SPEECH 
 
 DANIEL WHITTLE HARYEY, ESQ. 
 
 WHEN M.P. FOR COLCHESTER, 
 
 ON MOVING FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE 
 
 TO INQUIRE INTO 
 
 THE CROWN LANDS, 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 30th, 1830. 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY; AND E. WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 
 
 (PRICE 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The current of economical reform has at length set in, and only 
 requires to be directed by stout hearts and skilful hands to bear 
 a rich harvest of reward. The labours of gone-by men—the 
 pioneers who encountered the hesitation of the timid, and the con¬ 
 tumely of the corrupt—are easily traceable in the speeches of the 
 senate, and the reports of committees; and if these are carefully 
 and judiciously examined, the task of reform to all men of the 
 present day will be of easy accomplishment. Those who achieve 
 great ends are rarely the men who design them; the reapers of 
 the harvest are not generally those who have prepared the soil and 
 cast the seed; and with very few exceptions the meed of public 
 approval is rarely placed upon the heads of those who have home 
 the heat and burden of the day. Where is the man, or any set of 
 men, either as a party or as an association, whose untiring industry, 
 and disdain of petulant reproach, has accomplished so much, and 
 whose labours are now beginning to tell so well, who can be compared 
 with Mr. Hume r Well nigh forty years has this sleepless veteran 
 passed in the unpaid service of his country, not unfrequently 
 abused, and often neglected, by parties whose political and per¬ 
 sonal interests were advanced by his disinterested and unac¬ 
 knowledged advocacy. Happily for Mr. Hume, he has always 
 been in circumstances which placed him beyond the allurements 
 of office and the suspicion of necessity. At an humble distance, 
 but with a steady step, I toiled for more than twenty years in the 
 same field, bringing my habits of application and inquiry to bear 
 
IXTBODTJCTIOW. 
 
 upon subjects which were too laborious and unattractive, and, in 
 their personal bearing, too damaging, to engage the attention of 
 Members whose alliance with party and family open a ready 
 road to lucrative, and for the most part easy occupation, while at 
 the same time they presented no allurement to the rampant tribe of 
 politicians, who were too intent upon external demonstrations to 
 hamper themselves with motions or committees to investigate 
 palpable grievances, with a view to their correction. Bitter 
 and excursive speeches, abounding in sweeping charges and airy 
 plausibilities, are the cheap weapons of their warfare, and which 
 are so wielded as to dazzle rather than to strike. The truth of 
 this remark might be easily illustrated, by pointing to the parlia¬ 
 mentary career of nearly all our successful lawyers, who have 
 either attained the prizes of their ambition, or are still in pursuit 
 of them. Not that they are slow to admit the enormous oppres¬ 
 sion of the law, nor to hurl opprobrium upon a stubborn antago¬ 
 nist, when it will suit their own views, or those of their party; but 
 to expect from such men a sincere and earnest desire to effect any 
 measure of efficient reform, which might by any possibility impede 
 their progress to power, or embarrass them in the possession of it, 
 would be as feasible as to hope for a measure from the bench of 
 bishops to endow the working clergy out of their episcopal 
 resources. At the present moment there are not fewer than half 
 a dozen common law and equity Judges, who have acted in Par¬ 
 liament with the Whigs, and called themselves liberal reformers ; 
 and twice that number are now in the House, steering their 
 course to the same destiny, not one of whom has, or ever will, 
 propose a plan, or bring in a bill, which shall have for its object 
 the simplification and economical administration of justice in our 
 various courts of jurisprudence,* Indeed, this w'ary class of 
 
 other direction than that here indicated. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 politicians not only withhold a helping hand from every measure 
 which savours of legal reform, but they take good care to disarm 
 and destroy any one who shall dare to disturb the mercenary 
 monopoly of existing institutions. Whatever may be their differ¬ 
 ences of opinion in other respects, and on other subjects, in their 
 efforts to uphold this policy they are unanimous; and I shall have 
 occasion, at no distant day, to illustrate this incontrovertible fact.* 
 
 In a firm and unflinching spirit I grappled with palpable abuses > 
 and though opposed with rancorous hostility, I succeeded in abol¬ 
 ishing scandalous impositions in the practice and constitution of the 
 Court of Exchequer.! I brought to light the selfish mismanagement 
 of Queen Anne’s Bounty, and induced certain Bishops to supply the 
 deficiency from their own pockets, and which they are still paying. 
 In spite of a threatened ministerial crisis I abolished the Pension 
 List. I succeeded in obtaining a Select Committee to inquire 
 into the Public Charities, and exposed that costly delusion, the 
 Charity Commission ; I was the first to move that a list of Divi¬ 
 sions be published; and eventually I succeeded in getting to- 
 sether a body of information concerning the Crown Lands, and 
 Woods and Forests, of the greatest interest, and, as it will appear, 
 of the greatest value; and though the crushing confederacy of 
 the two great State factions has succeeded in placing me out of 
 Parliament, I rejoice in the opportunity thus afforded of being 
 allowed to aid the great work of Financial Reform, so appro¬ 
 priately begun under the auspices of Mr. Cobden. The Liverpool 
 societ}' will find in the property now brought under consideration 
 
 * I shall in a few weeks publish “ No Wrong without a Remedy," a 
 Fallacy; in which the conduct of Radical lawyers and Whig judges will be 
 unreservedly noticed. 
 
 t At the time I brought this subject before the House, it was the invariable 
 practice to give fees to five Counsel in every case, however trivial, although 
 only one or two might attend; also to pay each Special Juror two guineas 
 when a verdict was found for the Crown, but only one when for the defendant; 
 and further, the Crown insisted upon the right to select, and would not allow 
 the practice of striking a jury. All these errors were corrected through my 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ample resources wherewith to meet any deficiency which their 
 monetary plan may temporarily create. 
 
 It is important that the Committee recently re-appointed to in¬ 
 quire into the state of the Crown Lands—over whom Lord Duncan 
 appropriately presides—should be fully aware of the extent and 
 circumstances of the Crown Property as they existed at the time, 
 and which have occurred since my motion in March, 1830. It is 
 no presumption to state that my labours have rendered all investiga¬ 
 tion unnecessary anterior to that period. If the estates of the Crown 
 had descended to myself as heir, or by devise, it would have been 
 impossible for me to have obtained a more copious or satisfactory 
 exposition of their nature, extent, and locality, than is to be found 
 in the Return which was eventually made at my instance. 
 
 For some months previous to the delivery of my speech in 
 Parliament, I had directed my attention to this important 
 subject; not only reading every page of the seventeen folio 
 Reports made by the Crown Commissioners, whose labours closed 
 in the year 1786, but I also visited several of the principal 
 properties therein described; and thus placed myself in a position 
 to challenge contradiction—should the same be given—as to the 
 gross mismanagement and profligate perversion of this great 
 branch of our national resources. 
 
 On the 30th of March, 1830,1 moved “ That a Select Commit¬ 
 tee be appointed to inquire into the Land Revenues of the Crown, 
 under the Management of the Commissioners of Woods and 
 Forests, and to Report their opinion as to the means by which 
 they might be rendered most available for the Public Service.” 
 
 It would indeed be at variance with all experience to infer that 
 this motion was not opposed, and that successfully. Blows 
 heavy and frequent must be made upon the strongholds of 
 corruption before they finally give way, and even then every im¬ 
 pediment that can be devised by official tactics is thrown in the 
 way of an onward course. Such was the case upon this occasion; 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the motion was successfully resisted, there being 62* for, and 98 
 against it. 
 
 It will be seen by the Division that the leading Whigs—then in 
 opposition and now in power—supported my motion, and it would 
 indeed be as singular as gratifying if their subsequent conduct 
 had redeemed their party from the unworthy practice of saying 
 and doing things while in opposition which they too readily re¬ 
 pudiate when sincerity becomes inconvenient. Though thus 
 defeated I was not dismayed, and‘on the 5th of July following I 
 repeated my motion, by way of Address to the Crown, setting 
 forth in a substantive form the requisite information. This 
 motion was conceded on the eve of a general election, and gave 
 birth to a Keport which, for amplitude and minuteness, is not to 
 be surpassed by any document which has ever been laid upon the 
 table of the House of Commons. It is folio in form, exceeds 
 eight hundred pages, and was ordered, at my instance, to be 
 printed on the 9th of February, 1831. 
 
 But though Parliament and the country were thus apprised of 
 the extent and importance of the Crown property, as also of 
 its censurable abuse, it will be seen that the subsequent conduct 
 
 Althorpe, Lord Viscount 
 
 Bentinck, Lord G. 
 Baring, F. 
 
 Birch, Joseph 
 Bernal, Ralph 
 Burdett, Sir F. 
 Brownlow, C. 
 
 Colborne, N. R. 
 
 Davies, Colonel 
 Dawson, Alexander 
 Denison, W. J. 
 Davenport, E. D. 
 
 Du Cane, P. 
 
 Dundas, Hon. G. 
 Dundas, Hon. T. 
 Ebrington, Lord Viscoui 
 Euston, Earl of 
 Fergusson, Sir Ronald 
 Gordon, R. 
 
 ♦MINORITY. 
 
 Graham, Sir J., Bart. Palmer, C. T. 
 
 Guise, Sir W., Bart. Pendarves, E. 
 
 Howick, Lord Viscount Poyntz, W. S. 
 
 Hobhouse, J. C. Price, R. 
 
 Honywood, W. Prothero, E. 
 
 Howard, H. Pusey, P. 
 
 Knight, R. Robinson, Sir G., Bart. 
 
 Lamb, Hon. G. Russell, Lord J. 
 
 Lambert, J. S. Seabright, Sir J., Bart. 
 
 Leonard, T. B. Smith, W. 
 
 Lumley, J. S. Thompson, C. Poulett 
 
 Lloyd, Sir E. P., Bart. Townshend, Lord Chas. 
 Majoribanks, S. Wood. C. 
 
 Martin, J. Waithman, Alderman 
 
 Macdonald, Sir J. Bart. Wood, Alderman 
 Monck, J. B. Warburton, D. 
 
 Morpeth, Lord Viscount Whitmore, W. 
 
 Osborne, Lord T. Wilson, Sir R. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the Government has not been of a character to cancel past 
 reproach, nor to profit by developed resources. 
 
 Upon the accession of William IV. to the crown, and while the 
 Tories were yet in power, his Majesty, in his first speech,—de¬ 
 livered on the 2nd of November, 1830—expressed himself in the 
 following terms :—“ I place without reserve at your disposal my 
 interest in the hereditary revenues, and in those funds which may 
 be derived from any droits of the Crown or Admiralty, from 
 the West India duties, or from any casual revenues either in my 
 foreign possessions, or in the United Kingdom.” 
 
