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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20,_ 1863,

IMPERIAL P

HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening.
The LORD CuARCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

POLAND.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH gave notice that to-
morrow he should ask the noble earl the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether there was any intention of lay-
ing on the table a despatch from the Consul-General at
Warsaw as far as related to the origin of the insurrection
in Poland, and also to ask the noble lord whe-
ther any despatch had been received from the Russian
Government relative to the origination of the outbreak;
and also whether any communication had been received
from the Prussian Government as to the means to be taken
for its suppression. _ _

ROME,
The Marquis of NORMANBY complained of some mis-
representation which had been made of a despatch which
he had written, and which bad been referred to by the
noble ear: opposite (Russell) the other evening.
Earl RUSSELL said he had quoted the despatch re-
ferred to by the noble marquis for the purpose of proving
the general positim of the advantage of giving advice to
countries to follow the practice and usage of constitutional
liberty. He had not meant to imply that on the particu-
lar question at issue the sentiments of the noble marquis
were different from what they were.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said everything in the
despatch referred to a particular transaction and did not give

a general opinion. He had also to complain of the de-

Bpatch being quoted, although he had been checked for

doing the same with other despatches which were not

produced,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it was a general
rule that no public cfficial had a right to give documents
which he came to the knowledge of through his official posi-

tion till they were published.
Earl RUSSELL said he had not violated the general rule,
as at the time he referred to the papers he announced that

it was the intention to publish them.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
,
The Earl of CARNABNO N called the attention of the
house to the state of discipline in the different gaols and

houses of correction. The noble earl said the criminal

population was divided into two classes, namely, those who
were sentenced to three years penal servitude and over, and
those sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment. The
Royal Commission would only inquire into the former, the

latter would be altogether overlooked. It was of the ut-

most importance that a Government inquiry into
the subject should be made, especially as in
some instances the old system of association was kept up
in many of the country gaols. The system of taking sta-
tistics was exceedingly defective, because they were
always in arrest of the present time; but takinFt those up
to 1861, he found there was an increase of 13 per cent. in

the committals over those of the preceding year an increase

of 9 over committals, and an increase upon other classes.
There was not the slightest reason to believe that there was

any decrease in the following year, whilst in the present the
alarm caused by the increase of crime had been so great
that numbers of persons looked upon it as unsafe to walk
in the streets after dark. He thought a great deal of the
evil was brought about by the kind of punishment
inflicted. Since 1850, when the subject was under the con-

aideration of the House of Commons, the system in the
gaols was admitted to be against hard labour, and an act
stating the limits to which it was applied was passed. The
reality, however, was that in most of the gaols the stan-
dard of hard labour was very far from being reached, and
they would find that in recent cases the minimum of six
hours labour sunk down to three or four. In many large
prisons there was a great deficiency in the means of
carrying out the punishment of hard labour, whilst the
dietary was far too high, meat being given in some form or
other every day of the week. Not content with this the
luxuries of tea, sugar, cocoa, and other articles were pro-
fusely given. In one of the prisons what was called extra
diet was allowed, and this indulgence was given with-
out the slightest rule, as was evidenced by the fact
tint while in some the prisoners extra dieted was as 1 to 8,
in others it was as 3. to 35. The diet given in workhouses
had been compared with that given in prisons, and he knew
for a fact that in some workhouses in the south meat was
seldom given, and that the diet was much below that of pri-
sons. The workdone in workhouses was far more severe than
in some prisons he could mention, yet in the one case the in-
mates of workhouses were perfectly willing to earn their sub-

sistence, while in the other complying with the rules of the
prison was all that was required to secure good and plenti-

ful food. He was not an advocate for etaivation of crimi.

nals, yet he thought there was a medium between that
and the plentiful manner in which they were treated ; and
if that were only observed, and offenders were treated in a
manner their offences deserved, they would do much to
bring about a better state of things. The decrease in the
infliction of whipping was most extraordinary. In 1862-60
it appeared that one in every 1,000 prisoners was whipped t
in the following year, 1860-61, only one in I,boo ; and in
1861-62 the proportion had decreased to one in 2,240. The
inspectors had resolved upon its discontinuance, and the
whole course of Parliamentary action had been against the
infliction of corporal punishments. But brutalised men,
who had over and over again been convicted, feared corpo-
ral punishment when nothing else had terrors for them. As
to the hours of rest, too, there were great differences between
gaols. In some 14 hours of sleep were allowed, in others
only eight hours. The present system was mischievous as
regarded the prisoner. It was a mere gambling with the
chances of the law, and most painful as regarded the admi-
nistration of justice. Lord Denman, Baron Parke, whose
absence he regretted on that occasion—(here Baron Parke,
now Lord Wensleydale, bowed to the noble earl, who pro-
ceeded)—Baron Parke and Baron Alderson had an declared
their ()pink ns that suitable punishment for crime was the
most merciful course in the long run. He did not wish to
exclude moral reformation--God forbid I but he thought that
attempts at moral reformation should be secondary and sub-
ordinate to punishment. His lordship was cheered on re-
suming his seat.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the subject was a very
difficult one. As to the hard labour, there were many men
with whom you could not carry labour beyond a certain

