely putting on his wig, for the case was not tried), and he thought there had been a most expensive series of litigation, the greater part of which fell on the Woods and Forests. The public paid this because on the accession of the Queen those estates were handed over to the House; and if they allowed this to go on, they alone would be to blame. An hon. Friend of his had just asked him who paid the Attorney General his three hundred guineas. Why, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with the public money. There were five forests in which the interests of individuals were not separated from the Crown, and which remained in the state they were in in 1797; there was another set of forests in which those interests had been separated, and in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had been employed in planting oak for the service of the Royal Navy. In the year 1797, when the Royal Commissioners recommended those forests to be kept up, they stated that if they could sec any other mode in which the timber for the service of the Navy could be supplied, they would recommend that the forests should be sold, and the proceeds made over to the Crown. In one instance the expensive process of planting oak was pursued at a cost to the country of no less than 43,000 l. In Chopwell there was an unfortunate hurricane by which a large portion of the wood after it was planted was blown down. In the forest of Salcey in Northamptonshire, an extraordinary appointment had been made in the year 1827—that of Mr. Kent. He took the account of it from the evidence of Mr. Milne, the Second Commissioner. He (Visc. Duncan) asked what was the profession of Mr. Kent; and the answer was that he had been a clerk in a solicitor's office in the City. The hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford—a Member of the Committee—asked if Mr. Kent had ever had anything to do with the management of timber before; and the answer was that he had not. Mr. Kent went down to Salcey, and remained there six years. He sent in annual reports of his proceedings; and about the end of the six years he sent a letter to the Commissioners, stating that one of his sureties had failed. On this there was an investigation, and it was found that Mr. Kent had cut down timber, and made away with about 4,000 l. of the profits. He ran away, and some years after he was taken, tried, and transported. The 4,000 l. was never mentioned in the annual report

1251
to Parliament. It was in vain to talk of economy if such practices were allowed to continue, and it was in vain to look to the annual report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for information, because they contained no mention of the matters which he had stated. He did not attach blame to the individuals then holding the offices of Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but he did blame the system by which there never was any calling to account of these officers on the part of Parliament; and he must again say that if estimates had been laid before Parliament, there would have been none of these irregularities. These unfortunate persons were the victims of a temptation they could not resist; and it was the want of control by Parliament, of which the House ought to be heartily ashamed, which had enabled them to commit these irregularities. There were no maps or surveys of the forests before the meeting of the Committee; but much of the land which had been good arable land had been converted into plantations of timber for the use of the Navy. That being so, let the House judge of his surprise when he moved for a letter addressed by Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Barrow, the Secretary to the Admiralty, to Mr. Milne in 1833, in which he stated—
"I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to send you herewith a comparative statement of the expense of procuring oak timber from the King's forests, and by contract, and I am to acquaint you that it is no longer the interest of the public to pay 5l. a load with all the attendant expenses for timber supplied to the dockyards from the King's forests. If it were desirable in time of peace to secure the continuance of this supply, it would be necessary to open a negotiation for the reduction of price; and it would be satisfactory to learn from you whether the calculation in the enclosed return can be impugned."
Mr. Barrow further stated that the cost of a load of wood from the Woods and Forests was 8l. 12 s. 7d.; whereas it could be got from a contractor for 6l. 6s. This was not stated in the reports presented to the House, and they had not been able to judge if it was worth their while to incur such an additional expense in the rearing of timber. There had been no opportunity of debating the question, or entering into an examination of the true state of things, when they only had such reports as those, and which never came under the eyes of Members of the House. The question he had now to ask was, whether with such instances as he had given of the position in which the Woods and Forests stood, the House would
1252
allow the Crown estates to remain in the condition in which they were a year and a half ago? He now came to the question of the management of the estates, and he thought he should be able to show such results as fully to justify him in making this Motion. Previously to the appointment of the Committee, the present Duke of Newcastle, who had been Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, moved for a return of the income and expenditure of the Woods and Forests for the last ten years, which had been laid before the Committee, and he would read the results of that return:—The gross income of the Woods and Forests for seven years, 1842–3–1848–9, was 2,446,785 l.; the sums paid into the Exchequer during the same period were only 774,000 l.; the difference, or amount withheld, was 1,672,785 l. The expenditure by the return appears to have been during the same period, 1,555,085 l. The difference is an increase of the balance in hand, 117,700 l.; to account for the expenditure of which no subsequent returns have yet been laid before Parliament. The gross receipts for the land revenue in seven years (in round numbers 280,000 l. per annum) was 1,983,924 l.; the expenditure charged on the same (about 90,000 l. per annum), 637,644 l.; being a charge of 30 per cent on that branch of the Crown revenue, which consists mainly of rents. The gross receipts for the Royal forests in seven years were 271,563 l. This sum includes the produce of the mines in Dean Forest for the six years 1842–43 to 1847–48 inclusive, which may be taken at a net sum of say 21,000 l., leaving the produce of the forests 251,563 l.; the expenses during the same period amount to 274,989 l., showing a clear loss of 23,426 l. during seven years on a property of the value of 2,000,000 l. The gross receipts for the Royal parks in seven years are 191,308 l., this sum including 72,000 l. secured from the Duke of Sutherland for the sale of York House, applied to the formation of Victoria Park. The expenditure in the parks for seven years (1842–43 to 1849–49) is 640,452 l., showing a surplus expenditure in the parks in that period of 449,144 l. In the seven years only about 32 per cent of the whole revenue collected has reached the Exchequer; and in one year, 1847–48, only 18 per cent of the sum collected reached the public purse, namely, 61,000 l. paid in out of 340,599 l. collected. The gross income of Woods and Forests for 1848–49 was 340,275 l. 5s. 1d.; the gross expenditure