 This surrender of all the Crown revenues to the public service 
 deserves special notice, and pointedly so at the present time ; for 
 although Lord Althorp declared that he always considered the 
 concession to include the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall 
 and Lancaster, yet subsequent proceedings negatived that inter¬ 
 pretation, and the same remained, and still are in the possession 
 of the Crown. Having succeeded, as before stated, in getting the 
 returns for which I had previously moved printed by order of the 
 House, I lost no time after the meeting of Parliament in February, 
 1831, in again reverting to the subject; but the House and the 
 country were so entirely occupied with the Reform Bill, and the 
 dissolution of Parliament consequent upon its first defeat, that many 
 months elapsed before I could reasonably hope to recal attention to 
 the subject. Early, however, in the session of 1833,1 gave notice 
 of my intention to move for a Select Committee, when I was anti¬ 
 cipated by an unexpected announcement by the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer (Lord Althorpe) that the Government intended taking 
 that step, and thus superseded my motion, which stood for the 16th 
 of May. As the taking the inquiry out of my hands suggested rea¬ 
 sonable apprehension as to the course the Government might pursue, 
 I particularly inquired whether the object of the inquiry proposed 
 by the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests was concur¬ 
 rent with my own, which was to empower the Commissioners to 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 enter into the whole question of management and disposal of the 
 Crown Lands, with a view to their application to public purposes, 
 when Lord Duncannon replied such would be the objects of in¬ 
 quiry. The Committee was nominated by the Government, and, 
 as I apprehended, its complexion decided its policy. With a view 
 to the easier access to papers, the Committee was empowered to sit 
 at. Whitehall, where I attended five or six times. Upon these 
 occasions certain dealings with the Crown Lands in Carlton 
 House Gardens and elsewhere were investigated, and which were 
 of a character to elicit from the entire Committee a strong ex¬ 
 pression of disapproval, which it was proposed should be signified 
 in a resolution to the effect that such dealings were “irregular,'' 
 when I moved as an amendment that the word “censurable” 
 should be substituted, which w r as negatived by a majority of five 
 to three. As I conceived, the future course of the Committee was 
 decidedlyindicated by this vote, confirmatory, too, as it was of my 
 first impression, I declared my indifference to their future pro¬ 
 ceedings ; and with the exception of a journey I took in com¬ 
 pany with the Chairman and another Member (Mr. Lambert) of 
 the Committee to Reading, to inquire into the disposal of a Crown 
 estate in that neighbourhood, to which our attention was had been 
 drawn by tlie Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter)—at whose seat 
 we were hospitably received—I ceased to attend at Whitehall. 
 
 After the lapse of many years the subject is again referred to a 
 Committee, which is now sitting, and I trust the Noble Chairman 
 will allow me to call his attention to my labours in the same cause. 
 As I have before said, a full description of all the estates belong¬ 
 ing to the Crown, which still remain to the nation after a course 
 of merciless pillage, will be found in the Return printed in Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1831 ; and especially would I direct the attention of the 
 Committee to the important fact that with a very trivia! exception 
 the entire property was emancipated from inadequate rents and 
 prejudicial covenants from and after the year 1836. The country 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 now will expect an exact and detailed account of the terms upon 
 which every portion of the property so described has been dis¬ 
 posed of, when, how, and to whom, as also of the application of 
 the proceeds, and a business-like estimate of the probable value 
 of the property that remains, with suggestions for its judicious 
 alienation. It will not escape the consideration of the Committee, 
 that to the sale of the property wiE follow the extinction of. a 
 very costly establishment. 
 
 I cannot conceal the expression of my satisfaction at finding— 
 and I trust my agricultural friends in Essex, who I have so fre¬ 
 quently addressed upon the subject, will share my pleasure,—that 
 Einancial Reform is taken up by those men whose free trade 
 measures have rendered economy a paramount obligation. Upon 
 the discussion of the Corn Laws I was abused for the opinions I 
 then expressed, especially in the last speech I delivered upon the 
 subject (18th November, 1839) because I dared to ask: “ In what 
 way can any person fancy we can struggle successfully against the 
 rival efforts which are now making by the young life and blood of 
 the States which are coming promptly and hourly into full vigour 
 unless we apply ourselves to the state of our taxation ?—and that 
 it was a delusion, it was fostering injurious and pernicious expec¬ 
 tations, to suppose that free trade in corn would enable us to 
 compete with countries who are eager to run the race of com¬ 
 petition with us, while there is such an enormous and frightful 
 inequality in our financial relations.” 
 
 I implore the Tenant Farmers to think of these things, and 
 instead of looking for relief to their landlords, who are deluding 
 them with the cry of “ Protection,” to come forward and demand 
 economy in every department, and a more equitable distribution of 
 inevitable burdens. 
 
 The Tenant Fanners will never rightly appreciate their own 
 pretensions until they divest themselves of their feudal dependence 
 upon the lords of the soil. It should be their object to secure, at 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 least in some degree, that which at present they in no degree 
 possess, but of which the landlords have far too much—direct 
 Parliamentary representation. It has been through the agency of 
 this power that the landlords have been able, under the extremest 
 pressure of taxation, to profit by it,—at the same time they have 
 contrived, with their accustomed sagacity, to inoculate then- 
 tenantry with the notion of identical interests, and that the pros¬ 
 perity of the farmer is to be found in high rents. I endeavoured 
 to combat these sinister views when I addressed the House on Mr. 
 Villiers’ motion in 1839. Upon that occasion I observed “that, 
 so far from the landlords being taxed more than any other class 
 of the community, they are not only exempted in effect from all 
 taxation, but are positively benefited by it; that I should like to see 
 an account prepared, showing what it is that the aristocracy, or 
 great landlords, actually pay in direct taxation, and what they ac¬ 
 tually receive. When I consider how many honourable mem¬ 
 bers of this House are in the Navy, in the Army, how many in 
 possession of civil appointments,—in short, when we take a walk 
 through all our great establishments—when we look at the list of 
 clerks in the financial departments, in the Custom House, in the 
 Excise, in the Stamp Office, in our Colonial and Diplomatic de¬ 
 partments, it will be found that those immediately connected with 
 the land, and who it is pretended are entitled to exemption from 
 taxation on account of the heavy burdens imposed upon their 
 property, are receiving back a great deal more than they actually 
 pay towards the finances of the country.” 
 
 Let not the Tenant Farmers deceive themselves, as most assu¬ 
 redly they will do, and are doing, when they join in the cry for 
 “Protection.” Their security is alone to be found in rigid 
 economy and mitigated burdens; by which I do not mean the 
 burden of taxation merely—heavy and unequal as it is—but the 
 burden of war rents, war tithes, and the unequal distribution of 
 poor-rates, highway-rates, and a catalogue of county assess- 
 
INTHODTJCTIOX. 
 
 ments. Not more certain is the rising of the sun than is the 
 setting of the Tenant Farmers, if they do not bestir themselves, 
 and join the economical league. Men of capital, holding large 
 farms for short terms, will be able to outride the storm, but farmers 
 with limited means, hampered with long terms, and stringent 
 covenants, and poor soils, must be swept away before the 
 torrent of free trade unless they are emancipated from their dif¬ 
 ficulties. Where is his Grace of Richmond ?—where is the facetious 
 head of the Essex Decemvirs, that they are not bringing in a bill to 
 absolve tenants from their ruinous engagements ? In the debate 
 before mentioned, I pointedly and strenuously pressed this con¬ 
 sideration. •• There is," I observed, “ a class of persons to which 
 the solicitude of the House ought to be directed—the tenants 
 under covenants. What would be their condition if a system of 
 free trade were instantaneously resorted to ? Is the House 
 prepared coineidently with the adoption of free trade to pass a law 
 by which this class of tenants shall be emancipated from the 
 stipulations of their covenants ? I will not attempt, as some have 
 done, to soothe the landed interest with an assurance that free 
 trade will not affect them. It must affect them deeply,—and so 
 it ought. They have had a long run of advantages, and the time 
 is at hand when they must be prepared to forego a considerable 
 portion of those advantages. Eut as regards the tenants, they 
 are not free agents; for on all occasions the number of applica¬ 
 tions for farms has far outrun the number of farms to be had; 
 and from the competition for land thus existing high rents are 
 given, and the landlords reap the benefit. Therefore I do noj. 
 hesitate to say that, under these circumstances, and taking into 
 consideration the covenants under which many tenants hold their 
 farms, to bring about a system of free trade all at once, and with¬ 
 out providing for such cases, is a system to which I am not 
 prepared to be a party. Nor do the observations I am making 
 apply less to tenants at will; because, when we consider that a 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 farmer has generally embarked his all in the soil, and the various 
 implements of industry, what do you fancy would be the value of 
 his cultivation, and of the manure he has thrown in to the land, 
 if he were instantly to be exposed to the free trade system ?” 
 
 Events are confirming the justice of these remarks, which, as 
 may be supposed, were at the time most unpalatable to all parties, 
 and offer a ready solution of the eagerness with which the Go¬ 
 vernment and the Opposition supplied the clause for disqualify¬ 
 ing the Commissioner of City Police for a seat in Parliament. 
 The same dislike of plain speaking excluded my name from the 
 Pension List Committee, and upon another occasion induced the 
 Whigs to take the inquiry into Crown Lands from my hands 
 into their own—a course of conduct which will surprise no one 
 acquainted with the workings of faction, and who attentively 
 reads the speech now published. 
 
SUMMARY OF THE CALCULATIONS REFERRED 
 TO IN MR. HARYEYS SPEECH. 
 
 Value of Crown Property. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 130 Manors and Royalties, at £1,000 . 130,000 0 0 
 
 Annual Rental of Estates, £600,000, at 
 
 Twenty-five Years’ Purchase . 15,000,000 0 0 
 
 Middlesex.—Ground Rents, £50,000 per An¬ 
 num, at Forty Years’ Purchase. 2,000,000 0 0 
 
 Rent from Houses, say £20,000 per Annum, 
 
 at Eighteen Years’Purchase. 360,000 0 0 
 
 Waste Lands in Forests, not fit for Oak Tim¬ 
 ber, 86,000 Acres, at £5 per Acre . 430,000 0 0 
 
 Church Livings, say..*. 100,000 0 0 
 
 Fee Farm Rents, and other Unimprovable An¬ 
 nual Payments in England and Wales, at 
 least £6,000, at Twenty-five Years’ Pur¬ 
 chase . 150,000 0 . 0 
 
 Allotments trader 485 Inclosure Acts, £500 
 
 each . 242,500 0 0 
 
 Irish Estates . 2,000,000 0 0 
 
 £20,412,500 0 0 
 
 The above estimate is exclusive of Mines of Coal, and Tin, and 
 Copper, and Royal Domains; also of Duchy of Lancaster, 
 £30,000 a year. Davenaut, in his “ Treatise on the Lands of 
 England,” estimates the common rights of the Crown at 300,000 
 
SPEECH, &c. 
 