point. To make some men do unproductive labour was more
irksome than any other punishment. As to the diet, the pro-
bability was that the system was rather too lenient. Publio
opinion had gone in opposition to the former system, and
had deprecated undue severity, and the result had been that
too much attention had been paid to the comfort and too
little to the punishment of prisoners. However, the Go-
vernment could not do much on that point. The visiting
justices arranged the rules of the county gaols. Sir Benja-
min Brodie, who was not likely to be unduly influenced,
said that so serious was the effect of confinement on prisoners
that great care should be taken of their dietary. He (Earl
Granville) believed that if they compared the entire cost of
the keep of paupers with that of prisoners, it would be found
that the paupers cost two-fifths more than the prisoners.
As to his noble friend's example in support of the advan-
tages of prison life, that prisoners often thanked the judge
for sentencing them to hard labour, he (Earl Granville)
much doubted the sincerity of such thanks. Prisoners liked
to appear bold, and when they had heard the worst, they
liked to—as the common expression had it—they liked to
" chair the judge. (Laughter.) His noble friend might rely
upon it that the greatest boon that could be granted to those,
and to all prisoners, would be to let them out. (Hear, hear.)
t
The food of prisoners must be sufficient, in order to prevent
their bodies from being wasted by low fever. Evenfroervthne
sake of moral reformation they must have a sound body,
in order that the mind might be sound. (Hear, hear.) The
prisons, too, might be properly warmed and ventilated.
It would be very difficult to secure consistency andunifor-
mity in all the gaols without strengthening the central
power. But, if the noble earl would move for a committee
of their lordships—as he had suggested to one of his (Earl
Granville's) colleagues—to take up the subject of gaols
and discipline, her Majesty's Government would have no
objection. The recommendations of such a committee
would have great weight with the justices.
The Earl of MALMESI3LIRY said that he could certify
as well as his noble friend that the pauper was less well off
than the occupant of the county gaol. He had often heard
them say, " Why, 'tis better to be in Winchester Gaol than
to get out-door relief." The allowances for soldiers and
sailors were less than the allowances for diet in some of the
gaols. The effect must be very bad upon men who see cri-
minals better off than those who have passed their lives
honestly labouring, or in the service of her Majesty. Cri-
minals ought to be convinced that the punishment for their
e would be certain, and that the sentences passed by
the judges would be immutable. But at present they think
they may
__escape altogether ; or, if convicted, that their sen-
tence will not be carried out,
Lord 'wren
0
had quoted USE said that the noble lord opposite
the Crirainal
increase upon the
preceding year,but rather look
at year ; but he should not take
Undoubtedly there had the average of a number of years,
zeincrease in 1861 over the
preceding year ; but in 1860 t
decrease
had
eena great decrease
upon the returns of 1859, and
cobeenitthee con-
stant rule back to 1857. In 18b7 the tai
1!2,00, whereas in 1861 they were only 18,226. For the
five years from 1847 to 1851 the committals were 142,771;
in the five years from 1852 to 1856 they were 129,335;
whilst for the last five years they amounted to only 89423;
so that there was a continuous decrease in the number of
committals. The great defect of the prison system was
want of uniformity. The prisoners required good food ;
but there was no occasion to supply them with luxuries.
Lord WENSLEYDALE thought the prison diet too
good. In Prussia lie had visited the principal prison,
which was modelled after Pentonville, rind he found that
there the prisoners were only allowed 21bs of meat in the
year. They received only half a pound each on each of
the four holidays in the year. That was the entire allow-
ance of flesh meat which the prisoners received.
Lord TRURO advocated the giving of more generous
diet to prisoners than to paupers, the prisoners not being
allowed the fresh air and exercise which the paupers en-
joyed.

