The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-24 00:00:00

BILL:

On the order of the day for the msooad meg of this bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY maid he had always thought the
house ought to have full information before it was called
pan to make say allowance out of theconsolidated fund.
'Hco
He had now looked through the report releting to the duchy
of Cornwall, and he contained it was highly creditsde to
all concerned. They had been faithful trustees and discharged
their duties honourably. This was not a question of a few
thousands, either one way or another. Having permed
the documents he had come to the conclusion that the pro-
position of the noble lord was a very fair and reasonable
one. (Hear, hear.) His objection on the previous occasion
had not been to the proposition itself. What he contended
was that they ought to have had information before the
vote was brought before them. Under these circumstance*
it Was a source of great pleasure to him to give a cordial
absent to the bill, end to express a hope that the Prince of
Wales would long live to enjoy the vote. (Cheers,)
Mr. WILLIAMS said the report showed the accumula-
tions were 600,0001., which did not seem to be accounted
for in the statement as to the probable revenue of the duchy.
Sir W. DUNBAR said there was a very simple explana-
tioa to this—the saving bad been paid over partly to the
treasurer of his royal highness, and partly to trustees on
his behalf. These moneys belonged strictly to his royal
highness', privy puree, and therefore the council of the
duchy felt they had no further concern with them. The
amount in the hands of the trustees was 593,0001. in the
Three per Ceuta., the value of which on Nov. llth. was,
547,7501.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that if the Prince of Wales was to
keep theme savings that ought to have been stated when the
vote was brought before them. He thought it was not
prudent to entrust so large an amount to his royal highness,
although he had the highest opinion of his character and
qualities.
Mr. WHALLEY begged to call attention to the remark-
able omission of the word " protestant.' in the marriage
contract in places where it bad occurred in the contract of
her Majesty with the late Prince Consort, but which had
been satisfactorily explained to him by the courtesy of the
noble lord at the had of the government. There was,
however, another discrepancy between the two contracts.
In the contract of her Majesty with the late lameuted
Prince it was provided that the children of the marriage
should be brought up according to the laws of the United
Kingdom, which of course meant they should be brought
up directly in the protestant religion, and that none of them
should be married without the sanction of the Queen or the
monarch of the United Kingdom for the time being. He
trusted uatidactory explanation would begiven on this point.
While indulging in feelings of loyalty they ought to be
careful of precedents and of the landmarks of the conatitu-
tion ; and at all events the Prince of Wales should not be led
to suppose by their silence on a matter of this kind that the
country was lass protestant than heretofore, or that it was
disposed to forego those guarantees of the protestant in-
tonate which were secured by the Bill of Rights.
Mr. HOPWOOD inquired whether the allowance for the
Prince of Wales would be paid without any deduction for
income tax?

Mr. T. HANKEY said the hon. member for Lambeth
was mistaken in supposing that the Prince of Wales would
receive from the duchy of Cornwall 60,0001., and that this
sum, added to the 40,0004 granted by the house, would
eve his royal highness a total income of 100,000/. a year,
and that this was totally 'irrespective of the accumulations.
Se far from that being the owe, the income of the duchy
was not more than 46,0001. or 47,0001. He thought it was
an error on the part of the government in giving so little.
With regard to the accumulations, he said it wee n
that hie royal highness should have an outfit, furnisheceldel7
borough-homeand purchase plate befitting the dignity of
his position. These exposer, together with the purchase
of the Sandringham estate, would come out of the accumu-
lations, from which the country would therefore benefit.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said if the boo. member thought
that the Prince of Wales was hardly need, it was open to
him to propose a further grant. The Prince had the hand-
ling of 600,0001. in the shape of accumulations; bet the
proper course would ham been to ham settled them um.
mnlations on the estate. It ought to be known that the
property of the Duchy of Cornwall, on the death of the
Wait son of the king, devolved upon the mown.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
when the boa. baronet roes be hoped he was going to
qualify the very strong statement he confidently made
the other day. It was necessary to notes that statement
as it imputed a breach of duty on the part of the govern-
ment which was utterly groundhog. He would not at-
tempt to give a full explanation of the circumstances
with regard to the inheritance of the Duchy of Cornwall.
According to such information as be had been able to obtain
ft was a much more difficult matter to understand than
appeared to has hon. friend ; but one thing was quite certain,
that his hon. friend was not right bet wrong in the positive
statement he had just repeated—viz., that on every occa-
sion when the Duke of Cornwall, being eldest son of the
king, died, the revenues of the duchy reverted to the crown.
It was not difficult to confute that statement. He would
not undertake to explain everything which bad happened on
these successions ; they did not appear to hang together on
any consistent ;rinciple, but certainly no conclusion
could be drawn from the facto consistent with the
statement of hie honourable friend. This, at any
rate, was quite clear—that in the Oetobsr following
the death of Arthur Prince of Wales, the son of Henry VII.,
a commission was issued under the great semi, Dot to deter-
mine, but to examine the question, and that commission
found that Henry, afterwards Henry VIE., the second be-
gotten son of his father, was Duke of °seawall. This was
a complete contradiction of hie hon. friesid's statement.
C Sir J. TitELAWNY—head the charter of the duchy of
ornwalL