 In rising, sir, to redeem the pledge which I gave to this 
 House in the last session of Parliament, that I would bring under 
 its review and consideration the present state and management of 
 that important part of our public revenues which are commonly 
 designated by the name of the Crown Lands, I shall not, at the 
 outset, waste the time of this House, or my own strength, in the 
 expression of unavailing regret, than which none can more 
 deeply feel than I do, that this subject has not fallen under the 
 charge of some one capable of imparting to so dry a subject 
 the graces of language, and the charms of classical elocution. 
 The subject is unfortunately bereft of these attractions in my 
 hands; but I think the time has at length arrived when inquiry is 
 called for, and with the firm and honest purpose of serving the 
 country, I am prepared to encounter the difficulties which beset me, 
 for I have no pretensions to eloquence ; I have no promise of aid 
 from power, from party, or from faction; I go forward, because I 
 am impressed with a deep sense of its being my duty to do so, as 
 an independent representative of the people; in which capacity I 
 bring before the House the present state of the Crown Lands, and 
 to show them to he a most important source of public revenue, 
 hitherto much and grossly neglected, and only requiring pru¬ 
 dent and judicious control and management to be rendered 
 capable of administering largely to the national relief. However 
 clogged this subject necessarily is by dry details, it has at least 
 the peculiar advantage of novelty; for although we have had 
 abundance of parliamentary committees and royal commissions, 
 upon all kinds of subjects touching our foreign and domestic, 
 our military, naval, and commercial policy, nothing has been 
 done in the way of general inquiry respecting these Crown 
 Lands, except an examination under a commission as far back as 
 the year 1786, since the accession of Queen Anne, in 1702. Let 
 it not, then, he said, that we are going over ground which has 
 been often and tediously explored, and rendered revolting by repeti¬ 
 tion. This is not, I say, the case, for the journey is quite new to 
 all of us; nor do I regret that I have frequently postponed this 
 subject; for I think I can discover some glimmering traces of 
 anxiety in the minds of Ministers, if not to reform themselves, at 
 least not to check the views of reform in others—if not to he the 
 pioneers of reform, yet they are not disposed to throw serious. 
 
16 
 
 obstacles in its progress. I am not disposed to prejudice the 
 temper, nor to question the sincerity of their intentions, when I 
 recollect the substantial proofs they have recently given of a desire to 
 mitigate the public burdens. I am also glad that I have not brought 
 this subject forward earlier ; because,had I done so before the Right 
 Hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) spoke, on a former 
 night, I should have lost the advantage of his able testimony to the 
 utility of an inquiry, and of the declaration, that by a judicious 
 and wise system of management the Crown Lands would be 
 found a great auxiliary to the financial resources of the country. 
 Such an admission, from a minister who had himself so long pre¬ 
 sided over this particular department, is highly important. I am 
 aware, sir, that I have undertaken a weighty task, and, in acquit¬ 
 ting myself of it, I shall confine myself to the evidence of facts. 
 It would be very' convenient to this House were gentlemen always 
 to pursue this course : and I have often wished that it was one of 
 our standing orders that every hon. member should be compelled 
 to state distinctly the principal object of his motion, and the prin¬ 
 ciples he proposes to advocate or to challenge. But as this is not 
 the case, we are often obliged to attend to long and unconnected 
 speeches, to grapple with dubious propositions, and to seize the 
 real object of debate just as we may chance to discover it. When 
 speaking of the Crown Lands, I am speaking upon a subject upon 
 which little is known, and I greatly doubt whether the noble Lord 
 (Lowther) who I see object, and who, as Chief Commissioner, presides 
 over the department of the Woods and Forests, really knows the 
 extent or locality, still less the value, of the various and important 
 possessions of which he is the constituted guardian. My object, 
 therefore, is, to possess this information; which can only be satis¬ 
 factorily obtained by the appointment of a Select Committee to in¬ 
 quire into the state and management of the Crown Lands. It is 
 not saying too much, at this hour, to declare that no man has the 
 least idea of the value of this extensive property : by some its 
 annual revenue is estimated at £500,000 ; by others at only 
 £50,000. There are some who say that, if sold, it would yield 
 £500,000: others say £5,000.000. Is this the condition in 
 
 which a matter of such grave importance should be allowed to 
 remain, in utter ignorance of its management or its capabilities r 
 Whence, then. I ask. such entire ignorance of the value of public 
 property of such great and impoi.ant extent r I can only account 
 for it from the name which it bears. Crown property has been 
 hitherto held to he a sacred fund, the very designation of which 
 interdicted public inquiry. Now, is it not tit the public should be 
 informed that there is no branch of the public revenue so entirely 
 unconnected with the Crown as the one into which I call for 
 inquiry—it has nothing to do with the king’s direct revenues— 
 and yet there is no property so improvidently bought, so waste- 
 fully sold, or so scandalously underlet ? I will state the origin of 
 this property, and of what it consists, as far as the matter is at 
 present intelligible: next, how it appears to have fluctuated at 
 
17 
 
 different periods, in remote and recent times; and, finally, what ’ 
 is its present apparent condition and situation, and how I think it 
 ought to be dealt with. I will show, sir, how it is managed—or 
 rather mismanaged ; how it has been sold for slight considerations, 
 or for no considerations at all; how it has been let for trifling 
 rents; how purchases have been iniprovidently made, and re-sales 
 permitted at a great depreciation from the first cost; and I ask if 
 any lion, gentleman would allow his private property to be placed 
 in this uncertain and fluctuating state ? And are we, who are 
 trustees of the public, to permit this property to remain in a state 
 so inefficient and unproductive, and more particularly at a time 
 when the public exigencies imperiously demand the utmost atten¬ 
 tion to economy ? As trustees, therefore, for the people of Eng¬ 
 land, I call upon you to interfere, and render this property, over 
 which you have absolute control, more available and more valu¬ 
 able than it has hitherto been. 
 
 With respect to the history of this property, it is well known 
 that in distant times every monarch in Europe had for the main¬ 
 tenance of his personal splendour, the gaieties of his court, and for 
 the security of his dominions from external or internal disturbance, 
 certain means exclusively drawn from the soil. This was the case 
 all over Europe. When that illegitimate child of fortune, Wil¬ 
 liam of Normandy, descended from neighbouring shores, and 
 overcame the legitimate Harold, he dispossessed the latter of a 
 landed income which realised £400,000. The land was the 
 exclusive source from whence the monarch maintained his state 
 and defended his country. If we carry our recollection back still 
 farther, we shall find that the entire burdens of the country fell 
 upon its territory ; for not only was the land made to yield revenue 
 for the personal support of the Crown, but to support the wars of 
 the monarch ; and, in addition, those who held of the king in capite 
 were compelled to provide and support 60,000 men, when called 
 upon, for purposes of war or display. In those days of chivalrous 
 feeling no one ventured to strip the Crown of its just prerogatives; 
 but when, in future reigns, self interest asserted its pretensions, 
 large territorial cessions were made by the Crown; so that we 
 find in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries that a 
 revenue of £400,000 a year, was gradually reduced, by repeated 
 concessions, to such an extent that in the reigns of Henry 
 IV., Edward II., and Richard II., it had dwindled down 
 to £.77,000, and in the time of Henry VI. all that remained 
 was an annual revenue of £5,051. It was reserved, however,v> 
 for our great defender of the faith, and of pluralities in churches 
 and wives, to add most largely to the Crown property. He pro¬ 
 ceeded on a large scale, considering his peculiar piety and love for 
 the Church ; for he appropriated no less than £273,000 worth of 
 annual property to secular purposes, from the ecclesiastical and 
 monastic institutions. Sir John Sinclair, a cautious and careful 
 writer, observes that the property which Henry had thus appro¬ 
 priated to himself, would be equal to £6.000,000 a year of our 
 
18 
 
 ’ modern currency. It frequently happens that men of grasping 
 minds are generous ; and Henrj' freely distributed much of this 
 Church property among the nobles and gently of his court, the 
 descendants of several of whom hold it to this day. Whether any 
 hon. member who hears me, possessing a share of this property, 
 is ready to redeem his ancestors from the charge of spoliation is 
 more than I shall predict; but it is a matter of history that 
 Henry YIII., on the occasion to which I allude, appropriated to 
 himself and his minions two thousand religious houses, monas¬ 
 teries, chapelries, and edifices of varied piety. 
 
 It appears, by a return which is to be found in the Augmen¬ 
 tation Office, that in the year 1555 (Queen Mary’s reign) the land 
 revenue of the Crown applicable to the service of the State had 
 been so frittered and wasted away that the original property of 
 the Crown—estimated, as I have stated, in the time of William the 
 Conqueror at £400,000 a year, and largely augmented during the 
 reign of Henry YIII.—produced only £86,680. I wish the noble 
 lord opposite (Lord Lowther) to understand that all the statements 
 which I make, either of figures or facts, are derived from docu¬ 
 ments which are alike accessible to him as to myself. I 
 think it right to assure the noble lord of this circumstance, as he 
 might otherwise be disposed to infer that some of the statements 
 which I shall have to make to the House are exaggerated or un¬ 
 founded. Let it, therefore, be clearly understood that I shall ad¬ 
 vance nothing in the course of my address to the House for which 
 I have not the best authority. But to resume. By the copy of a 
 return made in the reign of Queen Mary it appears that the 
 annual revenue arising from the Crown lands in the various 
 counties of England amounted to £86,680. Owing to the lapse 
 of leases and other favourable events the annual return of revenue 
 for these lands appears to have been improved in the reign of Eli¬ 
 zabeth to the sum of £132,000. 
 
 I hold in my hand the copy of a return which is to be 
 found in the Augmentation Office, and which was made in the 
 forty-fourth year of the reign of Elizabeth, by which it appears 
 (and this is a circumstance well worthy the attention of the 
 present Parliament) that that pre-eminent princess, while she was 
 able to wield the power of this country so successfully in the 
 maintenance of her dignity and in the resistance of external ag¬ 
 gression, was also enabled to maintain the whole of her establish¬ 
 ments, civil and military, for a sum of £502,231. The entire 
 ^'revenue of that successful queen at the time to which I am allud¬ 
 ing amounted to a sum very little exceeding half a million of 
 money, of which £132,000 were derived from what remained of 
 the Crown Lands. It was reserved, however, for the Napoleon of 
 the seventeenth century to estimate more usefully the property of 
 the Crown in England. Cromwell, at the earliest opportunity, 
 instituted an inquiry into the nature and extent of the royal 
 revenues derived from land, with the intention of making them 
 really productive. For this purpose he appointed commissioners. 
 
who travelled through the entire country for the purpose of ascer¬ 
 taining the extent and availability of the Crown Lands. But, 
 assailed as his government was by jealousies at home, and by 
 enemies abroad, it may easily be supposed that he was unable to 
 make this property so productive as he might have done in more 
 tranquil times. Yet it appears, by documents which are open to 
 the inspection of the noble lord at the head of this department, 
 that a return was made to the Treasury of Cromwell of Crown 
 Lands, at that time consisting of 679 bailiwicks and 770 distinct 
 manors and farms. Of this property Cromwell disposed of as 
 much as brought into the coffers of the State £2,000,000 sterling. 
 
 In the county of Cornwall only there appears to have been at 
 that time fifty-two important estates, of which only three now 
 remain; and here I would beg leave to call the attention of the 
 noble lord, who has so frequently unfolded the advantages of 
 Parliamentary Reform, and who, I believe, has it in contemplation 
 to bring the subject of Reform again before the House, to a return 
 which was made by the Commissioners appointed by Cromwell. 
 It appears by this return, that of the fifty-two houses, manors, 
 and estates in the county of Cornwall, five distinct boroughs were 
 sold by the Protector. These consisted of the boroughs of Laun¬ 
 ceston, Fowey, Liskeard, Lestwithiel, and Saltash. Now, I 
 should apprehend that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining 
 what the Republican gave for these boroughs, or what the Royalist 
 ■would at present re-sell them for. 
 