The Marquis of SALISBURY thought that it would be
very useful to have the committee, but they did not want to
hear many witnesses. They should examine the reports of
the prisons and of the former committees of both houses,

and hear the evidence of some of the prison inspectors. He
hoped his noble friend would accept the committee.
The Earl of CATHCART advocated good diet, and
strongly disapproved of whipping in gaols.
The Earl of CARNARVON accepted the offer of the
committee, and appointed Friday (this day) t move for it.

rated with an arrangement for the payment of the large
debts at that time due by his royal highness ; but the I otal
amount of allowance which was granted, including that
portion which was set aside for the liquidation of debt, was
£138,000 a year, placed partly upon the Civil List and partly
upon the Consolidated Fund. And although for a certain
number of years the appropriation of a large portion of that
amount reduced the available income of the then Prince of
Wales to something, I believe, between £60,000 and

£70,000, yet I apprehend that about the year 1806, those

debts having been liquidated, the Prince of Wales of that

day then entered into the receipt of the £138,000. It is not

the intention of her Majesty's Government nor the desire
of her Majesty that the present application to Parliament
should be founded upon what was proposed for the
then Prince of Wales. (Hear.) His Royal Highness
the Prince of Wales is in the enjoyment of the revenues of

the Duchy of Cornwall, and to the honour of her Majesty
and the late Prince Consort be it said, that whereas in for-
mer reigns it was understood, and was the practice, that
during the minority of the Prince of Wales the revenues of
the i uchy of Cornwall were added to the available income

of the Crown, in the present reign those revenues have been
carefully and studiously set apart to accumulate for the be-
nefit of the Prince when he came to be of age. Those ac-
cumulations, or a very considerable part of them, have been

invested in the purchase of land, of an estate which has
been bought in the county of Norfolk, the purchase money
of which was, I believe, £220,000, upon a nominal rental of
£7,000 a year, but which probably, with those usual deduc-
tions to which estates are subject—(laughter)—and which
many hon. gentlemen will well understand, may not pro-

duce more than £5,000 of available income. A part must be
set aside for the outfit of his royal highness, who will pro-

bably want more than he did at college of those things which
are necessary to form an establishment, and part also will

be required for the purpose of building upon the Norfolk

estate a mansion more suitable than the present one to the

dignity and station of the Prince of Wales. Making these
deductions, the details of which I will not trouble the house
with going into, the actual probable income from the Duchy
of Cornwall, together with the income arising from these
investments and the remaining accumulations, may be
taken in round numbers at £60,000 a••yeir. We think that

a sum of £lOO,OOO a year would not be disproportionate to
those expenses which naturally fall upon a person in the

exalted position of his Royal Highness the Prince of Walea
(Cheers.) I shall therefore have to propose to the house

