The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-20 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1863.

sought to remove the Lord Mayor from the presidency of
the beard, and to =lstituto a paid chairman.
Mr. INGEItST.FIN wouldvote against the bill on similar
grounds.
Mr. HENLEY mid that as the chairman of oornmittess
told them that inquiry was necessary into the proceediogs
of the Board of Conservancy. it would be in his jodent
bettor to institute the inquiry before they gave the board
any fresh powers.
The question was then put, and timbal was rejected with-
out a division.

in the single and bachelor condition —(a laugh)—will know
that there are expense -s which the Princess of Wales will be
exposed to which will require that she should have a sepa-
rate and sufficient income. And by the treaty of marriage
concluded between her Majesty and the King of
Denmark the allowance which was undertaken
to be secured to her royal highness was 10,0001. •
year for her own separate use. The reaolutions, therefore,
which I shall have to propos* to the house will therefore, in
the whole, amount to a charge of 50.0001. • year-40,0001.
for the aggregate establishment and 10,0001. for the sepa-
rate use of the Princess. (Cheery.) I should mention that
up to the time when the Duchy of Cornwall was managed
under • commission, over which the late Prinoe Consort
presided, it was the custom of the duchy to
grant long lemma or life leases at a reduced rate upon the
payment of a heavy fine, and those fines formed • material
element in the annual income of the Duke of Cornwall. His
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is quite sensible that
that is not a proper mode of management, and is willing that
an act should be passed restraining him from grant
such leases in future, and ordering that the duchy pro-
perty shall be managed in the usual way in which pro-
victim are managed, not allowing the occupant for the
time to take advantage of fines upon renewals and upon
granting leases to the detriment of those who may follow
after. (Hear, hear.) lam told that the bill is in actual
course of production, and will without delay be submitted
to the house. Hon. gentlemen will natreally be desirous
of seeing more amply than it would be fitting for me to detail
upon the present occasion the condition of the duchy and the I
state of its revenues and property. There is a very correct
anddetailecl report prepared, which I shall have to lay upon
the table this evening, and which will be in the hands of
members, I trust, to-morrow or next day, which will give
them the fullest information with regard to all the details
of the duchy which they may wish to have. There is only
one point which I have to add to that which I have
already stated. There, of course, must be provi-
sion made for the jointure to be given to the
Princess of Wales in the event, which we trust will rot
happen, of her eurviving her hatband, the Prince of Wales.
In the ease of the Princess of Wales, the wife of George IV.,
the jointure was fixed at 50,0001. • year. We do not pro-
pale that, in the meant ease, it should be fixed at so high
an amount—we think that 30,0001. • year would be sufil-
clout ; and therefore, although the allowance to the then
Princess of Wales during the joint lives of herself and hus-
band was less than the amount which lee been stipulated
for the princess who is now to be Princess of Wales, yet
setting the one against the other, though the albinos,e is
grester—but not greater, I think, than it ought to be - the
dower will be reduced to the amount I have stated. lam
not aware that I have anything to add to that which I have
stated, and I have now only to put into your bands the first
resolution—(theses )—" That the annual sum of 40,0001.
be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fend
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to-1
wards providing for the establishment of his Royal High-
nom the Prince of Wales and her Royal Highness the'
MINUS Alexandra of Denmark, to commence from the day
of the =urine of their royel highneeses."
Sir H. W11.L01701113Y considered the proposition of
the noble lard to be moderate and reasonable, with ass ex-
ception—he thought the 40,0001. • year should be at the
command of the house. (No, no.) They were placed in
considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter be muse
the whole question turned upon the condition of the fineness
of the!Ducby of Cornwall, about which hen. members at pre-
met knew nothing. He did not object to the allowance of
100,0031. • year—that was a fair and reasonable chugs, but
the house was not in • position to form • judgment as t,p
the charge to be made !upon the consolidated fund until
they had seen the accounts. He did not quite agree in
the historical amount given by the noble viscounty because
be did not believe that Frederick Primes of Wales, in 1745.
had 100,0001. He believed that the allowance on that oars-
iliac was 60,0001. ayes: mad that it was cot till some years
had *lapped, and his royal, highness had a family grown up,
that he bad 100,0001. • year.
Mr. WILLIAMS wanted to ask whether the noble lord,
in the accounts which he had promised to lay before the
house, would data the amount that bad accumulated upon
the Duchy of Cornwall property during the minority of
the Prince of Wales, and also the amount of the revenues
received from it.