 Upon the restoration of Charles II. the property which had 
 been alienated by Cromwell was declared void; but there were 
 too many of those who knew well how to seize the precise period 
 when they could be converted from republicanism to royalty, to 
 sanction the absolute resumption of those estates. Charles, there¬ 
 fore, was content to seize those lands which belonged to parties 
 who were too deeply committed to the Commonwealth to remain 
 in the country after the restoration, and who, leaving then- estates 
 behind them, quitted their country to seek safety in another. A 
 period having been allowed, and a time fixed for an inquiry into 
 all these delicate matters, it appeared by the report of the Com¬ 
 missioners appointed by Charles that the annual amount of the 
 revenue in Crown Lands, which had survived the 'shock of the 
 revolution, was £217,900. But neither Charles II. nor James II. 
 were able to withstand the ceaseless demands that were made 
 upon them by those who estimated their loyalty by the price at 
 which concession was made ; and it happened that nearly all those 
 estates which survived the Commonwealth were leased out to great 
 families by one or other of these kings for very long terms at 
 nearly nominal rents. The greatestassaults.however, thatweremade 
 upon the revenues of the Crown proceeded from the boastful friends 
 of freedom, who appear to have defined their attachment to the 
 revolution by the terms at which they would devote themselves to 
 William III. It appears that nearly the whole of the Crown 
 revenue was conceded compulsorily by that monarch to his patriot 
 
20 
 
 followers—not by absolute alienations, but by leases for long 
 terms (nearly a century), for little more than nominal rents. Upon 
 the accession of Queen Anne the Civil List clothed this property 
 with a public character and form; it is, therefore, from this time 
 that I am most anxious to direct the attention of the House to the 
 subject. I am afraid, indeed, that from an anxiety to avoid the 
 tedium of narrative in bringing the subject down from remote 
 times, I have rendered my statement more confused than concise. 
 However, I shall proceed. In the reign of Queen Anne, a com¬ 
 pact was first entered into between the Queen and the people, by 
 which a Civil List amounting to nearly £600,000 a year was given 
 in commutation for the land revenue which the Sovereign at that time 
 exclusively enjoyed. The preamble to the act which granted 
 this Civil List of £600,000 is very remarkable, for it expressly states 
 that “ it is for the purpose of defraying a part of the expenses of 
 the Crown, and lessening the burdens of the people by means of 
 a preservation and improvement of the Crown Lands.” That is 
 the preamble of the bill which formed the basis of the first Civil 
 List, and it has continued the same to the present day in principle, 
 though augmented in amount. By that bill the people became 
 possessed of a legal title for all future times to what is commonly 
 called Crown Lands. 
 
 At that time the Crown Lands were subjected to a new system 
 of management, and it was provided that no lands should be let 
 for a longer time than thirty-one years, and no lease of a house 
 granted for more than fifty years; that the reserved rent should 
 be one-third of the yearly value. Although these regulations 
 were made, yet no steps seem to have been taken to carry them 
 into effect; and it is a fact that the greater number of the estates, 
 of which I have been speaking, were leased out at nominal sums 
 of one mark, or 6s. 8d., 13s. 4d., and £1. So great had the 
 abuses at length become, that the}' attracted the attention of the 
 House of Commons, and three members—Shippen, Strangeways, 
 and Lockhart—brought in a bill to remedy the misapplication of 
 the produce of the Crown Lands, and to empower the Crown to 
 resume the possession of those which had been improperly 
 alienated. This bill was read a third time on the 29th of March, 
 1711; but it found its grave in that place where so many other 
 acts of utility have been entombed. From that time no more 
 was heard of the Crown Lands, until the year 1760 ; but, to show 
 the nature of the management of the lands in the interval, I 
 entreat the attention of the House to the fact, that property which, 
 if fairly let, should have brought one million per annum, produced 
 in 1760 just £482 16s. 7§d. of yearly rent. 
 
 At the time that his late Majesty ascended the throne of these 
 realms, no alteration took place in the Civil List or the manage¬ 
 ment of this property, except that the former was augmented ; 
 and instead of the clause in the statute of Anne, by which it was 
 provided that every lease should contain a reservation of one-third 
 of the value, a new clause was inserted, by which it was enacted 
 
21 
 
 that one-eighth of the value should be reserved,. and that the 
 remaining seven-eighths should be paid in the shape of a fine. 
 And here I will direct the attention of the House to some trans¬ 
 actions in reference to this property, which took place between 
 the years 1711 and 1768 ; by which it will appear, that notwith¬ 
 standing the provision of the statute of Anne, and the statute of 
 George III., such was the profligate dealing of ministers with 
 this Crown property, that some of the most important portions of 
 it were leased out to influential persons for merely nominal con¬ 
 siderations. 
 
 So obvious, indeed, is it, that the object was to afford pre¬ 
 eminent advantages to some of the great families of this country, 
 that large quantities of Crow'n Lands were first let for nothing, 
 and being estimated upon that rent as w r orth nothing, were 
 finally sold for nothing. That is to say, that property which would 
 be worth £5,Out) a year, was let out for 99 years fora sum of £10; 
 and then because that £10 was assumed to be the real value, the 
 property was immediately afterwards sold for £200. I will give 
 the House instances of this ; and the House may from these data 
 be able to form a judgment of the general course pursued with 
 respect to the property of the Crown. 
 
 From a return to which the noble lord opposite (Lord Lowther) 
 has access, I find that a parcel of Crown Land, lying between 
 Park-lane and Swallow-street, in Piccadilly, was let to the 
 family of the Pulteneys, for one hundred years, at a rent of 
 £12 16s., the yearly value being £2,047, and sold for £500. 
 I believe that the lease is now on the point of expiring. The steps 
 taken with respect to it will become a fit subject of consideration 
 hereafter. This is a specimen of the course pursued both by 
 Whigs and Tories when in power; and, indeed, I think it is 
 difficult to say which of them pillaged the country most; although 
 if I look to the proceedings of 1688 I think the balance is rather 
 against the Whigs. Again, I find that the estate of Bowood, 
 near Chippenham, including the borough of Caine, was first let 
 for £30 a year, and then sold for £468 10s. Furness, in 
 Lancashire, was in the same manner in 1770 let to Sir Thomas 
 Lowther for a trifle, and afterwards sold, &c., in the same way. 
 The manor of Spalding, in Lincolnshire, worth £4,000 a year, was 
 likewise given to the trustees of the Earl of Dalkeith, from whom 
 it passed to the Duke of Buccleuch, at a rent of £5. I wish to 
 notice to the House that I derive this information from the Report 
 of the Commissioners who were appointed in 1786, being a pe¬ 
 riod quite as near to those transactions as we are to the latter time. 
 Now, if it shall appear that the Government of the country has 
 suffered this important information to slumber for forty years, and 
 has thus given a perpetuity to abuse, I tbink that that is a strong 
 argument in favour of the motion which it is my intention this 
 evening to submit to the House. The Commissioners appointed 
 in the year 1786 distinctly declared that these properties were 
 disposed of without any estimate of their value. I beg, in 
 
saying this, to observe that I do not allude to those transactions 
 which occurred many years before the Commission of 1786 made 
 their Report for the purpose of disturbing the possession of the 
 holders at the present moment. I mention them merely to show 
 that they afford good reason for not allowing the Crown Lands to 
 remain under the management of the Government, if it is proved 
 that they so misused their power, and took no measures to remedy 
 those abuses which were pointed out in the Report of the 
 Commission. 
 
 I would now call the attention of the House to the disposal of 
 the manor of Seaton, in the count}' of York, together with the 
 valuable alum works attached to it, to the Earl of Mulgrave. 
 The sale took place on the 16th of November. 1774 ; the property 
 having been previously under-let at a rent of £2,696, was 
 sold for £27,000. At the same time, the liighly-valuable 
 alum works were sold for £20,000; £14,000 being allowed 
 for a lease which had been granted in the April preceding. 
 Now, what became of the money thus obtained for this pro¬ 
 perty ? The Commissioners who sat afterwards, in the year 
 1786, sent a letter to 2Ir. Peter Burrell, requiring to know what 
 had been done with the money; and he replied that, to the best 
 of his belief, it had been paid by his father to Sir Grey Cooper, 
 the Secretary of the Treasury. It is certain, however, that the 
 slight consideration paid by the Earl of Mulgrave for this valuable 
 property never found its way into the public treasury. I should 
 not have thought it necessary to have mentioned this case, except 
 to convince those hon. members who are connected with this 
 species of property that the}' are not altogether free from in¬ 
 quiry. In the rebellion of 1715 the estates of the Earl of 
 Derwentwater were forfeited to the Crown. They were of the 
 annual value of £9,000 ; and some influential persons who at 
 that time, as now, were about the office of Woods and Forests, 
 being anxious to become possessed of them, the Commissioners 
 managed to get the whole property sold for £ 1,000 to one of their 
 parliamentary friends. This transaction, however, was too gross 
 to escape ; and an inquiry having been instituted by the House 
 of Commons, two of the members were expelled this House, and 
 two others who had participated in the transaction were severely 
 reprimanded. I notice this transaction because I think it well 
 that the House, so fond of precedents, should bear in mind that 
 such things were done formerly, and that such were the conse¬ 
 quences. 
 
 I have stated that one of the provisions of the statute 
 of George III. was, that one-eighth of the entire rentals 
 should be reserved as rent, and that the remaining seven-eighths 
 should be taken in the shape of a fine. Now, let us see how far 
 this statute was carried into effect. It appears by the Report of 
 the Commissioners appointed in 1786, that of the one-eighth of 
 the rent reserved, which should have amounted to £13,662, and 
 which, multiplied by seven, would amount to £95,634—being the 
 
23 
 
 amount which should have been paid by way of fines—the sum 
 actually received by way of fines was only £7,078 ; that is to say, 
 very little more than one-half of the eighth to he received as rent, 
 or one-sixteenth of the whole. Up to the present time, indeed, we do 
 not seem to have profited much by the arrangement made on the ac¬ 
 cession of the third George. In 1770 the manor of Newark was let to 
 Henry Duke of Newcastle, at a rent of £482, the fine being £3,374; 
 but the fine actually paid was only £200; and the Commissioners, 
 when they alluded' to the subject, emphatically declared the abuses 
 to be enormous. To avoid fatiguing the House by travelling into 
 what might be considered extraneous branches of the subject, 
 there are many things which I have studiously avoided, and among 
 them is the revenue derived from the Crown Lands in Wales. I 
 state this, because no one, presuming on my silence upon the sub¬ 
 ject, should rise and say that there was a great deal of redeeming 
 virtue in the principality. I will leave the House to judge of the 
 nature and extent of this redeeming principle in the management 
 of Crown Lands in Wales, when I state that from the year 1760 to 
 1786, the rent received in Wales was £125,125, of which £124,466 
 were paid for management; leaving the balance, £659, to be paid 
 into the coffers of the State. The estimated annual value of the 
 Crown Lands in England at the time of the accession of George III. 
 was £78,049, but it appears that the actual sum received, from 
 1760 to 1786, when the commission of inquiry was established, 
 comprehending a period of twenty-six years, and, including all that 
 was paid, both for rents and fines, amounted only to £11,575 a 
 year. It appears, therefore, that while the real value of the Crown 
 Lands at the accession of the late king were estimated at the 
 value of £78,049 a year, the total annual receipt for rents and fines 
 amounted only to £11,575, being a loss from this management of 
 £66,474 a year to the country; or, during twenty-six years, a total 
 loss of £1,728,324 ; which must have gone somewhere, but which 
 never found its way to the public treasury. 
 
