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

TIES BILL.

Lord P ALMER ST ON moved the second reading of this
bill.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that in the debate on the
resolutions for bringing in this bill, he took occasion to ex-
press his regret that the evidence upon which the bill was
founded was not before the house. He still felt that regret,
because he held that, whenever grants of money from the
Consolidated Fund were made, it was the duty of that house
to see that its members were in a position to explain to their
constituents the reasons for such a vote. After referring to
the vote for the last Prince of Wales, and to the accumula-
tions during the present Prince's minority, the hon. baronet
said that, after considering the document that had been laid
before Parliament, he had come to the conclusion that the
proposition of the Government was a fair and reasonable
one. (Hear, hear.) His objection on the previous night t was
not to the proposition, but to the want of information
.for
the guidance of the house. He had much pleasure 111 gt v-
fug his cordial assent to the bill, and at the same timehe

expressed a hope that his Royal Highness would live lon
to enjoy the provision. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS called attention to the figures as
given in the report of the Council of the Duchy, and pointed
out what he considered a discrepancy in the accounts, and
wished for an explanation of the Prince's financial position.
Sir W. DUNBAR explained what had been done by the
Council of the Duchy of Cornwall, and said that the £600,000
accumulations belonged to his Royal Highness's private
purse. That sum had been invested by the trustees of his
Royal Highness in the Three per Cents. for his benefit.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that being the case it ought to
have been staZ,ed to the se before the former vote was
taken. He had the highest opinion of the character of his
Royal Highness, but he thought it was not very prudent in
trusting him with the entire control of so large a sum of
money. He believed that feeling was participated in by the
country generally.

Mr. WHALLEY called attention to the treaty of mar-
riage, which he said was remarkable in its omission of
the word " Protestant," in describing the Princess. (Oh,
oh, and laughter.) It was a matter that deserved the at-
tend, n of the house, inasmuch as that when a like omission
took place in the marriage contract between her Majesty
and the late Prince Consort, it called forth a strong expres-
sion of opinion from the late Duke of Wellington as to its
being the very foundation of the constitution, and the word
" Protestant" was afterwards inserted. The noble lord had
given him an explanation that satisfied him on that point,
but he had another discrepancy to point out to him between
the marriage contract of the Queen and her late lamented
husband and that of the Prince and Princess of Wales, and
that was with reference to the special provision for bringing
up the children in the Protestant religion. He therefore
asked the noble lord why that omission had taken place in
the present instance ?
Mr. HOPWOOD asked whether the annual grant to the
Prince would be paid free from income tax
Mr. T. HAN KEY said that the remarks of the hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) were calculated to mislead
the public. He understood the hon. member to hold that
the income derivable from the duchy would be £60,000, and
that, with the £40,000 a year to be voted by Parliament,
would make up the total income to £lOO,OOO, independently
of the accumulations. But that would not be the case, for
the net income derivable from the duchy could not be taken
at more than £46,000 or £47,000 a year; and the difference
between that amount and the £60,000 a year would have to
be partly made up out of the proceeds of the accumulations.
And therefore the country did derive some advantage from
the accumulations. (Hear, hear,) Indeed, as over £200,000
had been paid for Sandringham, he could not quite see how
the income of £60,000 was to be made up. In his opinion
the Government had rather erred in voting too little than
too much. It must be remembered that his Royal High-
ness would have to defray the expense of his outfit as well
as the expense of furnishing Marlborough House and Sand-
ringham, besides purchasing plate suitable for his rank
and dignity ; and certainly a sum of £200,000 was not too
much for such a purpose. (Hear, hear.) In that way a sum
of over £400,000 would be disposed of, and the total accu-
mu'ations only amounted to £540,000.
Sir J: TRELAIS NY thought the hon. member had
proved too much in calling upon Parliament to make a
further grant to his Royal Highness. However, it was open
to him to make the proposal if he thought the Prince was
hardly used. It certainly appeared to him that they were
acting rashly in placing so large a sum as £600,000 at the
disposal of a young man just entering life. Notwithstand-
ing all that was said the other night, he thought it ought to
be well understood that, upon the demise of the Prince of
Wales, the property of the duchy reverted to the Crown.
The CHANCE eI,OR of the EXCHEQUER was bound
to say the hon. baronet the member for Tavistock delivered
himself with a confidence which his statement did not jus-
tify. He would not attempt to give a full explanation of
the law regarding the inheritance of the Duchy of Cornwall,
though he might observe that, according to the information
which he had been able to obtain, it was much more diffi-
cult to understand than it appeared to the hon. baronet. It
was, however, quite certain that the hon. baronet was en-
tirely wrong in his statement, that upon all occasions of the
death of the Frince of Wales the revenues of the duchy re-
verted to the Crown. In the October following the death
of Prince Arthur, son of Henry VII., a commission was
issued to examine the question, and the commission found
that Prince Henry, afterwards Henry VIM, the second
son of his father, was Duke of Cornwall.
Sir J. TRELAWNY—Read the w, rds of the charter.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
referring to the charter, for the charter was not the
supreme authority in the matter, as the succession to the
Duchy was regulated by an Act passed in the reign of
Henry V., as likewise by the course of practice at
different periods of our history. In the case of the death
of Prince Henry, the eldest son of James 1., the charter
was judically considered, and the Privy Council came to a
conclusion precisely opposite to that of the hon. baronet.
There were other instances as to which discussion might b
raised ; for example, the succession of George, Prince