1253
207,485 l. 10 s. 8d.; the surplus income was 132,789 l. 14 s. 5d. Amount paid over to the Exchequer in part of the surplus income of the year 81,000 l.; leaves unaccounted for, 51,789 l. The gross income of Woods and Forests in 1849–50 was 349,097 l. 5s. 2d.; the gross expenditure, 192,102 l. 17 s. 11 d.; surplus income, 156,994 l. 7s. 3d. Amount paid over to the Exchequer as surplus income, 200,000 l. Thus there was paid over more than received, 43,006 l. When they came to look further into the matter, they came to an item of expenditure which threw all others into the shade, and which he would read to the House. It was extracted from the appendix to the report of the Committee of 1848, and which contained a return of the law expenses paid to the Solicitor of the Woods and Forests in seven years. It was as follows:—In the years 1842,9,132 l. 17 s. 1d.; 1843, 9,763 l. 2s. 11 d.; 1844, 11,524 l. 11 s. 3d.; 1845, 8,279 l. 3s. 4d.; 1846, 11,393 l. 6s.—total in five years, 50,093 l. 0s. 11 d.; 1847, 15,639 l. 3s. 4d.; 1848, 13,509 l. 1s. 1d.: total, 79,241 l. 5s. 1d. This was the amount paid to the London solicitor alone, besides which there were other hills in Edinburgh and Dublin, that in Edinburgh amounting to about 3,000 l. a year, besides bills on other places. Parliament had had no opportunity whatever of inquiring and deciding whether it was right or wrong that those enormous sums should have been expended in legal expenses. Then he found that considerable expense had been incurred on account of a lawsuit between the Queen and Her faithful city of London, commenced in February, 1844, and still going on, relating to the bed or soil of the River Thames. He contended that annual estimates of these items should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament should have the opportunity of supervising them, and expressing their opinion. The propriety of the charges which he had cited as having been incurred in these instances might be unquestionable; and if they were correct, Parliament would no doubt have made provision for them, if they had been consulted, and their authority applied for, as it ought to have been, before those expenses were incurred. But the House ought to look with considerable jealousy at the existence of this power of incurring and defraying expenditure, however discreetly it might be used, without its sanction. The existence of such a power was inconsistent with the full and efficient excercise of that authority which
1254
was vested by the constitution in the House of Commons alone. He would trouble the House with only one fact more, that from 1832 to 1848—sixteen years—property which had been committed to the custody and guardianship of Parliament, had been sold to the extent of 696,000 l. One part had been sold for 345,000 l., and it was a private treaty between the Commissioners on the one hand, and private persons on the other. Now, the 10 George IV., cap. 50, which was the Act under which the property was managed, provided, and very properly, that money derived from sales of land should be invested in other property to an equal extent. In the report of the evidence it would be found in the examination of the Second Commissioner of the Woods and Forests, Mr. Milne, that the sums of 300,000 l. had been invested in property which had not proved very profitable. Now, he asked the House who should be able to explain such a case as this? He sincerely thanked the House for the patient and indulgent hearing which they had granted to him; and he submitted, that he had made out a case. If the charges now stopped out of the annual income of the Woods and Forests were annually voted, the public accounts would be much more intelligible. He might cite as an instance the Votes of Class 1—Miscellaneous Estimates—being the charges for palaces, parks, gardens, &c.; which, as they required the annual sanction of the House of Commons, it might be fairly inferred to comprehend all the charges. But that was not so; for there were further sums expended on the same account out of the land revenues, which did not come under the sanction of the House, The true cause of the evil was, it appeared to him, that the expenditure of the Board of Woods and Forests, so far as the land revenues were concerned, was wholly removed from the supervision and control of Parliament. He was of opinion that no half measures would bring this department under proper and efficient control; that nothing short of a full constitutional check, as stringent as that which existed with respect to other departments of expenditure, and nothing short of an annual vote upon detailed estimates, would secure to the public the full benefit of improved management in the shape of increased revenue. The simple remedy, then, that he proposed was this, that the control of Parliament should be called in, and that the management of the Woods