 I shall only briefly notice the Woods and Forests. I feel that 
 if I were to submit any proposal in relation to that property, I 
 should have to encounter a host of national prejudices touching 
 the support of our navy. Well aware of this, it is not my in¬ 
 tention to propose any measure in regard to this property; and 
 the statements which I shall have to offer to the notice of the 
 House are only adduced by me to show the general mismanage¬ 
 ment which has taken place with regard to all the Crown property. 
 Certainly, if I were asked what is my opinion as to the manner in 
 which those nurseries of timber for our navy should be disposed 
 of, I would say that the property ought to be placed under the 
 superintendence of the Navy Board; and if it should be found 
 that the gentlemen at that public department have their hands too 
 full of business already, an opportunity would be afforded to the 
 Government for creating two additional offices; and in that way 
 the two young gentlemen who were deprived of their emoluments 
 by a vote of this House the other evening, might be provided for. 
 
24 
 
 The Commissioners appointed in 1786 to inquire into the state 
 of the Woods and Forests, having minutely and faithfully fulfilled 
 their duty, they made a report, embracing in its details every 
 forest in the kingdom ; but with regard to the farms and manors of 
 the Crown they made no such inquiry. It appears that they con¬ 
 ceived that by the terms of their appointment their inquiry was to 
 he directed exclusively to the woods and forests, and that with re¬ 
 gard to the farms and manors of the Crown they conceived they 
 had not been appointed to enter into a minute and personal in¬ 
 spection. They expose a number of abuses which pervade the 
 management of the woods and forests; and, speaking of this 
 property, they state that it would be idle to attempt a reform of 
 those abuses while the otficers to whom was entrusted the manage¬ 
 ment of these forests, derived advantages from their continuance. 
 It is, indeed, impossible to read the seventeen reports made by 
 these Commissioners without being struck with the integrity with 
 which they conducted this inquiry, and the fearless manner in 
 which they record their opinions in reference to various abuses. 
 These Commissioners observe, that so deplorable and prodigal 
 was the management of the woods and forests, that from the year 
 1761 till 1786, the entire produce of them did not suffice to pay 
 for their management, but that the balance was defrayed out of the 
 general funds of the land revenue of the Crown, and that over and 
 above what had accrued from the sale of timber there had been 
 expended upon the superintendence and management of the woods 
 and forests during that period the sum of £144,882. They then 
 go on to say that it appeared that all remonstrances on the subject 
 were unavailing. 
 
 Lord Lowther . Who were the Commissioners ? 
 
 Mr. Harvey: The noble Lord asks who were these Commis¬ 
 sioners. The Commissioners were Mr. Middleton, Mr. Houlds- 
 worth, and Mr. Call, and subsequently Mr. Alexander Fordvce. 
 They say that remonstrances had been vain ; and they mention an 
 instance of the neglect which existed in the management of this 
 property, and it is a curious one. It appeared that a distin¬ 
 guished’ individual held property under the Crown, with a right of 
 pasturage for one horse, in Woolmer Forest; and it appeared that 
 for many years, for the pasturage of this single animal, forest land 
 belonging to the Crown to the extent of 460 acres was appropri. 
 ated. They gave an instance of two forests in the county of 
 Southampton—Alice Holt Forest and Woolmer Forest—where 
 the costs of the management far exceeded the receipts; for while 
 the receipts in one year amounted to £15.410, the charge for the 
 management, &c., of this estate, was £24,084, being an expendi¬ 
 ture of nearly £9,000 over and above the value of the entire pro¬ 
 duce of this property. They instance another forest—the Forest 
 of Whittlewood, of 5.424 acres, the average profits of which to 
 the Crown amounted to £85 per annum, while the expenditure 
 upon its management was £145 a year. 
 
 In their ninth report they speak of an estate called Bennefield 
 
25 
 
 Lawn, and they call the attention of the Government to the cir¬ 
 cumstances connected with this estate. It appears that it contains 
 394 acres of land, which they say belong to the Crown, hut which, 
 it seems, had been usurped by parties who had no right to the 
 property. They suggest, in reference to this property, that an 
 inquiry should be instituted and proceedings taken to establish the 
 right of the Crown to the possession of it; still no proceedings 
 had been instituted for this purpose. They mention another por¬ 
 tion of Grown property, which had been seized by other parties, in 
 the Forest of Rockingham,and by Lord Westmoreland amongst the 
 rest, and which amounted to 3,000 acres of the finest land in Eng¬ 
 land. This property had been usurped by these parties so far 
 back as the first year of the reign of Queen Anne; and when an 
 inquiry was afterwards instituted with regard to it, the other par¬ 
 ties having conceded their portions to Lord Westmoreland, this 
 property was transferred to his lordship by the Crown for less 
 than Is. 4d. per acre. The Commissioners state, in page 546 of 
 their Report, that notwithstanding every effort was made to induce 
 Lord Westmoreland to give an account of this property, he refused 
 to do so, and that he declined to answer any inquiry upon the sub¬ 
 ject. The Commissioners proceed to speak of Sherwood Forest. 
 They say that it comprised upwards of 95,000 acres; and owing 
 to the mismanagement and want of attention to the interests of the 
 Crown, from the year 1760 to the year 1786 the disbursements 
 for the management of this immense extent of land exceeded the 
 receipts by the sum of £9,037. 
 
 The Commissioners give another example of the prodigality 
 and want of proper attention which had been displayed in the 
 superintendence of the Crown property. They observe that they 
 had inspected the accounts with respect to Brecon Forest and 
 the number of trees that had been blown down and sold there for 
 several years; and that it appeared from the accounts of the sale 
 that the trees sold during a period of thirty years, although their 
 value was estimated at £2,474, produced only £850, the rest 
 having been expended in fees to officers and in the charges of col¬ 
 lection ; and they state that, upon turning to the hooks in which 
 the entry of the sale was made, they found that, though the trees 
 sold for £850, that sum was written off “ even,” because the ex¬ 
 penses of the sale just equalled the amount which the sale pro¬ 
 duced. The Commissioners mention also an instance of an act of 
 generosity of the Crown towards the Duke of Newcastle, which 
 appears to have been extended in other instances to his noble des¬ 
 cendant. In Birkenhead Wood a broad riding way was cut 
 through the forest for his grace ; the timber which was cut down 
 produced £15,000, and was given to the noble duke, but the ex¬ 
 pense of putting up the necessary paling, amounting to £118, was 
 charged to the Government. These Commissioners, as I have 
 stated, were appointed in 1786, and their primary object appeared 
 to be to inquire into the state of the woods and forests; but, in 
 order to obtain returns of the description, and the then present con- 
 
26 
 
 dition and available value of all the Crown estates, with a view to 
 ascertain the amount of the actual rental arising from the Crown 
 property throughout the country, they caused a circular letter to 
 he sent for that purpose to all the receivers of Crown rents 
 throughout the kingdom, and these returns they accordingly ob¬ 
 tained. I now hold them in my hand, and I will state the result 
 of them. It appears from these returns, made by the receivers 
 connected with the various estates in the kingdom to the Commis¬ 
 sioners, that they estimated the revenue available to the Crown 
 from all these estates, exclusive of the woods and forests, and of the 
 mines and some other properties of an uncertain value, in 1786, at 
 £102,626; that was the value which their returns set upon this 
 description of Crown property at that period, and which property 
 is spread over forty out of the fifty-two English counties. That 
 was the return of the receivers as to the value of the Crown estates 
 in 1786; but the Commissioners, being anxious to ascertain 
 whether that was the real value of them, determined, though they 
 did not consider themselves obliged so to do by the terms of their 
 appointment, which applied more especially to the woods and 
 forests, to make personal inquiry and inspection of these estates, 
 to ascertain whether the returns gave the real value of them. 
 They accordingly had an actual surv ey made, indiscriminately, of 
 ten important estates. The properties which they had thus sur¬ 
 veyed for this purpose were situated iD the counties ofLancaster, 
 Essex, Lincoln, Worcester, Nottingham, and Wilts. The value 
 of these estates was estimated by the receivers of the rents, in 
 1786, in their returns, at £3,242; but upon the actual survey 
 being made, by order of the Commissioners, their value was esti¬ 
 mated by the surveyors at £8,394. Now, looking at this fact, I con¬ 
 ceive that we have a right to take for granted that as in the case of 
 ten states indiscriminately chosen, the real value of them was found 
 to be three times greater than the estimate of the receivers, if a 
 similar survey were made in regard to all those estates, which 
 were estimated altogether at only £102,629, it would be found 
 that a similar disproportion existed between that estimate and their 
 real value, and that their real value amounted to treble that sum, 
 or to £300,000. My opinion is, looking at the facts stated by the 
 Commissioners, that such was the value of these Crown estates in 
 1786. These returns of the Commissioners form the basis upon 
 which I have calculated the real value of the revenues available 
 to the Crown—or, more correctly speaking, to the public—arising 
 from these lands; and I think I am fully borne out by those re¬ 
 turns in assuming that the real value of these estates in 1786, 
 instead of being £102,626, should have been stated at treble that 
 amount, or £300,000. I assume this as the standard of the real 
 value of this property, and which, of course, has greatly increased 
 in value since that time. In concluding their report, the Com¬ 
 missioners, after giving a minute statement of the forests, advert 
 to a proposition which was at that period very generally dis¬ 
 cussed— namely, the expediency of selling these Crown estates; 
 
27 
 
 and, after balancing the arguments upon that point, they state it 
 as their opinion that it would be imprudent to do so then ; and 
 their reason for coming to that conclusion is, that the principal 
 estates of the Crown were let out on leases of long unexpired 
 terms, and at low rents, and it was not likely that, upon a sale of 
 them, they would, under such circumstances, yield their real 
 value. They say that, if the leases were nearly expiring, and that 
 these Crown estates could be disposed of profitably and to advan¬ 
 tage, they should not hesitate to recommend the sale of them, and 
 they quote a passage from Adam Smith which recommends the 
 sale of these Crown lands. The Commissioners say that that was 
 not the proper time for selling these estates, as they were encum¬ 
 bered wilh unexpired terms and at nominal rents, but that when¬ 
 ever the leases were near expiring, that would be the fittest time 
 for the sale of this property, and that, in the meantime, no renewals 
 of the leases, as they expired, should be made. These long leases, 
 which the Commissioners speak of in 1786, have now almost all 
 expired, and therefore I contend this is the fittest period, in refer¬ 
 ence to the condition of this property, that could possibly be se¬ 
 lected for the sale of it. 
 