Mr. A. SMITH thought the documents with regard to
the Duchy of Cornwall ought to be laid before the hones
to enable them to judse whether this additional sum of
40,0001. was required from the consolidated fund. He did
not think, after the good management to which the revenues
of the'Duchy of Cornwall had been subjected, that the home
would have been called upon to vote anything out of the
consolidated fend for the Prince of Wales. Already • bags
portion of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall came out
of the consolidated fond, and large sums had been paid
from time to time for the Prince of Wales, including 20,0001.
for Marlborough .hour and 6,0001. for stabling attached to
Mailborceigh-bones, and last year, mint/minding that
some 40,0001. was paid for the privy puree of his royal
highness, the public ware called upon to pay hie expenses
is Chiliads, amounting to something like 14,0001. The total
amount of the various chums paid during the minority
of the Prince of Wales was very nearly 50,0001.
• year, and he hoped, therefore, the house would
at least pante before they determined upon this
additional payment out of the consolidated fund.
He was glad to learn that • bill would be introduced relat-
ing to the duchy, bemuse It had been shown that the ex-
pense of managemen; was about 20 per cent. ; and this was
a lemon to show how expensive it was to provide tor the
pi'mces of the royal family by anything lilts landed estates.
As regarded the dower of the Priem& of Wales, it appeared
to him that instead of ire being settled on the consolidated
fund it ought to be fixed on the mecums of the duchy.
oh.) The revenues of the duchy were so peculiar that
int believed on the death of a Prince of Wales they would
not go to a ace, auoposing he had one, but would revert to
the mown. It was quite clear that an additional revenue of
00,0001. a year to the sovereign would be altogether waste,
sad therefore be hoped the government would consider
whether it was not wise and just that the dower of the
11:0CeN of Wale* should be settled on the revenues of the
dimity. Them were one or two other points on which he
wished to have some explamim. He wishedto
'mow whether the 600,C305, part of which had
been expended on the new estate at Sandringham,
wee to be tied up with the revenue ef the duchy, or whether
it was so be regarded ea the private property of the Prince
of Wales. He was endeavouring to point out Me:ideate
acenected with this sett/most so as to secure the public at
large against being unfairly charged with a heavy expendi-
ture which ought not to fall upon them.
Mx. DISRARLI--PM, I should have hoped that the reso-
lution would have been peeved 11001111111 contradimote—
(loud cheers)—but as it ham met with some unexpected erd
unnecessary discussion, I thick it my duty to express what
I believe to be the feeling on this side of the house, and of
hon. gentlemen generally, that the proposition of the noble
lord is a temperate. and I have no doubt • well considered,
proposition. (Cheers.) We trust it may be adequate, and
I think no one can describe it aa excemfve. What strikes mese
most remarkable in the oheervations of the hoismileasaa
Lev
and others that ve been made is, that the =argo-
naut of the Duchy of Cornwall is brought orward as a
reason why we should not assent to this proposition. (Hear,
hem.) It appears to me that we ought to be thankful for
that goodmanagement of the duchy, and not make it •
basis for an argument in favour of the reduction of the vote
proposed by her Majesty's government. (Cheers.) It is
very Feasible that the duchy may be even better managed in
the future than in the peat. It is very possible the rents
and revenues may be increased in time, ma are the rents of
almost every estate in the country; and I do not think
the country is prepared to grudge to his royal highness
the advantage of that increase—(hear, hear)—and it
is not at all impossible that with great prudence
and dimities on the part of hi royal betimes
homey find means to employ that increase and put it to a
good use. (Hear, hear.) I therefore trust the house will
allow the vote to pass without—l will not say without a
dieseatient voice, but at least without a dissentient vote—
(gemral cheering)—and if there be any poiut of detail in
regard to the management of the duchy that hon. gentle-
men opposite may wish to be made acquainted with, the
opportunity will be open to 0- ein at some future stage of
the bill. (Lmd cheers from both sides of the house.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQCTERSir, I wish
to say, oa the part of her Majesty'. govendrentdall
e lush the perfect fairness of the dam of the hon.
the member for Evesham to reserve his judgment oc the
proposal so favourably received by the house anti) he shall
have had an opportunity of examining carefully the report
which will be laid on the table to-night. There are, however,
two or three mini of detail, with regard to which I think
some misunderstanding might prevail unless a word of ex-
planation were offered. I entirely concur in the spirit of
the remarks of the right boa. gestleman opposite, and think
it would be desirable—and I have no doubt we shall emit
as the result—that the house will give a cheerful and un-
divided &meat to the proposition. (Cheers.) The hoc.
baronet the member for Realism impeached my noble
friend's history, sod said that Frederick Prince of Wales
did out obtain the allowance of 100,0001. per annum from
the civil list until a biter period than the year named by
my noble friend. The sable lord named 1745, and it does
so happen that his history was in a very mint* point open
to impeachment, for instead of Frederick Prince of Wales
obtaining that allowance later than that year, he obtained
it earlier—it was granted in 1743. (Hear, hear.) However,
I am more anxious to advert to a point mentioned by the
hon. member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith), whooshd he thought
the jointure of the Prime's at Wales ought to be charged
upon the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. That might
be • point of moment for 000ddesstion if we were in cir-
cumstances in which, while we had • Prince of Wales aed
Duke of Cornwall, there was a likelihood of our being with-
out one to follow ; but looking at the state of the royal
family no such likelihood leto be perceived —(mar, hear)—
and I apprehend that as long as you hays • Prince of
Wales sad Duke of Cornwall to provide for, it is immaterial
to the make puree whether the jointure of the Princess
of Wales is taken from the revenues of the duchy in the
lint instance, which would leave so much more to
be provided for from the consolidated fund, or whe-
ther the more simple, and, I am boned to add,
anal mum is adopted, of charging the jointure
up
the emaolidated fund. (Hear, hear.) It may be
well the comenittre should understand that of coarse the
moderate pus rased by my noble fired for the nature of
the Pruner of Wales would be a jointure for her own seta-
, bailment, and it is obviate it is set • jOhltilre Old of which
it would be possible for any Princess of Wales to defray the
I very comidenthis amuses wird right be secearry =
' education of bee radon. (Boer, bear.) Bet toy hr.
Bird was sot esti* just is the obeerstkee be made in
regard to rams whir be said the etnetaired fend bed
to beards assess et the Prime of Wilma He rid we bad