1255
and Forests should be subjected, like the other departments, to the superintendence of Parliament—that all the proceeds should be paid regularly into the Exchequer—and that not one farthing should be paid out of the Exchequer without a vote of the House of Commons. He should be told, perhaps, that the circumstances he had mentioned were casual, and had happened at unfortunate moments. His answer to that would be, that his documents proved that mismanagement had commenced almost from the first. He found that the Commissioners of Public Accounts, appointed in 1711, had thus reported in 1713:—
"Though the land revenue of the Crown in England has been extremely reduced by the sale of fee-farm rents, and by many exorbitant grants, since the Revolution, yet it is still too considerable an article to be omitted by your Commissioners; and we take leave to remark, that we find, in our examination of the general incomes and issues of the Exchequer, that the sums there brought to account of late years are much smaller than would have arisen even from what remains of this revenue, if due care had been taken by those intrusted with the management of it. We are unable to offer any perfect state of this revenue. The papers and rolls connected with it have been kept in so little order, and the several receivers are so uncertainly charged (some with rents which have been lost or unknown for many years, others with such as have been sold or granted away), that nothing to be relied upon can be collected by the accounts as they now stand. The methods for the regulation and collection of this revenue are plainly laid down in several Acts of Parliament, and the neglect of them hath been the cause of the confusion we find in the accounts of those concerned in it."
But he had another authority, which would be received with attention and respect by the House; for it was the authority of his noble Friend at the head of the Government. On the 22nd of February, 1850, his noble Friend said—
"Experience has shown that the combination of these offices has led to the imposition of very large and undue charges on the land revenues of the Crown for the purpose of public works, and that the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, being a person connected with a political party, is not so well fitted for the management of the Department of the Woods and Forests as a person would be who was totally unconnected with a political party."
His noble Friend had then proposed a separation of the Departments of Woods and Forests, and to have three Commissioners, two of them salaried, who should have the management of the land revenues of the Crown and the Woods and Forests, neither of them to be capable of sitting in the House of Commons; but the Office of
1256
Works to be a political office, and capable of being held with a Parliamentary seat. His noble Friend then went on to say—
"By this 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; whereas the object being the formation of public parks, or the improvement of streets in the metropolis, or in Dublin or Edinburgh, the expense should rather have been thrown on the general revenue of the country."
His noble Friend then observed, "There was no saving effected by this;" and went on to say, "but this system was certainly calculated to keep from the public view the large expenses incurred in these cases." And, further on, he said—
"The new arrangement will, I hope, be found to bring the expenses incurred for public works more specifically under the notice of Parliament, and to secure a better management of accounts."—[3 Hansard, cviii., 1318–20.]
On these grounds he made his appeal to the House. Those hon. Members who thought that the present management was good and effective, would be justified in voting against the Motion he proposed. But he asked the support of those Gentlemen who concurred with him in thinking that it would be beneficial to have annual estimates laid upon the table, and that the House ought to demand those estimates, both for the present good and for the prospective benefit of the revenues of the Crown.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That whereas it appears, by returns laid before this House and before the Select Committee of Woods, Forests, Works, &c., that, during a period of seven years (from 1842–3 to 1848–9), the gross income derived from the possessions and land revenues of the Crown has amounted to 2,446,785 l., and that out of this sum only 774,000 l. has been paid into the public account at the Exchequer; and whereas, during the same period, it appears that a sum amounting to 1,672,786 l. has been withheld for charges of collection and management, and for other expenses charged upon the said revenues, it is expedient, with a view to place the expenditure of this branch of the public service under the more immediate control of Parliament, that the gross income derived from the said revenues should hereafter be paid into the Exchequer, and that the necessary expenses for collecting and managing the same should be voted by this House, upon estimates to be annually submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government."
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that his noble Friend who brought forward the Motion now before them had given much attention