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
speaking of the charter of the duchy, whisk was not the
enormous authority. The succession to the duchy wee
affected, not merely by the charter, but by an
act panted in the reign of Henry V., and like-
wise by the course of practice in different periods of our
history. The charter itself came under examination at •
more recent period because, on the death' of Prince Hairy,
eldest son of James 1., it was judicially considered. The
authorities of that day, sitting judidally in privy council,
mime to a cosolusion precisely opposite to that of his hon.
friend. In "Collins' Proceedings" the words wee--" In 1613
thequeetionagainbecanietheocciudon of solemn inquirybefore
the privy council, when it was resolved that the words of
limitation peaseseed the more extended meaning of (dins
primogenitus existet ; that upon the death of Henry Prince
of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, Charles Duke of York had,
both by reason and precedence, become entitled to the
honour, style, and dignity of Duke of Cornwall." There
were other cases on which discussion might be raised—the
succession of George Prince of Wales, afterwards George IL,
and the non-imootesion of George, eon of Frederick Prince
of Wales, afterwards George 111. These cases proved that
his hon. friend was a good deal too trenchant in the con-
demnation he pronounced, and that his rumen:hes were not
so complete as bethought.
Sir J. TEELAWNY said he bad looked at the matter
very closely, and the statement he bed made was founded
on the authority of the celebrated decision of Lord Tenter-
den.

Lord PALMERSTON— I wish to answer the question
which by been put to me with regard to the accumula-
tkins. It has beet stated by my hoe. !riled near me that
the total amount of the sccumulatioes is 540,0001. Of that
sum 220,0001. was invested in the imams of the Norfolk
estate, which produces a uorouial metal of 7,0001., but pro-
bably with the momeary deduction, only 5,0001. • year.
The outst of his royal highnom was reekaaed at 100,0001..
which would make TAM. Then it was calculated, that
to enlarge the house at flaisebieghem, so as to make it suit-
able to dignity of the Prince, a sem of 60,0001. et least
would be required. Thus 350,0001. out el the 540,0001. is
disposed of. There are also • great numbered firms belong-
ing to thedochy which have been let for long periods, sod the
legate of which fall in from time to time, when the buildi op
upon them will require • bum sum to be put in proper
repair. A sum of not leer than from 100,000/. to
120,0001. will be required for that purpose. This amount,
together with the others I have mentioned, will go • great
way to absorb the 540,0001. of accumulation. It is quite
true that 120,0001. laid out on agricultural improvements
would probably produce an inerease of the income arising
from the fame, but that will not be immediate.
Therefore I think that the aesumulanies of 540,0001. will
give a very idiOt addition to the ordinary revenues of the
duchy. The difference between 46.0001. and the sum of
160,000/., which in round numbers I assumed would be
received frees the derby, is made op partly of the aunt of
the fisedrimileme estate and some MU, aria details into
which it is eenisesseary to enter' but, me the whom, the
income may be maid to be about 60,0001. • Malley)
My boo.
nd frie the somber for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) takes •
view with regard to the marriage twisty. ais the
guardian of that interest, and it is quite right it should be
properly attended te, but I ma mere him that