 From the returns of the receivers, to which I have already re¬ 
 ferred, it appears that these Crown estates were valued in 1786 at 
 £102,626. Between 1790 and 1802 Crown property to the 
 amount of £ 11,235 became free of lease. If, therefore, the recom¬ 
 mendation of the Commissioners was attended to, and no new 
 leases were granted during that period, Crown property has 
 become emancipated and fit for disposal. Between 1802 and 
 1816 it appears that Crown property to the amount of £54,952 
 has fallen out of lease; and the leases of another portion of Crown 
 property to the amount of £31,426 expired between 1816 and 1830. 
 Therefore in 1830, of all the property, the leases of which were 
 in existence in 1786, there remained only £14,400, the leases of 
 which have to run till the year 1836. It appears, then, that in 
 1836 the whole of this property will be out of lease, will be per¬ 
 fectly free and unincumbered, and not an acre of it will remain 
 under the leases which existed in 1786, with the exception of 
 £24 13s. 4d., the lease of which will not expire until the year 
 2771—a period too distant, and in amount too small, to wait for 
 its arrival. 
 
 Having now brought my statement down to this period, I am 
 anxious to approach the practical part of the subject, and shall 
 proceed to advert to the manner in which Crown property has 
 been latterly disposed of. I beg to call the attention of the noble 
 lord opposite to this part of the subject. I can assure him that in 
 adverting to it I by no means wish to cast any imputations upon 
 the noble lord on account of these transactions ; and if I shall re¬ 
 frain at present from praising the conduct of the noble lord, it is 
 because I do not wish to make any individious distinction between 
 him and his predecessors. I shall call the attention of the House 
 to the manner in which several houses in Piccadillv have been let. 
 o 2 
 
Every hon. member is aware of the value of property in that 
 quarter. 
 
 By referring to the returns which have been triennially made 
 to the House, it will be found that several houses in Piccadilly 
 have been let for £30, £50, and £70 a year, the value of w-hich 
 any individual acquainted with them would estimate at five or six 
 times that amount. I beg also to call the attention of the House 
 to the very inadequate and delusive description given in these tri¬ 
 ennial returns of this species of property. I will take any one of 
 the items, and ask whether it gives anything like any idea of the 
 property to which it refers ? Let any hon. member take up one 
 of these items, and say whether from it he can form any notion 
 whatever of the value or the description of the property which it 
 is meant to designate. Take for instance the following:—“ The 
 manor of Epsworth, with Westwood and Haxey, and divers lands 
 and tenements in Epsworth, Belton, Ouston, and Haxey.” It is 
 manifestly impossible for any one who should cast his eye upon 
 this entry, and who might wish to bid for this property, to form 
 any idea of it, so as to declare whether it is worth £5 or £50, 
 £500 or £5,000. Such a practice places in the hands of the Go¬ 
 vernment an extraordinary and unconstitutional power; for I will 
 assert that the lands under the superintendence of the Woods and 
 Forests are quite sufficient, if perverted, to corrupt both Houses 
 of Parliament. I mean to cast no imputation upon the noble lord 
 or his predecessors, but I assert they ought not possess this power. 
 That this property has been disposed of with a view to political 
 purposes and for political corruption in some instances cannot be 
 denied; for it appears, from a return given in the report of 1786, 
 that property to the amount of £997 a year had been let to Sir 
 Samson Gideon for £30 a year. Similar grants may have been 
 made to other hon. members on different occasions. This, there¬ 
 fore, is a class of power which ought not to be lodged anywhere ; 
 and without meaning to cast any imputation upon the noble lord 
 or his predecessors, I will say that this property in its present 
 shape presents a source of corruption sufficient to contaminate any 
 Parliament and pervert its members to any purpose. 
 
 I shall now refer the House to the property of the Crown in 
 the manor of Newark. I desire to call the attention of the 
 noble lord opposite to this point, the rather because I considered 
 him, in the discussion which the hon. member for Dover a short 
 time since introduced upon this matter, to estimate this property 
 much below its real value. I understood the noble lord upon that 
 occasion to say that the estimate which I then gave of this pro¬ 
 perty was far above its real value. I do not mean to state that 
 the noble lord upon that occasion meant to depreciate its real 
 value; but the statement which he then made will enable the 
 House to judge of the correctness of the information possessed at 
 head quarters in reference to the real value of Crown property in 
 general. I would refer to the description given of this property, 
 and ask any hon. member whether it affords him any means of 
 
29 
 
 judging of its nature, amount, or real value? It is described as 
 the “ Royal Manor of Newark, with the messuages and lands ap¬ 
 pertaining thereto.” If any hon. member should go into the Auc¬ 
 tion Mart, and find a property put up for sale with such a descrip¬ 
 tion, how could he possibly form any judgment as to its amount 
 or value, so as to enable him to bid for it ? This description af¬ 
 fords no guide whatever to its value or amount. What is the 
 way in which this property has been dealt with ? In 1730 a lease 
 was granted for thirty-one years, at the annual rent of £144, to 
 the prime minister of that day. Since that time Newark has in¬ 
 creased considerably in wealth and importance; and the value of 
 the property there must be greatly enhanced. Newark is in the 
 centre of the kingdom, with all the great roads running near it— 
 it is in the centre of a great manufacturing district; and it is, 
 therefore, but reasonable to conclude that since 1730 it has ad¬ 
 vanced considerably in wealth and importance. There were 900 
 acres of land, with fifty houses, and it was let in 1730 to the then 
 Duke of Newcastle for £144 per annum. The lease has since 
 been renewed to the descendant of that noble duke for £2,000 per 
 annum. Now I am informed that the value of this property is 
 equal to £200,000. 
 
 I hold in my hand, sir, an estimate which has been made of this 
 property by a professional gentleman of eminence in the town of 
 Newark; and he states that if it were set up for free competition 
 at a public sale, it would fetch £200,000 at the least. Reference 
 has been made to the low amount of the rents at which the Duke 
 of Newcastle has let this property; but that, it is obvious, has 
 been done by the noble duke for political purposes, and it affords 
 no guide to enable us to ascertain its real value. This gentleman 
 states, that if it were now offered fairly and freely for sale, the 
 inhabitants would be most willing and anxious to bid for it, and to 
 the amount which I have just mentioned. The present rental of 
 the Duke of Newcastle is £4,000 a year; but this gentleman states 
 that if the property were let without reference to political purposes, 
 it would bring in £7,000 a year. He also adds that the rental 
 must be more than doubled by the Duke of Newcastle, if he had 
 not let it for electioneering purposes, and with a view to preserve 
 his political influence in the borough. 
 
 I shall now advert to the conduct of the Commissioners of 
 Woods and Forests in reference to the sale of the manor of Rose- 
 dale, in the county of York; and in doing so, I do not think that I 
 could fasten upon any feature in their conduct which is less de¬ 
 serving of approbation. This property is situated in the moun¬ 
 tainous recesses of Yorkshire. The lease of these premises ex¬ 
 pired in 1816, and since that period the farms have been let to 
 tenants at will. The consequence is, that the roads and farms, 
 which are forty in number, are in a most ruinous condition, and 
 the whole property is greatly prejudiced. 
 
 No steps whatever were taken to sell this property, or to let it 
 to advantage, but it was left in that state for fourteen years ; and 
 
30 
 
 the result has been that this property was deteriorated five years' 
 purchase at least. I visited this extensive Crown estate, and found 
 it in a most deplorable condition. It was at length determined, at 
 the expiration of these fourteen years, to offer this property for 
 sale, and it was so announced on the 30th of September, in one 
 lot, hut no particulars were given to enable any one who might be 
 anxious to purchase it to judge of its value. Indeed, from the ac¬ 
 count given of it, no human being could tell whether these 5,000 
 acres, of which it consisted, were woods, or grounds under pasture, 
 or com. I wrote a letter to the Commissioners of Woods and 
 Forests, calling their attention to this circumstance; and though 
 I cannot flatter myself that they would give much attention 
 to any suggestion from me, the result was, that the sale 
 was postponed until a better account and fuller particulars 
 of the premises were made out. But when was the sale 
 attempted? On the 31st of December, when the mountains 
 in Yorkshire were capped with snow, and when no one could pos¬ 
 sibly have access to visit the estate. It was announced for sale upon 
 that day in the city of York. Having mentioned this property to 
 a friend, he commissioned me to purchase it; and I accordingly 
 sent an individual down to York to bid for it. The mode of sale 
 was most extraordinary. The Government reserved to themselves 
 a concealed bid; and as the bidding proceeded they accommodated 
 their bid in reference to the highest, instead of having it sealed up 
 as is the usual practice on such occasions, and not opened until 
 the last bid has been given. The person whom I employed made 
 the last bid, and he bid £37,000. What was the reserved bid of 
 the Government ? It was £70,000. 
 
 I do not mean to deal in compliments, but I would rather do so 
 than offend. Without offence, therefore, I hope I may be per¬ 
 mitted to say that this was, in my opinion, a very prejudicial 
 course for the public service, for when people found that such a 
 sum as £70.000 was the reserve bid of the Government, and that 
 the actual biddings did not exceed more than 10s. in the pound 
 on that sum, it must prevent them from coining forward with other 
 offers, under the idea that as Government cannot dispose of it at 
 its own price, it must ultimately, if disposed to sell, yield to 
 favourites. I think, sir, that this property ought to have been 
 sold, not as one entirety, but in lots. I will read to the House a 
 letter which I received from forty out of forty-two of the tenants, 
 informing me of their desire to purchase their respective holdings. 
 That desire was very natural on their parts, for it so happens that 
 the tenants of those farms were the owners of the tithes upon 
 their holdings, and consequently the property was more valuable 
 to them than to any other parties. 
 
 Property like that of the Crown in Rosedale is never so avail¬ 
 able when put up to sale as a whole, as it is when put up in dis¬ 
 tinct parcels. The next property to which I wish to call the 
 attention of the House is that which is known by the name of 
 Sunk Island. Sunk Island is at the mouth of the river Humber, 
 
31 
 
 and was rescued from the sea during the last fifty years. In the 
 year 1786 it was vaguely described as a parcel of sandy land in 
 the river Humber; and, strange to say, it was thus described in 
 a modern return for which I moved last year, though it now pro¬ 
 duces to the Crown lessee a rental of £ 10,000 a year. I moved, 
 sir, in the course of last year, for a return of all the Crown pro¬ 
 perty held under leases which would expire within the next seven 
 years, and Sunk Island happened to be included within that pro¬ 
 perty. The modern description of it was as follows:— 
 
 “ Sunk Island.—A parcel of sandy ground, and lying in the 
 river Humber ; a great part of it is to be embanked, and a chapel 
 is to be built thereon.” And then it gives the items of the rent 
 to be paid, and the names of the parties. 
 
 Colonel Davies : When was the lease granted ? 
 
 Mr. Harvey : The lease began in 1802, when the value of 
 land was much higher than at present. This land was first let in 
 1771, on a thirty years’ lease, at a rent of £60 a year, and a fine 
 of £1,550. Its estimated value was then £960 a year ; and thus, 
 when the fine ought to have been £8,400, the Crown was content 
 with receiving £1,550. That lease expired in the year 1802. 
 Sunk Island had then been considerably augmented in extent by 
 what is called the warp of the sea. It was in this augmented 
 state let to the Rev. John Lonsdale and his co-partners for thirty- 
 one years, and that lease will expire in 1834. It was let during 
 the first year for a rent of £700; during the second for a rent of 
 £2,000 ; and during all the rest of the time for a rent of £3,000; 
 and the lessees were to expend the money which might he requisite 
 for the embankment of the soil and for the erection of houses 
 upon it. What, then, was done by the lessees? Individuals 
 residing in the neighbourhood have informed me that the lessees, 
 after the first year of their lease expired, expended £10,000 upon 
 the island, and let it for the next year at no less a sum than 
 £10,000. At the last audit, the Rev. John Lonsdale and his co¬ 
 lessees received the sum of £9,600. I have a letter from a very 
 intelligent gentleman describing the condition of this island, and 
 the profitable lease which the Rev. John Lonsdale held under the 
 Crown; and here let me observe that we are not speaking of 
 ancient times, but of what occurred in 1802. Now, sir, I wish 
 to be informed why the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, 
 having ample resources at their command, could not have laid out 
 £10,000 for the embankment of the island, and then have let it to 
 different tenants at an annual rent of £10,000, as well as the Rev. 
 John Lonsdale, who was now clearing £7,000 a year by his 
 speculation, and had been doing so for twenty-five years ? 
 