1257
to the subject—had given attention to it not only in Committee, but by an examination of papers, by visiting Crown property, and making himself acquainted with every important fact relating to the land revenue. Therefore, his opinion ought to have great weight with the House; but, in considering the resolution then before them, he would venture to say for himself that, as regarded the greater portion of the resolution, he was in a position to form as independent an opinion as any Member of that House respecting the manner in which the affairs of the Board of Works had been conducted; because during the period that elapsed between the years 1842 and 1849—during that period of seven years he was no more responsible for the conduct of the department of the Woods and Forests than any other Member of the House; he, therefore, was enabled to pronounce an opinion concerning it with as much impartiality as any one then present. Before he went to that office he had heard much of the mismanagement of its affairs. He expected to find the land revenues greatly diminished—so much diminished that whenever the land might revert to the Crown there would appear a marked disparity between its former and future condition. He, therefore, immediately asked for returns of the gross amount of the land revenue extending back to the period of Fordyce's report, namely, 1794. From that time to the present he obtained returns, a summary of which he proposed now to lay before the House, and he ventured to think that that short statement would show the department was not so much to blame—that it was not in that lamentable position which had been represented. He found that in the year 1789 the land revenue amounted to 19,600 l.; in 1799, to 21,600 l.; in 1809, to 43,000 l.; in 1819, to 120,200 l.; in 1829, to 183,100 l.; in 1839, to 188,400 l. (paid into the Exchequer, 150,000 l.); in 1849 and 1850, to 203,300 l. (paid into the Exchequer, 200,000 l.) Under the authority of Parliament, the rents of the land revenue were wholly diverted from the Exchequer for the purposes of the improvements in Regent-street and the Strand; in 1837, these purposes having been accomplished, the surplus rents were made available in aid of ways and means, and continued annually to be so ever since. Between the years 1829 and 1839 certain lighthouses, belonging to the Crown, were transferred to the Trinity Board, by which
1258
the rental of the Crown property was diminished upwards of 10,000 l. per annum. The Irish land revenue was transferred to the Commissioners of Woods in 1827. In 1828 it amounted to 56,400 l.; in 1829, to 60,800 l.; in 1839, to 53,200; in 1849, to 54,200 l. The greater part of the Irish land revenue consisted of fee-farm, or unimprovable rents, of which there had been sold, in the aggregate, upwards of 6,000 l. per annum since the transfer. The Scotch land revenue was transferred to the Commissioners of Woods in 1832. In 1831–2 it amounted to 14,900 l.; in 1849–50, to 26,800 l. The revenue of the Isle of Man was transferred to the Commissioners of Woods in 1827–8. In 1827–8 it amounted to 1,400 l.; in 1829–30, to 2,100 l.; in 1839–40, to 5,400 l.; and in 1849–50, to 5,000 l. He thought that that summary, though necessarily brief, went far to show that the affairs of the department had not been so grossly mismanaged as the representations made on the subject might have led the House to suppose. As he happened to have been in town attending Parliament and otherwise occupied here during the past year, his attention had been turned more to the property of the Crown in London than to its possessions in the country. Now, the Crown rents from the property of the Crown in London amounted in the year ending on the 31st of March, 1850, to 137,885 l. The cost of collecting that revenue was only 1,000 l. At all events there was not such bad management there. He now came to the statement of his noble Friend, who told the House that the gross income of the Crown property during the seven years to which their attention had been especially directed amounted to 2,446,785 l., and that during those years only 774,000 l. of that sum had been paid into the Exchequer, his noble Friend at the same time adding that a sum of 1,672,785 l. had been otherwise expended, of which expenditure he seemed to suppose that the House had not been sufficiently informed; that, somehow or other, those funds had altogether evaporated without the knowledge of Parliament, and without the proper exercise of its control. He had, then, in the first place to observe, that the balance to the credit of the land revenues of the Crown amounted in the month of April, 1849, to 145,269 l., and that sum was to be deducted from the 1,672,785 l., because that money had not been spent; it was available for future purposes. But not only that, he found

1259
that a large sum had been taken for other purposes, not by the office of Woods—not by the Government, but by Parliament. A sum of 116,920 l. had been appropriated to the formation of Victoria Park by an Act of Parliament, which was, he thought, as clear and distinct a way of expressing their opinion of the application of any money as by any vote of the House. That would reduce the amount again to 1,410,596 l., and to that sum he would now address himself. Of that amount a considerable portion was disposed of by permanent charges, fixed by old Acts of Parliament, principally in the time of Charles. All those payments were given at full length in the appendix of the Committee's report. They consisted of permanent charges on the land revenue, 138,600 l., and augmenting the fund known as Queen Anne's Bounty, 78,000 l. They amounted in the seven years to 216,000 l., which must be deducted from the 1,410,596 l. All that was taken by Act of Parliament from the 1,672,785 l. which his noble Friend said was withheld for charges of collection, &c. But by whom was it charged? It was charged by Parliament, and with the knowledge of Parliament. Last year his noble Friend at the head of the Government stated that it was most desirable the office of Works should be separated from the office of the Woods and Land Revenues—that it was most desirable that a Bill should be brought in, and that whatever expenditure took place in the office of Works should be voted, and that the office of Woods and Land Revenues should be a mere department subordinate to the Treasury. It seemed to him, therefore, that the proper remedy for the statement made by the noble Lord the Member for Bath, was, to advance the Bill which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had distinctly pledged himself to introduce. He (Lord Seymour) confessed he was desirous—as he had been told that he would have to take charge of some Bills as regarded the Forests—he was anxious to make himself so far acquainted with the office and with the details, that he might be able to be of use in the House. He was, therefore, very glad to have had the opportunity during the last few months, not only of making himself acquainted with the details, but of visiting most of these forests himself. And, therefore, he should be prepared to take part in conducting those Bills through the House, although he might be, by the Bill for the
1260
division of the office, no longer connected with the office of the Woods, but merely connected with the office of Works. When that was done, he would just show to the House what they would have to vote. The votes for the London parks would form a very large portion of the expenditure, and he did not think that the House would very much reduce that expense. Any one who turned to the last report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, pages 78 and 79, would see the amount of details which they would be called on to vote—the draining of a small property in one county, the repairs of a farmhouse in another, the contribution towards the construction of a road, the assistance to a farmer to drain his land—all these things formed sums of money over which he confessed he very much doubted if the House could ever exercise any efficient control. He was perfectly aware, having served on many Committees upstairs, that if there was one principle more clear than another, in the majority of instances, it was that the House might lay down rules, establish good principles, find out former difficulties, warn them from those difficulties in future, lay down a general guide for the conduct of any department, but could not exercise any effective control over the expenses. It was hopeless to expect it if they had these small details to investigate; and it would be found much better to lay down some good principles of management. He regretted that that Committee over which his noble Friend had for two years so ably presided had not come with any conclusive report—had not laid down any broad general principles showing how, for the future, the property of the Crown could be best managed. For his (Lord Seymour's) part, he thought they must still go back to the reports of 1793 and 1794, if they would know how best to improve the property. When he went to the office of Woods and Forests he was anxious that there should be some improvement in details. He applied to the Treasury to institute an inquiry into the detailed working, with the view especially as to the payment of law expenses. He said that the law expenses were undoubtedly enormous. But when he saw how much had been recovered and how much in former years had been lost, he saw no ground for much complaint upon that item, which was before unexplained. He thought it would be ineffective if left to Parliament to control the amount of expenses; and in the next place he thought it