paid • large sum on account of Marlborough-house. We
did, but we had valise received. (Hear, hear.) We bed the
use of Marlborough-house for important public purposes,
which would otherwise have cost us a considerable sum of
meaty during • number of years. (Hear, hear.) We bad
taken greet liberties with Marlborough.boues—in homely
phrase, we had palled it to pieces, and the sum voted was
merely to place it in the condition in which we found it.
Therefore we are not in • position to urge that that sum has
been voted to the Prince of Wales. (Hear, hear.) With
regard to the vote of money for the Prince of Walea's tour
In Canada end the United States, Out vote was not in aid
of the personal expenses of his royal highness, it was for
the purpose of meeting expenditure undertaken by the
Prince of Wales, while • minor, ors babel! of her Majesty,
and for purposes strictly political ; and whether we regard
his journey en Canada or in the United States, and the recap-
Coo be there met, 1 think it wee money well laid out.
(Cheers.) That vote, however, forms no item on the
question the home has to consider on the proposition of
my noble friend ; and I must say it is scarcely
just to refer to it. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend
says the Prince of Wales receives 16,0001. annually out of
the consolidated fund. No doubt he does, but what is the
history of that awn? It is • composition in lieu of revenues.
in which be would otherwise have been in reeeitat the
presenttime as Duke of Cornwall. (Hear, hear. There
were certain tin duties which were unquestionably own.
but it was thought expedient for the public interest, with
• view to the extension of commerce and for the benefit of
Cornwall, that these duties should be abolished ; and the
Duke of Cornwall, exactly like any other proprietor, re-
ceived compensation. (Hear, hear.) If so then it is per-
fectly obvious that a consideration of that bad cannot pos-
sibly enter into the present discursion. I have felt it right
to make these observations, and to show that the introduc-
tion of the annual payment of 16,0001. to the Prince of
Wales has no bearing upon the present question. It has
been said that this vote is in addition, whereas there
is no foundation for any supposition of the kind. (Cheers.)
Sr J. TRELAWNY wished to know what would become
of the income of the Prince of Wales from the duchy of
Cornwall in the event of his death. It was right they
should know what would become of that fend. He reool-
lected on a former occasion, when a settlement was made oa
the Princess Royal, marring the prime minister that, accord-
ing
to the peculiar tenure of the duchy, on the death of the 1
eldest son of the sovereign the property would revert to the '
mown. On that occasion it was maintained that he was
wroeg, no one in the house being aware of the fact he had
stated except himself and his bon. friend (Mr. A. Smith).
(Laughter.) The point to which he now wished to call at-
tsetion was of another character. Edmund Burke in his
speech on economical reform proposed that the re-
venues of the Duke of Cornwall and Lancashire should
be told, and the proceeds applied to the public exchequer.
What was the object? No doubt that the crown might
depend solely upon votes of parliament for all grante of
money. That was Burke's conservative policy. Why did
he (the boa member) refer to it? Because he should like
parliament to have the management of this property in
order to get as much out of it as possible, and thus diminish
the burdens of the people. If the property were judiciously
exchanged and sales took place at the right time and in a
proper manner, very large proceeds would have accrued,
and they would not have found themselves in their pretest
position that evening. He believed he was expreserng the
true feeling of the public out of doors ; but there was •
time when conservatives were bold enough to propose • re-
duction in • grant of this kind. With regard to the
16,0001., that might fairly be considered the Prince's property,
But if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been
in office when the tin duties were compounded, would he not
have abolished them? He did not wish to throw an apple
of discord into the home, but he knew the people out of
doors, and that they were not represented there. (Oh!) He
hoped they would not spend the public money without doe
consideratioo.
Mr. KENDALL said that in former times there was a Tag
onerous local tax which crushed the tinners of Cornwall,
but upon their application to parliament a compromise was
made, and while Cornwall was relieved, the public gene-
Telly were also benefited. Such being the case, he very
much regretted the remarks which had been made by
boa gentlemen consected with that county.