to grant £40,000 a year upon the Consolidated Fund for

the establishment of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

:Renewed cheers.) But those whom I am now address-

ing, and who are not, fortunately for them, in the single
and bachelor condition—(a laugh)—will know that there
are expenses which the Princess of Wales will be ex-
posed 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 £lO,OOO a year for her own separate use.
The resolutions, therefore, which I shall have to propose to
the house will therefore, in the whole, amount to a charge
of £50,000 a year—S4o,ooo for the aggregate establishment
and £lO,OOO for the separate use of the Princess. (Cheers.)
I should mention that up to the time when the Duchy of
Cornwall was managed under a commission, over which
the late Prince Consort presided, it was the custom of the
duchy to grant long leases or lite leases at a reduced rate
upon the payment of a heavy fine, and those fines formed a
material element in the annual income of the Duke of Corn-
wall. 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 granting such leases in future, and ordering that the
duchy property should be managed in the usual way in
which properties 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 evhe may fol-
low after. (Hear, hear.) I am told that the bill is in actual
course of production, and will without delay be submitted
to the house. Hon. gentlemen will naturally be desirous of
seeing more amply than it would be fitting for me to detai
upon the present occasion the condition of the duchy and the
state of its revenues and property. There is a very correct
and detailed 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 provision
made for the jointure to be given to the Princess of
Wales in the event, which we trust will not happen, of
her surviving her husband, the Prince of Wales. In the
case of the Princess of Wales, the wife of George IV.,
the jointure was fixed at £50,000 a year. We do not pro-
pose that, in the present case, it should be fixed at so high
an amount—we think that £30,000 a year would be suffi-
cient, 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 has been stipulated
for the princess who is now to be Princess of Wales, yet
setting the one against the other, though the allowance is
greater—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 hands the first
resolution. (Cheers.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered the proposition of
the noble lord to be moderate and reasonable, with one ex-
ception—he thought the £40,000 a year should be at the
command of the house. (No, no.) They were placed in
considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter, because
the whole question turned upon the condition of the finances
of the Duchy of Cornwall, about which hon, members at pre-
sent knew nothing. He did not object to the allowance of
£lOO,OOO a year—that was a fair and reasonable charge, but
the house was not in a position to form a judgment as to
the charge to be made upon the consolidated fund until
they had seen the accounts. He did not quite agree in
the historical account given by the noble viscount, because
he did not believe that Frederick Prince of Wales, in 1745,
had £lOO,OOO. He believed that the allowance on that occa-
sion was £60,000 a year, and that it was no, till some years
had elapsed, and his royal highness had a family grown up,
that he had £lOO,OOO a year.
Mr. WILLIAMS wanted to ask whether the noble lord,
in the accounts which he had promised to lay before the
house, would state the amount that had 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 house
to enable them to judge whether this additional sum of
£lO,OOO 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 house
would have been called upon to vote anything out of the
consolidated fund for the Prince of Wales. Already a large
portion of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall came out
of the consolidated fund, and large sums had been paid
from time to time for the Prince of Wales, including £20,000
for Marlborough house and £6,000 for stabling attached to
Marlborough-house, and last year, notwithstanding that
some £40,000 was paid for the privy purse of his royal
highness, the public were called upon to pay his expenses
L. Canada, amounting to something; like £14,000. The total
amount of the various charges paid dunk g the minority
of the Prince of Wales was very nearly £50,000
a year, and he hoped, therefore, the house would
at least pause before they determined upon this
additional payment out of the consolidated fund. He
was glad to learn that a bill would be introduced relat-
ing to the duchy, because it had been shown that the ex-
pense of management was about 20 per cent, ; and this was
a lesson to show bow expensive it was to provide for the
princes of the royal fatally by anything lilra landod *obit°o.
As regarded the dower of the Princess of Wales, it appeared
to him that instead of its being settled on the consolidated
fund it ought to be fixed on the revenue] of the duchy
(Oh, oh.) The revenues of the duchy were so peculiar that
ha believed on the death of a Prince of Wales they would
not go to a son, supposing he had one, but would revert to
the crown. It was quite clear that an additional revenue of
£60,000 a year to the sovereign would be altogether waste,
and therefore he hoped the Government would consider
whether it was not wise and just that the dower of the
Princess of Wales should be settled on the revenues of the
duchy. There were one or two other points on which he
wished to have some explanation. Ile wished to know
whether the £600,000, part of which had been expended on
the new estate at Sandringham, was to be tied up with the
revenue of the duchy, or whether it was to be regarded as
the private property of the Prince of Wales. lie was en-
deavouring to point out incidents connected with this set-
tlement so as to secure the publio at large against being un-
faimrlyr. RcDhwairsogueld with a heavy expenditure which ought not
to fall upon them.
Ad EhLa
vle—bSeier
n, I
passeds h ould haveihope c
01
n tthattheradic e
n treso-
lutione_(loud cheers)—but as it has met with some unexpected and
unnl
hon.bele cegeves ens at
to
lreymb de:
nat. chgue es feeling
, on
nt
thinkthat the tsiht
semi
dpyer dutysti
ht
iet oo
nheooxufps rte
he, sosa
nwdh oat
noble
f
Iporrodp
oi ssiat toenm. p e(rca
ht ee,ear
sn.d) Ivarh aev e
trust o d
ito umbaty abewaedlleqcounasteid,eanredd
I think no one can describe it as excessive. What strikes
me as most remarkable in the observations of the hon. gen-
tleman a-cl others that have been made is, that the good
management of the Duchy of Cornwall is brought forward
as a reason why we should not assent to this proposition.
(Hear, hear.) It appears to me that we ought to be
thankful for that good management of the duchy, and not
make it a basis for an argument in favour of the reduoticn
of the vote proposed by her Majesty's Government.
(Cheers.) It is very possible that the duchy may be even
better managed in the future than in the past. It is very
possible the rents and revenues may be increased in time,
as 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 pru-
dence and discretion on the part of his Royal Highness
he
cvhoeicerie,n
good use(Hear,hear.) therefore trust the house will
maY find means to employ that increase and put it to a
(Hear,allow the vote to pass without—l will not say without a dis-
sentient
gb)_ut ztidliefastthewreithboeutanaypointdissentient
detail
vote—
(generalin
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 them at some future stage of
the bill. (Loud cheers from both sides of the house.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I
wish to say, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that
I admit the perfect fairness of the claim of the hon, baronet
the member for Evesham to reserve his judgment on the

proposal so favourably received by the house until 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 points 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 hon. gentleman opposite, and think

it would be desirable—and I have no doubt we shall see it
as the result—that the house will give a cheerful and un-
divided assent to the proposi ion, (Cheers) The hon.