1261
would be impossible to carry out the Resolution of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and also to carry on the Bill for the division of the offices. He thought it would be much better to divide completely the office of Works from the office of Land Revenue, so that the expenditure of the one would appear to Parliament, and the other would be a mere source of income. Facilities were afforded by the junction of the two offices, and the junction led to practices which had no doubt prevailed, and in order to stop those practices it was most desirable to divide the offices. There were one or two points of detail which he wished to notice. His noble Friend had read the account of the receipts and expenditure of the Forests for the last year, in which no doubt it appeared that the expenditure and the income were nearly balanced. But if his noble Friend had looked at the end, he would have seen there was a sum to be received from the Admiralty, for timber gone to the Navy, but not yet received. Under an arrangement with the Admiralty, the timber was not paid for until it was received at the dockyards, and some delay arose. The money for the timber had not yet been received, and it was rather hard to be trying the receipts and expenses before they had the receipts. Complaints had been made that the report of the Commissioners was not laid on the table early in the Session. By the Act of Parliament it was to be made up to the end of March. It was obviously impossible, if the accounts were to be completed to the end of March, that they could have them in February. He thought it would be impossible for the House to agree to these resolutions, because the House could not agree to any resolution which really did imply what certainly was not the case, and which he did not think his noble Friend intended to imply, that 1,672,785 l. had been laid out without any control. It was too much to say that Parliament had had no control over that sum, when, as he had already shown, by an Act of Parliament, 116,920 l. was applied to Victoria Park itself. What he would propose to the House as an Amendment to his noble Friend's Resolution would, he thought, under all the circumstances, meet the real requirements of the case, and be best calculated to promote the interests of the public service, and to advantage the Crown property, in reversion as well as at present. The course would be to proceed with the Bill of which his noble Friend at the head of the Government gave notice at
1262
the beginning of the Session, and he would therefore move an Amendment to that effect.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the management of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Crown, and for the direction of Public Works and Buildings,' instead thereof."
MR. HUMEsaid, there was a misunderstanding between the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and his noble Friend the Member for Bath, because the first part of the resolutions moved by his noble Friend consisted of a declaration of certain results which the noble Lord admitted to be the case. [An Hon. MEMBER: He has denied it.] The noble Lord admitted the results; the only question was the manner in which the difference was explained. What his noble Friend wanted was, that the gross income derived should be paid into the Exchequer. It was not inconsistent to concur in that, and also in the giving leave to bring in the Bill of the noble Lord also. He (Mr. Hume) should therefore advise the House to affirm the original Resolution, and also the Amendment, and then when the Bill came in they should see how far the enactment would carry out the proposition of his noble Friend, which he submitted was perfectly consistent, reasonable, and proper. He acknowledged the force of the statement of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, because he (Mr. Hume) recollected that, when a number of allotments were made in the Forest of Dean, the noble Lord urged the keeping the public revenue and the revenue of the Crown separate and distinct; but that would not affect the course which was now proposed to be observed in future.
SIR B. HALLthought the House and the country very much indebted to his noble Friend the Member for Bath, upon the clear and admirable manner in which he had brought the subject before the House. He should like to refer to a few words which had fallen from the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in which the noble Lord had observed that he was answerable for the management of that department for a short period only during which he had presided over it. Holding the position which he (Sir B. Hall) did as a metropolitan Member in the House, his duties had given him opportunities of observing the manner