 I will now proceed to point out the inadequate considerations 
 which have been taken for the leases of houses. In 1802, two 
 houses in Piccadilly, eight houses in Jermyn-street, as many in 
 Little Jermyn-street, four in Crown and Sceptre-street, and several 
 others in that neighbourhood, making altogether thirty-one houses, 
 in the very best part of London, were let for £125 a year; and 
 
32 
 
 yet, in 1786, this property was estimated at the yearly value of 
 £600, and must now, as every hon. member who hears me well 
 knows, he worth at least many thousands. Nineteen houses in 
 Holbom, near Great Turnstile, were let for £664 a year; and, 
 from an estimate which I desired to be taken of them, I am led to 
 judge that each house is worth from £100 to £130 a year. Three 
 houses in Spring Garden-terrace were let for £236 a year, on con¬ 
 dition of £5,550 being expended on the repair of them. I believe 
 that all the houses in Spring Garden-terrace are built upon the 
 same scale, and I think that any single house in that terrace would 
 be cheap at £236 a year. On that point the noble lord opposite 
 can easily set me right if I am wrong, for I believe that the noble 
 lord has rented a house there some time himself. Four houses on 
 the north side of Piccadilly are let on a lease for £260 a year, with 
 £207 for repairs. Three houses on the south side of Pall Mall 
 were let on lease at £350 a year, without any sum being expended 
 for repairs. Now, every gentleman who walks along those streets 
 must see that these are mere nominal rents, and far below their 
 real value. Every one knows that a single house on the south 
 side of Pall Mall must be worth near £350 a year. These lettings 
 are in town. Now for the country. In Huntingdonshire, for 
 instance, there is what I cannot help calling a very singular letting. 
 In the year 1815, a lease for lives was granted at a rent of £107, 
 of property of which the estimated value on oath was £1,104. The 
 lessee in this case was Sir John Throgmorton, and the value, upon 
 the oath of our cwn surveyors, was £1:104. To prove the inade¬ 
 quate letting of houses, I need not trouble the House with any 
 further instances. 
 
 I come next, sir, to what I shall call the inadequate considera¬ 
 tion obtained by the department of Woods and Forests for the 
 real estates of the Crown, and I must request the attention of 
 the House to what I cannot help calling an improvident disposi¬ 
 tion of that property. I find that in the year 1812 the Commis¬ 
 sioners sold freehold estates in some of the finest counties in Eng¬ 
 land, comprising ancient manors, and parks, and royalties, for only 
 twenty years’ purchase. They sold the manor of Eltham, and all 
 the manorial rights and royalties belonging to it—of which the 
 annual value was represented to be £559 odd—for £11,186 17s. 
 They sold the manor of King’s Cliffe, with the courts, demesne, 
 and other lands, and the royalties and appurtenances thereunto 
 belonging, estimated at the annual value of £148, for £3,000. 
 They sold the manor of the chapter of Beverley, with all rents, 
 courts, rights, members, and royalties, demesne lands, and tene¬ 
 ments thereto belonging, estimated at the yearly value of £325, 
 for £6,515. 
 
 Now, it was impossible to speak of manors, with courts and 
 royalties attached to them, without seeing that they are a species 
 of property' which, to many persons, are highly desirable, and 
 therefore eagerly sought. The holding of the courts gives a local 
 distinction to their proprietors. The Commissioners sold such 
 
33 
 
 estates, yielding'^1,084 a year, together with a part of the New¬ 
 market race-course, of which the estimated annual value was 
 £150, for the sum of £21,680. These sales, besides, were upon 
 the old rents, which I before had occasion to remark, were merely 
 nominal. They all had land-tax charged upon them, which the 
 Commissioners, however, redeemed previous to disposing of them, 
 as if they were determined to give the purchasers the best bargains 
 in their power. They redeemed the land-tax at thirty-nine years’ 
 purchase, and sold it afterwards at twenty years’ purchase. I 
 come to a vei-y remarkable transaction which took place in the 
 year 1809, and to which allusion is made in the first report of the 
 Commissioners of his Majesty’s Woods and Forests. On the 
 28th of August, 1809, all the estate, right, title, and interest, re¬ 
 maining in his Majesty, in and upon thehayes or walk of Sullhay- 
 fermes, and Shortwood, and Morehay, in the forest of Rocking¬ 
 ham, under an act passed in the 36th Geo. III. (1796), to enable 
 his Majesty to grant the same to John Earl of Westmoreland, his 
 heirs and assigns, in fee simple, upon a full and adequate con¬ 
 sideration to be paid for the same, was granted away to two 
 gentlemen appointed in that behalf by John Earl of Westmore¬ 
 land. There was no return made as to the value of this property 
 in the report of the Commissioners of 1786. 
 
 The annual value of this property, previously to the year 1796, 
 was stated to be £7 5s. 3d.; but a survey of it having been made 
 at that time, it was declared to be worth £953 15s. 3d., exclusive 
 of the value of the lodges and the timber. So that John Earl of 
 Westmoreland, previous to the year 1796 had been holding for 
 a rent of £7 5s. 3d., a property which was then declared worth 
 the annual sum of £953 15s. 3d., exclusive of the lodges and 
 timber upon it. Sir, I cannot conceive by what mystery the 
 value of this forest has so entirely escaped the notice of the 
 Commissioners. It was made the subject of a Special Report at 
 an early period in the last century. 
 
 This property, which in 1703 was declared worth £50,000, 
 was let to John, Earl of Westmoreland, up to 1796 for £7 5s. 3d., 
 and after that year for £953. John Earl of Westmoreland, at length 
 bought it, and it is worth while to consider what he has given for it. 
 John Earl of Westmoreland I find, sir, gave for it, including the 
 lodges and timber, £10,03815s. 6d.,and that bargain was sanctioned 
 by Act of Parliament. But though that Act was passed in the year 
 1796, the money was not paid till July, 1809. It was then paid 
 in with interest, computed at the rate of five per cent, on the 
 principal; his lordship had received from it, in the interval, a 
 rental equivalent to ten per cent. Taking it at the former letting, 
 he was receiving £950, and he was paying only £450, being the 
 interest of the purchase-money at five per cent. I mention this 
 circumstance to show that there are transactions connected with 
 the Crown property, which places it in the power of the Com¬ 
 missioners to bring to their aid and to place under their control 
 one-half of the members of both Houses of Parliament. And 
 
34 
 
 here it becomes necessary to consider who are the tenants of this 
 Crown property r It is not usual to find noble lords and hon. 
 gentlemen taking lands of third parties, in order to get a few 
 pounds by the unpaid rent which they may extract from their 
 tenants ; nor is it an ordinary circumstance to find them acting 
 the suspicious part of middlemen, unless they are to receive 
 a compensation calculated to assuage the injury done to their 
 pride by such degradation. When, therefore, I see a number of 
 men of rank among the tenants of the Crown property, I cannot 
 help inferring that they derive considerable advantages—solid 
 advantages—for their tenancy. Out of 408 tenants under the 
 Crown,'"in the year 1786, upwards of 200 were men of title. 
 Now, I cannot conceive that they would have placed themselves 
 in the humiliating situation of being lessees of the Crown Lands, 
 unless they derived great benefit from it. To take one leaf of the 
 hook, containing the names of the tenants of the Crown of that 
 day, I find the names of Sir T. Clarges, the Duke of St. Albans, 
 the Earl Bathurst, Lord Viscount Bacon, the Duke of Gloucester, 
 the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Lichfield, and many other 
 noble personages; to speak the truth, they are almost co¬ 
 extensive with the peerage. 
 
 I have shown how inconsiderate the Commissioners have been 
 when they have anything to sell. I will next proceed to the 
 converse of that proposition, and will prove to the noble lord how 
 lavish they have been with the public money, whenever they have 
 anything to buy. I wish to ask the noble lord opposite a great 
 constitutional question. Have the Commissioners of his Majesty's 
 Woods and Forests the power to dispose of the money which 
 comes into their hands, in purchasing parcels of land to round off 
 the parks, or to extend the grounds of the royal residence ? I 
 may be mistaken in my notions: the money which comes into 
 their hands may belong to the Crown; but if it is under the 
 control of the people, any diversion of it to other purposes, with¬ 
 out the leave of the guardians of the people is, in my opinion, 
 a considerable mal-appropriation of the funds of the public. 
 
 I find, sir, from these Reports, that at Virginia Water a public- 
 house called the Wheatsheaf has been bought for £5,000, and af¬ 
 terwards let to a gentleman of the name of Ramsbottom, who is a 
 member of this House, for the low rent of £50 a year. Now, if 
 the Commissioners can sell the ancient property of the Crown, 
 with all the courts and royalties attached to it, for twenty 3 r ears’ 
 purchase, surely they ought to take care that they do not purchase 
 land at a high rate, and above all things, they ought to guard 
 against giving such an extraordinary price as 100 years’ purchase 
 for a paltry public-house. Then, sir, 1 find they bought certain 
 premises at Egham, for which they gave £1,100, but they do not 
 let these premises. They also bought certain premises at Wind¬ 
 sor, which are occupied hy different members of the royal esta¬ 
 blishment. I also find that they bought the perpetual advowson 
 of the rectory of St. Marylebone of the Duke of Portland for 
 
35 
 
 £40,000 ; for which outlay of public money we ought to have a 
 return of £2,000 a year. But how stands the fact ? They pay 
 annually for the repairs of chapels the sum of £10,000; and they 
 receive annually, in the shape of fees for pews and other emolu¬ 
 ments, the sum of £8,000 ; thus losing, instead of gaining, £2,000 
 a year by the transaction. This appears to me to be not a very 
 judicious application of the public money. 
 
 Lord Lowther : It was sanctioned by Act of Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Ha.:rvey : I know that there was an Act of Parliament 
 to sanction it, and I likewise know that you may get an Act of 
 Parliament for anything. Then there was £21,000 paid for hav¬ 
 ing the Moat Park estate laid into Windsor Great Park. Then 
 there was a house in Spring Gardens bought of Lord de Clifford 
 for £3,850, for an auditor’s office; and yet the Commissioners let 
 three houses of their own adjoining to it for less than £100 a year 
 each. Then, sir, I find there are certain premises at Pimlico, for 
 which they have given £4,096, in addition to £21,000 which they 
 gave for ground in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace for the 
 King's Mews. Then they bought at Egham certain premises of 
 the Hon. John Coventry, for £7,350, and afterwards sold them, 
 with their usual providence, to the Hon. R. Westenra for £6,000. 
 Then they bought certain premises at Windsor for £1,350, which 
 they let at 13 guineas a year to a person named Bailey. Sir, I 
 am not aware that the Commissioners have a right either to bor¬ 
 row or to lend money; hut it appears, from their Reports, that 
 they first lent the Duke of York £56,000, to assist him in building 
 his house in St. James's Park ; that upon his death they bought 
 this house for £81,930, and that they afterwards sold it again for 
 £73,000. By which operation they lost nearly £8,000 of the 
 public money. 
 