baronet the member for Evesham impeached my noble

friend's history, and said that Frederick Prince of Wales
did not obtain the allowance of £lOO,OOO per annum from
the civil list until a later period than the year named by

my noble frend. The noble lord named 1745, and it does
E 0 happen that his history was in a veil, minute point open
to impeachment, for instead of Frederick Prince of Wales
obtaining than, 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), who said he thought

the jointure of the Princess of " ales ought to be charged
upon the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, That might
be a point of moment for consideration if we were in cir-
cumstances in which, while we had a Prince of Wales and
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 is to be perceived —(hear, hear)—
and I apprehend so long as you have a Prince of Wales and
Duke of Cornwall to provide for, it is immaterial to the

public purse whether the jointure of the Princess of Wales
is taken from the revenues:of the:duchy in the first instance,
which would leave so much more to be provided for from the

consolidated fund, or whether the more simple, and, I am
bound to add, usual course is adopted, of charging the
jointure upon the consolidated fund. (Hear.) It may be
well the committee should understand that of course the
moderate sum named by my noble friend for the jointure of
the Princess of Wales would be a jointure for her own esta-

bli4ment. and it is obvious it is not a jointure out of which
iL wouia princes. Wo.l +n rinfrap the

very considerable expenses which might be necessary in the
education of her children. (Hear.) But my hon. friend
was not entirely just in the observations he made in regard
to charges which he said the consolidated fund had to bear
on account of the Prince of Wales. He said we had paid a

large sum on account of Marlborough-house. We did, but
we had value received. (Hear, hear.) We hsd the use of

Marlborough-house for important public purposes, which
would otherwise have cost us a considerable sum of money
during a number of years. (Hear, hear.) We had taken
great liberties with Marlborough-house—in homely phrase,
we had pulled it to pieces, and the sum voted was merely
to place it in the condition in which we found it. There-
fore we are not in a 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 Wales's tour
in Canada and the United States, that 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 a minor, on behalf of her Majesty,
and for purposes strictly political ; and whether we regard
his journey in Canada or in the United States, and the re-

ception he there met with, I think it was money well laid
out. (Cheers.) That vote, however, forms no item on the
question the house has to consider in 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 re-
ceives £16,000 annually out of the Consolidated fund. No
doubt he does; but what is the history of that sum? It is
a composition in lieu of revenues, in which he would other-
wise have been in receipt at the present tiros as Duke of
Cornwall. (Hear, hear.) There were certain tin duties
which were unquestionably his own, but it was thought
expedient for the public interest, with a view to the exten-
sion of commerce and for the benefit of Cornwall, that these
duties should be abolished ; and the Duke of Cornwall,
exactly like any other proprietor, received compensation.
(Hear, hear.) If so, then it is perfectly obvious that a con-
sideration of that kind cannot possibly enter into the pre-
sent discussion. I have 'felt it right to make these observa-
tions, and to show that the introduction of the annual pay-
ment of £16,000 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 supposi-
tion of the kind, (Cheers.)
Sir J. TRELAWNY wished to know what would be-
come 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 fund. He recol-
lected on a former occasion, when a settlement was made on
the Princess Royal, assuring the Prime Minister that, ac-
cording to the peculiar tenure of the duchy, on the death of
the eldest son of the Sovereign the property would revert to
the Crown. On that occasion it was maintained that he was
wrong, no one in the house being aware of the fact he had
stated except himself and his hon. friend (Mr. A. Smith).
(Laughter.) The point to which he now wished to call at-
tention was of another character. Edmund Burke in his
speech on economical reform proposed that the revenues of
the Duke of Cornwall and Lancashire should be sold, 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 grants of money. That
was Burke's Conservative policy. Why did he (the hon.
member) refer to it ? Because he should like Parliament
t e 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 present position that
evening. He believed he was expressing the true feeling of
the public out of doors ; but there was a time when Conser-
vatives were bold enough to propose a reduction in a grant
of this kind. With regard to the £16,000, 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 house, but he knew the people out of doors, and that
they were not represented there. (Oh I) Re hoped they
would not spend the public money without due consideration.
Mr. KENDALL said that in former times there was a
whichpoi
n at
ocnrustheepd
atrhleiamtinennteras ocforaCoplllro.-
Nyvearlyl, obnuetruouposnloctahleitraxa
mise was made, and while Cornwall was relieved, the public)
generally were also benefited. Such being the case, he very
much regretted the remarks which had been made by hon.
gentlemen connected with that county.
Mr. BOUV ERIE thought his hon. friend (Sir J. Tre-
lawny) was rather unreasonable in complaining that
Burke's advice was not taken. It it had been, Parliament
would have had to provide now the full amount necessary
to maintain the dignity and station of the Prince. Those
revenues which cost £12,000 a year in management, and only
yielded £12,000 net a year before the council of the Duchy of
unwell undertook their control, had 1,37 dint of good
management, which was greatly owing to the late Prince
Consort risen highly in value—the income had been raised
to £50,000 a year, and the expense of management were be-
tween £7,000 and £B,OOO a year. This, he thought, was a
sufficient 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-
ment made by his heal. friend the member for Tavistock
(Sir J. Trelua ny) that the people out of doors would grudge
this amount. He believed the public at large would do no•
thing of the kind. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, they
wmild fsal a sensation of agreeable anrprise at the modera-
tion of proposal. (Cheers.) From what he had heard the
general impression was that a larger proposal would have
been made than that submitted by the noble lord, and he
thought the public ought to rejoice at the volunteer state-
ment 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 reply to a question from Mr. AYRTON,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that
the accumulations, having been made out of income which
was legally the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, were of
course to be regarded as belonging to the Prince of Wales,
and that their amount had been taken into view by the
Government in considering the vote now before the house.
The resolution was then agreed to nem. con.
The following resolutions were likewise proposed, and
agreed to nem. con.:—
" That the annual sum of £IC,OOO be granted to her Ma-
jesty out of the said Consolidated Fund, to be paid quar-
terly to her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, for her
sole and separate use during the period of their Royal
Highnesses' marriage."
" That her Majesty may be enabled to secure to her Royal
Highness the Princess Alexandra, in case she shall survive
his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, an annual sum
not exceeding £30,000 during her life to support her Roya
dignity."
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. H. BERKELEY, who had placed on the paper an
amendment, postpobting the second reading for six months,
said he was opposed to the bill, because it had no title to
stand as the electoral law of the country. It had been the
law ever since the period of Lord Aberdeen's Administra-
tion, and it had been framed upon the recommendation of a
select committee. Nevertheless, it had been found miserably
wanting, and it was now the laughing-stock of every attor-
ney's clerk throughout the country. The bill was wrong
in principle, for it punished the electors and not the candi-
date. It appeared that the candidate must name an agent,
and by whose acts he must stand or fall. Therefore it was
the duty of Brown, the nominated agent, to take care that
the caddidate was not drawn into an illegal act, while it was
permitted
Commons
nteod to Jones and Robinson, who were not recognised
as agents, to do as they pleased. The late Mr. Coppock,
country might
by nligith. t
And knoNv
w h veryat was well
t h
what th
the election agent, said of the act at the time of its passing
that
the noxious draught to be swallowed ? Why, the expenses
of sand dates were to be reduced. Colours were abolished,
and bands were to be put down—that was to say, the legiti-
mate expenditure was to be suppressed, and the illegitimate
ea sugar thate enabled
the ofd