1263
in which the noble Lord conducted the department; and he felt bound to say that he had never seen a public officer more anxious to prevent the continuance of the abuses which existed, or more anxious to remedy them. He had always found the noble Lord desirous to do that which was most advantageous to the public without reference to individuals. But admitting this, he must add—referring to the speech of the noble Lord—that he had not successfully controverted the speech of his noble Friend who had brought forward the Motion, who had admitted that the property of the Crown had for several years increased in value. Why, it must have increased in value even under that bad management for which that department was so proverbial. The noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests had mentioned an instance of the rise in the value of Crown property, and had stated that a property which in 1789 was valued at 19,000 l. was now worth upwards of 200,000 l. He (Sir B. Hall) could mention a more remarkable instance than even this. In the county with which he was connected, the property which in 1789 was worth 97,000 l., was now of the value of more than a million of money; and this increase in value had taken place in a great measure in consequence of the admirable manner in which it had been managed. It would be of the greatest advantage not only to the Crown but to the country, if the property of the Woods and Forests was considered as one of the incumbered estates, and was disposed of in such a manner as to realise the highest amount of revenue. Had the present subject been brought forward more frequently, there was little doubt the management would have been placed on a different footing from what it was at present. He could not pretend to say what the Bill would be which was to be brought in on this subject by his noble Friend at the head of the Government. The substance of it they knew, but of course its details they could not divine. If there were any particular words or expressions in the Motion to which objection could be taken in point of form, these might be modified; but he thought the House should adhere to the substance of the resolution, in order that they might have an opportunity of inquiring into the gross mismanagement of this property, and make it valuable to the Crown and the country as far as it was practicable to do so.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsupported the Resolution for two reasons—first, that a very large sum of money was received and expended by the Commissioners; and, second, that as regarded a large portion of that expenditure, there was no check at present. He would, however, take rather a wider range than the noble Lord the Member for Bath, with respect to the accounts. He would take a period of eighteen years. The sum received by the Woods and Forests during that period, was 7,340,000 l., the expenditure was 6,030,000 l., and he was sure his noble Friend opposite would admit that a very large portion of that sum was in no way directed by Act of Parliament. So that for that period there was only an annual receipt of 75,000 l. in round numbers. That, however, was a delusive sum, because a system was carried on of selling the capital of this property; and it appeared that, within the last eighteen years, 1,200,000 l. had been added to the capital. From 1831 to 1842, 744,000 l. of capital had been sold; from 1842 to 1849, 133,000 l.; and in 1839 there was a sale of Crown lighthouses, for which 300,000 l. was obtained. If the ordinary course of examining expenditure in that House had been adopted, it would have been impossible for those matters to stand in the position in which they now did, because, when they asked the Commissioner, Mr. Gore, how the money had been expended, he would only say, that a great portion of it had been expended unproductively. The Woods and Forests received revenue, they sold capital, and they borrowed. There was an enormous mass of debt for which the land revenue was made security, which, in March, 1850, amounted to 1,115,000 l. He now came to the question as to whether any check upon the expenditure existed, and in order to show that there did not, he would only refer the House to the evidence of Messrs. Wells and Dorinton, and Mr. Anderson. From the evidence of the former gentleman, it appeared that a sum of 11,000 l. had been expended in 1842, for which there was not any voucher, not even a Treasury letter or a warrant. There was another case quoted by Mr. Anderson, of a sum of 48,000 l. in 1848, which was wholly unaccounted for. There was also a decrease in the annual revenue of 15,000 l., which was not accounted for. No audit took place, and he defied any hon. Member to read the evidence of those two gentlemen, and not come to the conclusion that no check ex-

1265
isted. He was willing to admit the noble Lord at the head of the department was one of the most likely Gentlemen in that House to perform the duties of the office, and therefore he must not be understood as attacking individuals, but a system. Some alteration was required, and the proper way to get at the bottom of the difficulty was to have it considered by a body of Gentlemen assembled in a constitutional manner in that House.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House at that hour with many observations. He thought, however, that his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, had misunderstood his Motion. He (Lord Duncan) did not say that the money was withheld from Parliament, but that it was withheld from payments into the Exchequer. He had taken the returns as his authority. The noble Lord the Chief Commissioner would find in the returns that the gross income derived from the possessions and land revenues of the Crown had amounted, during the seven years quoted, to 2,446,785 l.; that of this sum only 774,000 l. had been paid into the Exchequer; and 1,672,785 l. had been withheld for charges of collection and management. There was still, however, a large sum left which had never been paid into the Exchequer. With regard to the speech of his noble Friend, he begged to say that he did not grapple with the great question at issue—the great principle as to whether the House should have the control or management of the public money. That was the principle he asserted. With that principle the noble Lord did not grapple. The noble Lord had promised them a Bill He had done so last year also. If his (Lord Duncan's) Motion were carried—and he hoped it would be carried—he could assure the noble Lord that, in the event of his bringing in a Bill of the proper description, he (Lord Duncan) would give it his support. He begged, however, to ask his noble Friend if they would bring in a Bill embracing the principle that the money should be paid into the Exchequer? He called on the House to stand up for the principle that they had a right to the control and management of the public revenue.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 119: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Lacy, H. C.