 I may be told, sir, that there was an Act of Parliament, too, for 
 this. Then I see that in the year 1819 his Grace the Duke of 
 Richmond (I do not know whether I shall gain votes by men¬ 
 tioning names—but I find that in 1819 his grace intimated to 
 the Commissioners that he was ready to accept a fair price for his 
 interest in his house in Privy Gardens. They therefore ordered 
 his interest to be valued, which was found to be worth £5,000. 
 This sum they agreed to give his grace; but then they said (and 
 this is an extraordinary instance of providence), “ By the covenant 
 of your lease we have a right to call on your grace to make good 
 certain injuries that befel these premises in 1791. We estimate 
 those injuries at £700, and therefore we shall deduct from the 
 purchase money of £5,000 this sum of £700, for which we have 
 had a lien upon you ever since 1791. Now, upon this I have 
 only one question to ask—how is it that they allowed this lien 
 to remain so long undischarged ? 
 
 I have mentioned the name of the Duke of Richmond perhaps 
 unwisely, so far as refers to the fate of my present motion. It 
 may be said by the noble lord that it is true that in past times the 
 property of the Crown was let for inconsiderable sums, much below 
 
their real value, and that the cause was that there was no control¬ 
 ling power by which its real value could be ascertained ; but that 
 in 1786 an expedient was devised which removed that objection, 
 and that expedient was that we now let no property until we have 
 a return of its value given by our own surveyors upon their oaths. 
 
 Now, sir, I think that this was not quite so good an expedient 
 as some persons are inclined to imagine it. No man can fail to 
 be struck by the difference of value set upon the same premises 
 by respectable surveyors when examined upon their oaths before 
 juries empanelled to award compensation to persons whose property 
 may be injured by the building of bridges, or any other public 
 work. I have a memorable instance of that difference of opinion 
 within my own experience—a difference which led, upon one oc¬ 
 casion, to the loss of my seat in this House. I challenged the 
 qualification of a gentleman who rested it upon some property 
 which he had upon Clapham Common. I had surve 3 r ors ready to 
 swear that it was not worth more than £120 or £130 a year. 
 But what then ? I was told that if one surveyor would only 
 swear that it was worth £300 a year, it was of no avail if all the 
 rest swore it was not worth half that sum. I will give a few in¬ 
 stances of this difference, or rather this conflict of opinion. In 
 the year 1815 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ad¬ 
 dressed a letter to the Lords of the Treasury, and complained of 
 the uncertain system of valuation adopted by their surveyors. 
 There are several striking instances of that uncertainty, out of which 
 I will only select a few. In the year 1705 the Black Bear pub¬ 
 lic-house in Piccadilly was let on a lease of thirty years, at the 
 rent of £108. In the course of the improvements which were 
 made in that neighbourhood, it became necessary that that pro¬ 
 perty should be resumed by the Commissioners. The property 
 was accordingly valued. The lessee’s interest was estimated at 
 £3,000, and that sum was actually paid by the Commissioners, 
 although the lease was nearly run out. The house, 17, Charles- 
 street, was let by the Commissioners upon a thirty years’ lease at 
 £110 a year; within a month after the execution of the lease the 
 tenant let it for £230 a year, thus clearing more than cent, per 
 cent, by his speculation. In the same street, the house No. 43 
 was let by the Commissioners for £40 a year, and it becoming 
 necessary in the course of the late alterations to repurchase it, 
 £3,000 was paid for it by the Commissioners. In St. Alban’s- 
 street, a house, No. 5, was let for £40 a year. The Commission¬ 
 ers, wishing to resume the property, offered the lessee £ 1,739, 
 which he refused. Five houses in Castle-street were let by the 
 Commissioners for £98 a year in 1810, and immediately after¬ 
 wards were let by the lessees of the Crown for £328 a year. 
 Such are the effects of these surveys and valuations upon oath; 
 and be it remembered, sir, that these rents were all determined 
 upon oath. 
 
 I come now to what I call an extraordinary perversion of every 
 principle of good management. I cannot help consdering it the 
 
37 
 
 most singular case of all. Sir John Gregory Shaw obtained a 
 lease of the manor of Eltham, and divers lands, houses, cottages, 
 and other buildings, for twenty-eight years and a-half, from Lady- 
 day, 1806, -without the payment of any fine, at the yearly rent of 
 £3,923 19s. And here is a remarkable evidence of the singular 
 accuracy with which the surveys on the part of the Govern¬ 
 ment are made. As soon as his lease was perfected, Sir John 
 Gregory Shaw sublet the various farms of the manor of Eltham 
 by public auction, and sold them for premiums amounting to 
 £25,000, reserving at the same time, to himself, a yearly rent 
 payable during the currency of his lease, exceeding the whole 
 reserved rent paid by him to the Crown. I will next proceed to 
 show the present value of the land revenue of the Crown; and in 
 order to do so as clearly as I can, I will first call the attention of 
 the House to the state and value of the Irish Land Revenue. The 
 gross rental arising from Crown rents, composition rents, quit 
 rents, and rents of farms in Ireland, was estimated, at the survey 
 taken in 1796, at £61,640 18s. 8Jd. 
 
 In the interval between 1797 and 1827, the Commissioners sold 
 £3,687 out of it, thus leaving a rental of £57,453 12s. 3d. With 
 a view to its sale I estimate it, as it arises from freehold property, 
 as worth twenty-two years’ purchase, or at £1,263,961 9s. 6d. 
 To that sum I may add £83,851 19s. 4d., which they now have 
 in hand, from the sale of £3,687 of rent standing in the books of 
 the Bank of Ireland, in the name of the Lord High Treasurer, or 
 the Commissioners of the Treasury. The rack rents amount to 
 £7,800, which, at twenty-two years’ purchase, would produce 
 about £156,000, which, added to the former sums I mentioned, 
 will make a total of upwards of a million and a-half. The Com¬ 
 missioners state, in their Report, that there are other properties to 
 which the Crown is entitled in Ireland, which may be estimated 
 at £500,000 more; so that the total available sum arising from 
 the Crown property in Ireland in this manner would be at least 
 £2,000,000 sterling. It may be asked what has been the actual 
 available amount of the entire property. I have now before me a 
 statement of all the money which has been received from this 
 quarter from the year 1793 down to the present year. It ap¬ 
 peared that from the year 1793 down to the year 1804, the 
 average receipts were £580,000, and from the year 1804 to the 
 year 1815, were £608,000, and from 1826 to 1829 the receipts 
 were £1,949,120; thus making the total from 1793 to 1829, 
 £5,083,741. I think, if this be so, the House will he of opinion 
 that a large sum ought to have gone into the public coffers ; but I 
 will now tell the House how much was made available to public 
 purposes. 
 
 For ten years, from 1793 to 1804, the whole sum paid in aid of 
 the revenue was £10,120 ; from 1805 to 1815, £215,541; from 
 1816 to 1826, there was paid into the public treasury, out of 
 £2,374,321, but £8,624; and from 1826 to 1829, during which 
 period £1,500,000 were received, not one farthing found its way 
 
38 
 
 into the Exchequer. From this it appears that no more than 
 £234,285 has been actually paid into the Exchequer, leaving a 
 balance to be accounted for of £4,849,456. This is accounted 
 for thus—Expended in the improvements in Marylebone, Regent- 
 street, and Regeut’s-park, about £2,000,000; for Buckingham 
 Palace, that doubtful ornament of the park, £596,169; estates 
 for the cultivation of timber, £250,000 ; improvement of forests, 
 £118,181 ; extraordinary expense for the parks, £189,000; 
 Royal forests, £253,000; Westminster mews, intended for the 
 accommodation of the Members of the two Houses, but really 
 occupied by any persons but those for whom they were built, 
 £56,000 ; Royal mews, £26,000 ; making a total of'£4,233,763 ; 
 leaving a balance of £550,000 to be accounted for by Govern¬ 
 ment during the period of the last thirty years. And now let us 
 see what have been the costs of management. If any one will 
 look at the expenses occasioned in the collection of the Crown 
 rents, and at the same time consider the simplicity with which 
 rents can be collected, I think the management here will not a 
 little sunwise him. In 1827 the amount of rents collected was 
 £162.222 ; in 1828, £166,984 ; and in 1829, £171,585 ; making 
 a total of £400,791 ; and the charges of management exceed 20 
 per cent. 
 
 If the House will pardon me, I will now state the actual value 
 of the Crown estates unconnected with the Woods and Forests, 
 and of that portion of them which may be considered as appro¬ 
 priated to the royal possessions. There are 130 manors, worth, 
 on the average, £1,000 each. The annual rental of the freehold 
 estates I calculate at £500,000; and if sold at only twenty-five 
 years’ purchase, the sum they would realise would be £12,500,000. 
 The ground rents in London, which would sell for more than 
 forty years’ purchase, I set down at £2,000,000. I say forty- 
 years at least, and think I am quite justified in doing so after the 
 instances given the other night by the Right Hon. Secretary for 
 the Home Department, of similar properties sold in Birmingham 
 at one hundred years’ purchase ; and I know that sixty years’ 
 purchase may be easily 7 had for ground rents in Regent-street. 
 Waste lands and forests, which amount to 86,000 acres, and which 
 I put down at the low price of £5 per acre, will produce £430,000 ; 
 rents of houses, which I put at £30,000 a year, and estimate at 
 eighteen years’ purchase, will bring £360,000. Allotments under 
 485 inclosure acts, which have passed within the last forty years, 
 I estimate at £500 each, and these would produce £225,000. 
 Church livings I estimate at £100,000. These I propose should 
 be sold to the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty. The total 
 would yearly realise £20,000,000. 
 
 I am aware that I have fatigued the House, and shall therefore 
 proceed to move for the appointment of a committee to inquire 
 into the management of these revenues, so as to render them 
 available for the public service. In doing so, I think I have taken 
 away all subject of complaint or objection on the usual ground of 
 
the comprehensiveness of the inquiry. This is the first motion 
 which lias been made, having for its object a specific and definite 
 inquiry into the state of the Crown Lands, and I trust that I have 
 satisfied the House that there is ample employment for the 
 exertions of a vigorous committee. I shall make no appeal to 
 urge the House to do its duty further than this, that I do not 
 think anything can be undertaken which can be productive of 
 greater improvement or more efficient economy, because it includes 
 every desirable purpose—it will add to our resources by a 
 diminution of expense—and it will increase our revenue without 
 augmenting our taxes. This I think the purest specimen of 
 political economy. 
 
 I now move, sir, for “ a Select Committee to inquire into the 
 Land Revenues of the Crown, under the management of the 
 Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and to Report their 
 Opinion as to the Means by which they may be rendered most 
 available for the Public Service.”