was to have full flow. The law as to agency was monstrous,
and under it it was impossible for any candidate with the
commonest management, no matter how corrupt he had
been, to get unseated. Then, what was done with treating
and 3ntimidation—how were they dealt with by the bill?
What was done to the breakfasts to electors on the morning
of the election ? Intimidation—which was without doubt
the greatest evil of our electoral system—was left un-
touched. The Government had been pleased to reject the
measure which he was in the habit of regarding as the only
real remedy for the evils complained of. He had a right
then, to call upon them to produce a proposal calculated
to palliate those evils. If they did not be warned them
that at next election the richest party would surely win the
day. It was not his intention to put the house to the

trouble of dividing.
Mr. M'MAHON pointed out the necessity there was for
a consolidating statute with respect to the law of elections.
Let this bill be withdrawn and a consolidation bill intro-

duced. (Hear, hear.)
Lord HENLEY objected to the provisions of the bill,
which dieentitled paid agents from voting. He thought it
would lead to greater evils than those against which it was
directed.

Mr. BENTINCK thought the annual discussion of this

measure, like that on the ballot, was an annual farce. It
was going through a ceremony which could lead to no pos-
sible result. The real difficulty of the matter was that there
was no belief, either in or out of the house, that an act of
bribery entailed any moral culpability. The justice of the
House of Commons ought, like charity, to begin at home.
The ostensible object in all such bills was to prevent the
bribery of the voter, by enacting that he should be punished
if it could be proved that money had been paid to influence
his vote. But what did they do in the House of Commons ?
Did not hon. members of that house receive what was dig-
nifi.d by the name of a testimonial, which was neither more
nor less than a sum paid to him as the price of his vote, and
he was distinctly and clearly bound by his acceptance of
that sum to continue his vote in the same sense, whatever
his opinion on the particular question might be. The
practice of allowing members of the house to receive money
tes imonials was directly at variance with the principle upon
which they prohibited a voter from being paid for his vote
So long as the house sanctioned the principle of allowing
I meml ers to receive money testimonials, it was bound, in
common justice, to allow every voter in England to laceive
every shilling he could get for his vote, otherwise it was
drawing a monstrous distinction iu I. roar of a member of
that house against the voter.
Mr. POWELL could only give a qualified support to

the bill. It was defective in form, had many omissions,
and retained some clauses which were unnecessarily harsh.
Mr. PHILLIPS was of opisio•i that the best remedy to
diminish bribery would be by disfranchising individuals in-
stead of a whole constituency. _ _