Alcock, T.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Anderson, A.

Lindsey, hon. Col.

Arkwright, G.

Locke, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Baird, J.

Loveden, P.

Bankes, G.

Lushington, C.

Barrow, W. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Blair, S.

Mackie, J.

Blake, M. J.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Booker, T. W.

Meagher, T.

Bright, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Brown, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Carew, W. H. P.

Miles, W.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Milner, W. M. E.

Cobden, R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Coles, H. B.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Copeland, Ald.

Moore, G. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Morgan, O.

Deedes, W.

Morris, D.

Disraeli, B.

Mowatt, F.

Drummond, H.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

O'Brien, J.

Duff, G. S.

Packe, C. W.

Duncan, G.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pigott, F.

Dundas, G.

Pilkington, J.

Dunne, Col.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Edwards, H.

Portal, M.

Evelyn, W. J.

Power, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Power, N.

Fagan, W.

Prinsep, H. T.

Fellowes, E.

Romilly, Col.

Forbes, W.

Rushout, Capt.

Fordyce, A. D.

Salwey, Col.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Scholefield, W.

Fox, W. J.

Scully, F.

Frewen, C. H.

Sidney, Ald.

Fuller, A. E.

Smollett, A.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Spooner, R.

Goddard, A. L.

Stanley, E.

Grace, O. D. J.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grattan, H.

Sullivan, M.

Greenall, G.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grogan, E.

Thompson, Col.

Halford, Sir H.

Tyler, Sir J.

Hall, Sir B.

Urquhart, D.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Verner, Sir W.

Hastie, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Henley, J. W.

Wakley, T.

Heyworth, L.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Willcox, B. M.

Hodgson, W. N.

Williams, J.

Hornby, J.

Williams, W.

Hotham, Lord

Willoughby, Sir H.

Humphery, Ald.

Wodehouse, E.

Jackson, W.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Jones, Capt.

TELLERS.

Kershaw, J.

Duncan, Visct.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Hume J.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bellew, R. M.

Anson, hon. Col.

Berkeley, Adm.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Armstrong, R. B.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Brockman, E. D.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, T.

Bunbury, E. H.

1267

Busfeild, W.

Melgund, Visct.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Moffatt, G.

Cardwell, E.

Norreys, Lord

Cayley, E. S.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Clay, J.

Owen, Sir J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Paget, Lord A.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, Lord C.

Clifford, H. M.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Parker, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Patten, J. W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Peel, Col.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Perfect, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peto, S. M.

Dundas, Adm.

Pinney, W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rawdon, Col.

Ellis, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Ricardo, O.

Evans, W.

Rice, E. R.

Fergus, J.

Rich, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Richards, R.

Forster, M.

Romilly, Sir J.

Freestun, Col.

Russell, Lord J.

French, F.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sandars, J.

Greene, T.

Seymour, Lord

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Simeon, J.

Grey, R. W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Smith, J. A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Somers, J. P.

Harris, R.

Somerville, rt. hn.Sir W.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Spearman, H. J.

Hawes, B.

Stafford, A.

Headlam, T. E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Heathcoat, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Heywood, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hindley, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Towneley, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Townley, R. G.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Townshend, Capt.

Kildare, Marq. of

Traill, G.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Langston, J. H.

Wall, C. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Watkins, Col. L.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wilson, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Wilson, M.

Lewis, G. C.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wrightson, W. B.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Wyvill, M.

Matheson, A.

TELLERS.

Matheson, Col.