Wales, afterwards George 11., to the duchy, and the non
succession of Prince George, afterwards George 111. But
the facts generally showed that his hon. friend had been
altogether too trenchant in the condemnation he had pro-
nounced.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said his observations were found.
upon the celebrated decision of Lord Tenterden.
Lord PALMERSTON—I wish to answer a question put
to me with regard to the accumulations. As stated by my
hon. friend, the total value of the accumulations is £540,000
in money, and of that £220,000 were invested in the purchase
of the Norfolk estate, which produces an effective income of
about £5,000. Well, then, the outfit of his Royal Highness
is reckoned to amount to about a sum of £lOO,OOO, and it is
calculated that the expense of enlarging the house at San-
dringham, so as to constitute a residence suitable to the
dignity of the Prince, will come to at least £60,000. There •
fore a sum of £380,000 out of the total accumulation is dis-
posed of. But, further, there ate, as is well known, a great
number of farms belonging to the duchy which have been
let either for a long period of years or for lives, and, with
respect to the buildings upon those farms, on the falling in
of the leases there will have to be a large outlay for the pur-
poses of repairs and reconstruction ; indeed, not less than
£120,000 will have to be so expended. Well, adding that
to the £380,000 already disposed of, and you go a good way
towards absorbing the whole of the £540,000. At the same
time it is undoubtedly true that the £120,000 last men-
tioned would produce an increase of income, but it would
not be immediate, and the amount would be liable to uncer-
tainty. But I think my hon. friend will perceive that the
accumulations of £540,000 will give very little additional
income to the ordinary revenue of the duohy. The dif-
ference between the income of £16,000 and the £60,000 is
made up partly of the rents of the Sandringham estate and
other small details which it is unnecessary to specify. Now
my hon. friend the member for Peterborough (Mr. WhalleY)
has put forward a view which, as the guardian of certain
interests— (a laugh)—he is quite right in demanding proper
attention to ; but I can assure him that the omission which
he has noticed in the treaty does not involve any neglect of
that fundamental principle of the British constitution,
namely, that the Sovereign and Royal family of these
realms should be of the Protestant religion. The treaty for
the marriage of the Prince of Wales is founded precisely
upon the treaty for the marriage of the Prince of Wales,
afterwards George IV., and there was no mention in that
treaty of the article referred to by my hon. friend. It was
inserted in the marriage treaty of the Queen, but my hon.
friend will see at once that between the two cases there is a
leading principle of distinction. (Hear, hear.) It is well
known that the husband has a certain amount of domestic
control over the education of his children, and therefore
where the husband is a foreigner it may be right to intro-
duce a specific article of the character in question in the
treaty of marriage. But where the husband is Prince of
Wales it is not thought necessary to insert the condition;
and my hon. friend may be perfectly assured that there is
not the slightest chance of the children of this marriage—
and I hope they may be many—(laughter and cheers)—
being educated in any other religion than that which hat
been appointed by the laws of the country. I have only to
add that, as is well known, the incomes of all the RoyaL
family are subject to the income-tax. (Hear, hear.)
The bill was then read a second time.
CERTIFICATES ;OF INSANITY.

whether his
InenalotfleHall V. Semple,"
Secretaryof supply,
mOnr.thßeumToTtionasfkoerdgothinagto
attention had been
called
of Queen's Bench • and whether
reoentliryltetrnield..‘topr-074any change in the: law. relating
inttoemoocue
it the
was rtigmtea required in alleged cases of insanity e
togireGos.
GREY said his attention had been directed to the
case, but it was the opinion of the lunacy commissioflers
that no change in the law was requisite in order to tobet it.
The fact was, that in the case of " Hall v. Semple" the law
had been violated ; but he hoped that the circulars which
had been since addressed to the keepers of asylums would
effectually prevent the recurrence of such infringement of
the law.
THE DEPORTATION OF NEGROES TO MEXICO.
Mr. BUXTON called the attention of her Majesty's
Government to the purchase and deportation from Egypt
of a negro regiment by the Emperor of the French. He
could not but regard the transaction as of a very cruel
character, for the manner in which the negroes were ob-
tained in Egypt made it amount to an exercise of the slave
trade.

Lord PA.LMEESTON—My hon. friend has adverted to
a transaction which certainly was a very irregular and
a very unfortunate one; indeed, as regards the execu-
tion of some of its details it was liable to greater censure
than my hon. friend has applied to it. The facts of the
case were these : The French Government finding that the
exposure of the French troops to the climate of Mexico
was attended with a great amount of sickness, thought
that by enlisting a certain number of Africans they
might secure the service of a body of men, who, by consti-
tution, would be better able to undergo exposure to service
in Mexico. They accordingly sent orders to Egypt to en-
deavour to enlist 10,000 men for service there. The late
Pasha, who was a very easy-tempered man, was even dis-
posed to exceed the demand made upon him ; and moreover,
the system of administration in Egypt is, I am sorry to say,
in many respects tainted with the barbarous usages of times
gone by, and amongst these usages there prevails the prac-
tice of compelling forced labour, and of seizing men whether
they will or not, for the purposes of employment. Well,
the rash% of Egypt, without a moment's delay, ordered a