Mr. PIGOTT was convinced ti.at the clauses of the bill
would have a valuable effect in repressing corrupt practices.
Lord It. MONTAGU thought some more effective pro-
vision ought to be made for preventing bribery and undue
influence by persons holding high !Bees in the Govern-
ment, and cited several instances within his knowledge in
which he believed improper steps had been taken by the
First Lord of the Admiralty (rhe Duke of Somerset) and by
the Secretary of the Admiralty, to influence voters in tavour
of heir nominees.
Sir F. GOL I ►SMID supported the bill, and hcped the
amendment would be considered in committee.
Mr. PACKE said he thought the house ought to be very

carefu. haw they interfered with the electors of the country
by a clause so comprehensive as that proposed by the

amendment.

Sir G. GREY briefly replied to the various objections
that had been made, and disavowed any special merit in its
character. It was quite true, as an hon. member had ob-
served, that the measure would not prove perfectly effectual
for the objects intended, but it did not foam that because
they could not frame a perfect bill they should therefore de
nothing at all.

After a few words from Mr. Brady, Mr. Bentinck, and
Mr. Griffith, the bill was read a second time.
UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTINUANCE

BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Gen. LINDSAY presented a petition against the second
reading of the bill, or any bill which did not make provision
for a general rating throughout the kingdom.
Mr. VILLIERS said the bill had been discussed a good
deal some nights ago, and upon that occasion several
suggestions had been thrown out and observations made
by several hon. members, who were, perhaps, the best
entitled to make them. The first suggestion made upon the
subject of the Act was by the noble lord the member for
King's Lynn, and which was concurred in by the hon. mem-
ber for Rochdalde and others, with respect to their imper-
fect experience, and the uncertainty of the circumstances
with which the house had to deal ; and which made it ne-
cessary that the duration of the Act should be for a shorter
time. Finding from numerous communications which came
to him from the distressed districts, and from the represen-
tations of a deputation who had waited upon him at the de-
partment over which he presided, that there was a general
feeling that there should be another discussion of the ques-
tion at a more advanced period of the session, the Govern-
ment were disposed to accede to the general desire, and
therefore the present Act would only be operative for the
next two quarters. (Hear, hear.) Another important sug-
gestion which had been made was, that the time for the
repayment of the loans should be extended over a greater
number of years. (Hear, hear.) Although at the time it was
proposed to introduce a provision in the Act to enable the
boards of guardians to make loans, such provision was re-
ceived
with distrust as a novelty, yet from all the informa-
tion he had received there was no reason to apprehend there
had been any laxity or irregularity in the administration of
the poor law. Under these circumstances, then, he was wil-
ling to introduce an amendment allowing the annual instal-
ments to be spread over 14 years instead of 7. (Hear, hear.)
There was an error in the Act which could not have been
premeditated, and which he would remove by introducing a
new clause ; the wording of the clause as it now stood was to
the effect that any union whose expenditure reached a cer-
tain point, which was 3s. in the pound, was not bound to
contribu a towards other distressed unions. These were the
only changes he intended to propose, and he trusted hon.
members would allow the bill to be now read a second time,
and reserve their observations until the bill went into com-