Hayter, W. G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Hill, Lord M.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions reported.
On First Resolution,
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be now read a Second Time."
MR. HUMEsaid, he should not trouble the House by dividing on the items contained in this report. He would content himself by placing amongst the records of the House the reasons that induced him to ask for a reduction of the number of men proposed to be voted for the naval service.
1268
He therefore begged to move a Resolution to that effect.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'in accordance with the prayers of numerous petitions for relief from the burthen of taxation, and especially with the view of affording relief to the distress now existing amongst the occupiers and owners of land, it is the duty of this House, before voting the number of seamen and marines for the naval service of the ensuing year, to take into its serious consideration in what manner, and to what extent, the number of men and ships can be reduced without detriment to the public service. That with reference to the squadron on the west coast of Africa, it is the opinion of this House that it should be altogether dispensed with as inefficient for the purposes for which it was designed, and therefore a useless addition to the naval establishments, the support of which unavoidably forms so large a part of the public expenditure of the country. That with regard to the general services of the Navy, it appears by the returns on the table of the House, that the average number of seamen and marines borne on the books of the Navy, during the four years from 1835 to 1839, both inclusive, was under 30,000; and that this House not being informed of any reasons why the services of the ensuing year should require any larger number, is of opinion that the number of seamen and marines now to be voted, should not exceed 30,000,' instead thereof."
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Resolution read 2°, and agreed to; other Resolutions agreed to.
The House adjourned at half-after Seven o'clock.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he was entrusted with a petition from Cork to which he was desirous of drawing their Lordships' attention. He was not sure whether the petition could be received, as it was informal to refer to a Bill that was under consideration in the other House, and had not as yet come up to their Lordships' House. The petitioners prayed that that measure, which they designated one of pains and penalties against their religion, might not be passed into a law. He did not think that the Bill referred to deserved to be so entitled. He approved of that measure as it was originally framed, but his further approval of it must depend on whether that measure would ultimately be rendered effective for its purpose. He considered that the assumption of those titles was calculated to produce the most baneful effects in this country, which had shown how strongly it felt upon this subject. It was not from indignation at the conduct of the Pope that he was desirous for effective legislation against his late aggression. It was because he thought that the act so done by the Pope had a tendency to advance what he would be disposed to designate, if he were not restrained by the presence of certain Roman Catholic Peers present, a corrupted form of Christianity. Because he desired to preserve the character of his own religion, he was anxious to legislate upon this subject. But if we legislated at all, it most be effectually. He learned, through the ordinary channels of information, that from that Bill it was proposed to exclude those clauses which were calculated to give it effect; he had also ascertained that such a proposition was not forced upon the framers of the Bill by any strong adverse majority upon the subject.
1240
On the contrary, the feelings of the other House of Parliament were plainly expressed by the fact of nearly 400 persons having voted for the introduction of the Bill, when there were only about 60 persons found voting against such legislation. It appeared, however, that now when the measure had advanced to a certain stage, that those parts of the Bill to which he had referred were to be struck out. The result would be, that the Bill would amount only to a simple declaration that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were not to be permitted to use certain ecclesiastical titles in the united kingdom. He was astonished to hear that such a course was to be taken by the very authors of the Bill. If such a Bill passed, it would be deprived of the means of carrying its principles into effect; and instead of its authors being entitled—as otherwise they would have been—to the gratitude and respect of the country, they will be responsible for having involved the Legislature in disgrace, and for exposing it to the ridicule and contempt of the entire world. If the measure passed without those clauses which it was proposed should be struck out, both the Parliament and the Government will have disappointed the hopes and expectations of the nation at large. Having felt it his duty to make these observations, he wished to ask whether it was really true that it was the intention of those who had the conduct of the measure in the other House of Parliament to frame it so as to deprive it of all its executory principle? If the Government thought that such a measure would satisfy the country, he would venture to assure them that they grievously misunderstood the opinions and feelings of the people. He admired the Roman Catholics for the tenacity with which they had adhered to their religion through good report and evil report; but he warned the Government and that House not to let them advance further in their encroachments here, if they wished to preserve its character of a Protestant country. What was the ground stated by the Bishop of Rome himself for the issuing of his late brief? What was the object which he had in view? It was that the Roman Catholic religion might be so advanced and fostered in this country that it might ultimately become the religion of the Sovereign. He should have been disposed to say, in the preamble of the Bill, that a gross insult had been offered by the Pope to the religion and Sovereign of this country; and he would declare by

1241
the Bill itself that no title, civil or ecclesiastical, should be conferred upon any person within the united kingdom without the consent of Her Majesty. In taking such a course, he felt that he was adopting the best means for the preservation of that religion which he considered the best for the peace and happiness of the people. He called upon Her Majesty's Ministers not to be treacherous to themselves, but to act upon those principles with which they had identified themselves, and which were so essential for the maintenance of religious freedom and good order in this country.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEunderstood that his noble Friend had intended to present a petition, which he, however, very properly stated could not in point of form be laid upon their Lordships' table. He supposed his noble Friend had made those observations with the view of affording himself an opportunity of putting a question to the Governments—namely, whether any alterations had been or were intended to be made in a Bill which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. He could have no hesitation in shortly stating that certain alterations had been, or rather were intended to be, made, as had been already announced, in the Bill. But how far these alterations in any degree or in any way affected the principle of this measure, was a question which their Lordships would have to consider when the Bill came up from the other House. He could only say he believed that these alterations would not materially affect the principle of the Bill, and he considered that his noble Friend had entirely misapprehended that principle by the mode in which he discussed it. This, however, was a question for future consideration and discussion.
EARL FITZWILLIAM: The alterations do not affect the principle of the Bill. But they do this—they render extremely doubtful a most important point—namely, whether that principle will be effective or ineffective; that is the question.
House adjourned to Thursday next.