Mr. BOUVERIE thought his boo. friend (Sir J. Tre-
lawny) was rather unreasonable in complaining that
Burke s advice was not taken. If it bad been, parliament
would have had to provide now the full amount necessary
to maintain the dignity and station of the Prince. Those
reveoues which coat 12,00 W. a yearin management, and only
yielded 12,00 W. net a year before the council of the duchy of
Cornwall undertook their control, had by dint of good manse-
meat, which was greatly owing to the late Prince Consort,
risen highly in value—the income had been raised to
60,0001. a year and the expenses of management were be-
tween 7,0004 ear,
8,0004 ayear. This, he thought, was • suf .
cisot reason why we should not be guided by Burke's
advice in the matter. (Hear, hear.) What he wished prin-
cipally to say was that he totally disagreed with the state-
meet made by his hon. friend the member for Tavistock
(Sir J. Trelawny) that the public out of doors would
ridSthis amount. He believed the publie at large would
etthing of the kind. (Hear, hear.) On the
contrary, they would feel a sensation of agreeable
surprise at the moderation of the proposal. (Cheers.)
Prom what he had beard the general Impression was that
• larger proposal would have been made than that sub-
mitted by the noble lord, and he thought the public ought
to rejoice at the volunteer statement of his noble friend
that for the future the income of the duchy was not to be
anticipated by grants of leases for life. (Hear, hear.)
In ammo. to Mr. ATETON,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he wee
I not aware that an doubt at all existed upon the subject
of the ace= They were part of the income, and
were the legal property of the Duke of Cornwall. Parlia-
ment had no power to deal with them. (Hear, hear.) Their
amount had however been taken into consideration in deter-
raisin the amount of supplemental grant to his royal
kighass• (Hear, hear.)
The resolutions ware then agreed to and ordered to be
reported.

00B.RTTIT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the ceder of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Kr. H. BERKELEY, in a speech of some length, in
which be reiterated his allegations of bribery and istimi•
dation at elections, opposed the bill, which he denounced
r an inefficient measure.

Mr. M Mseoa end Lord BUIL= pointed out what
they considered to be defects in the bill.
Mr. Beetinck and Mr. J. J. Powell spoke spinet the
bill, and Mr. Phillips and Mr. Serjeant Pigott in favour of
the second reading.
Lord R. MONTAGU related incidents from which he
inferred that members of the government unduly influenced
electors.

Bir F. OOLDSMID thought the bill an important
amendment of the law.

Mr. iioiilionipported the second reading.
Sir G. GREY, observing that it was not pretended that
this bill would put down bribery altogether, and that all
it proposed to do was to reader bribery as difficult and its
detection as easy am possible, proceeded to reply to objec-
tions, professing an @aroma desire in the committee to
make the law as effectual as possible.
Alter • few remarks by Mr. BRADY and Mr. G 8177111111
the ball was reed a second time.
UNION RELIEF ACT (1862) CONTINUANCE BILL.
Mr. VILLIERS moved the second reading of the above
and stated that be had accepted a suggestion which
we. made ea the introduction of the bill that its duration
should be limited to the 9th of June, so that the question
involved in it should be again discussed this session. He
also would accede to • suggestion to extend the time over
which the payment of any loans raised on the security of the
rates should be spread from seven to fourteen years.
Several members connected with Lancashire spoke on the
subject, generally expreesiog their concurrence in the deci-
sion of the government to gave opportunity for further die.
cusaioo in which several point.of detail to which they
referred might be considered. Amongst other suggestions
that were pressed was one that the government should
make advances of public money to boards of guardians.
Mr. COBDEN accepted with satafactiou the alteration in
the time to which the bill extended. Although he was
more favourable to the giving large borrowing powers to the
guardians, yet the rate in aid was a part of the system of
oar poor law established in the interest of the poor, which
could not be set aside. He did not contemplate the neces-
sity of recurring to this resource if ample powers of borrow-
inilleglilrwas ven.reed a sowed time.
The Telegraphs Bill and the Malt Duty Bill were read a
second time.
On the motion for going into committee on the Births and
Deaths Registration (Ireland) Bill,
Lord NAAS moved an instruction to the committee to
make provision for the registration of marriages in Ireland.
After an animated debate, on a division the motion was
lost by 89 to 66.
The house then went into committee on the bill; Mr.
Mammy in the chair.
Colonel DUNNE, in moving that the chairman report
progress, said he thought it very desirable that the bill
should be postponed until after the assizes in Ireland. He
thought it most unfortunate that bills relating to that
country win generally brought forward when the majority
of the Irish members were absent.
The motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill wee nreeinmitted for the purpose of introducing
some verbal eatencloreate, and read a third time and pared.
DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

This bal as szoonded wee conekiered and agreed to.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL.
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the house should go into
amenities apes this bill.
Mr. FAME moved the adjournment of the boom.
Mr. LYGON appealed to the hon. member for Sheffield
whether be ought to pressed with the bill at so late an hour.
AN. a than discussion,
Mr. HADFIELD agreed to postmen the third reading of
the bill Wit Wedeseday. the 4th of March.
Mr. NEWDEGATE gave nodes that oa the third read-
ing be skald move the rejection of the bill.
The bill them went through committee pro forme.
PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT.

The boom having goes into committee,
1110110LEFIELD moved that the chairman be &lOW
to WPM He home that knee be given to bring in • bill to
mweed the kw roktieg to partnerships.
Tb imam was weed to, and the house named.