mittee.
Col. W. PATTEN said he was not going to throw any
obstacles in the way of the second reading, nor would he
occupy more of the time of the house than was necessary.
The right hon. gentleman had met two of the principal ob-
jections, but there were other points worthy of considera-
tion. The rate in aid principle was good, but when it was
put in operation it fell upon the occupiers and not upon the
property—(hear, hear)—and the agricultural part of the
distressed districts complained at having the burthen
thrown upon them. If they lived in close proximity with
large towns they paid an increased rent. The extra charge
of the rate in aid ought to be c".arged upon the property.
The period for contracting loans was too limited. The con-
sequence was that some banks would not advance the money,
and when it was lent a higher rate of interest had to be
paid. Unions that had paid, comparatively speaking,
heavy rates, complained of their having to afford assistance
to those unions which had always paid a lower amount of
rate. The unions wished Government to lend the money
for a period of not less than ten years, and that the prin-
ciple end interest might be repaid by equal annual instal-
ments. Every landlord in Lancashire had voluntarily con-
tributed a larger rate in aid than the rates levied under
the act.
Mr. GREUSON called attention to the prospect of a
diminution of the distress. He doubted, however, if we
could depend for the future on a supply of cotton, even if
the American war was to terminate. Should it, however,
continue for some time longer, he thought it would be well
for the manufacturers to consider whether it would not be
better for setae of the operatives to seek other employment.
Gen. LINDSAY thought it wise co limit the bill to six
months.
Alderman SIDNEY regarded the principle of a rate in
aid as most sound, but he viewed the borrowing powers of
the bill with great sus obion.
Mr. H U MBE RST ON E hoped the bill would net be hur-
ried forward, in order that the country might pronounce
upon it.
Lord E. HOWARD thanked the President of the Poor-
law Board for the concession he had made with respect to
the borrowing powers. He had no doubt the rate in aid
operated detrimentally as regarded some districts, but at
the same time he could not see how they could get on with-
out one.
Mr. EVANS urged the desirability of allowing the dis-
tressed unions to borrow money.
Mr. HIB BERT trusted the house would be inclined to
give Lancashire what she required—liberal borrowing
power to enable her to deal with the distress.
Mr. CO BD EN received with satisfaction the proposal, in
the present bill, to extend the time over which the repay-
ment of loans was to be made. He was not at all enamoured
last session of giving relief by a rate-in-aid; he wanted
greater facility to be given to the boards of guardians to
borrow money. That was his opinion then, and he enter-
tained it still. They had been thwarted in that not so much
by the right hon. gentleman as by the board over which he
presided, which had every great aversion to any change in
their traditional policy of a rate-in-aid. The inconvenience
which the hon. and gallant member for North Lancashire
(Col. Wilson Patten) complained of—namely, that the rate-
in-aid fell upon the occupying tenants, and not upon the
landlords—was not easily remedied, but it might be to some
degree by a clause enabling tenants to charge the whole of
the increased rate upon their landlord. He wished to call
the attention of the hon. and gallant gentleman to the fact
that the principle of the rate-in-aid was inherent to our
poor-law legislation, in the interest not of property but of
the rights of the poor, and must be preserved as an alterna-
tive. Where a union became so pauperised as to be unable
to maintain their poor, it was right to go upon the county
for a rate-in-aid. But he did not contemplate the neces-
sity for that, provided there were no obstacles thrown in
the way even now to a fair mode of borrowing money.
The agricultural districts and the manufacturing dis-
tricts of Lancashire were in accord in desiring that faci-
lity should be given to borrow money instead of resorting
for the present to a rate-in-aid. Why, then, should any
restrictions be thrown, for the nest twelvemonth to
come, in the way of those unions raising money to

meet their difficulties P He would repeat his sugges-
tion of last year, of imposing a limitation as to the an.ount
to be borrowed—say to the extent of 50 per cent of 'he
assessed annual value of their property, but, with such a
limitation he would ask, in the name of common sense and
humanity, by what rule of stupidity could it be said that the
unions should not borrow until they had inflicted on them-
selves the inconceivable torture of raising rates to the extent
of 3s. in the pound. He would appeal to his right hon.
friend to shake off altogether the influence of those heredi•
tary red tapists with whom he was associated, to take the
matter into his own hands, to meet the members represent-
ing the manufacturing and agricultural districts, talk this
matter over, and arrange it upon principles of common sense
before g )ing into committee. if the right hon. gentleman
would only do that, it might be arranged so ss to evade the

difficulty of a rate in aid, and enable the distressed unions to
tide over the period of distress in a way the least hurtful to
themselves and the least injurious to their neighbours.
Mr. NE WDE GATE suggested that the borrow,ng powers
should be resorted to up to a given point before the rate in
aid was brought into operation, so as to prevent the abuse of
the old law coming into ora ration, namely the payment of
money not raised in the locality in aid of wages.
The bill was then read a second time.
TELEGRAPHS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MALT DUTY BILL.

Upon the motion to read this bill a second time,
Colonel Bartelott, Sir M. Farquhar, and Major Parker
objected to the bill on the ground that it did not give suffi-
cient relief to the manufacturers. _ _ _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
was scarcely the time to discuss the question, and he would
therefore propose to postpone the discussion until the com-
mittee.

Mr. WALPOLE thought the relief to the maltsters
would be almost neutralised by the 4 per cent. interest they
would have to pay.
Mr. PULLER urged that the bill should be discussed
then, for there would be very little opportunity of doing
so in committee.

Mr. JACK -ON defended the course propesed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was the duty of the
right hon. gentleman to obtain the most he could obtain
for the revenue. He could not see why the county; should

furnish capital to the maltstera to carry on their business
Mr. BENTINCK, although concurring so far with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present was not the
time to go into all details of the malt question, trusted that
hon. members who were prepared to support the rights of
the agriculturists would be prepared on the proper occasion
to attend in their places, and see that justice was done to
them.

The bill was then read a second time.
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION
(IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Lord NAAS moved that it be an instruction to the com-
mittee to make provision for the registration of marriages
in Ireland. He reviewed the plans that had been submitted
to the consideration of the house on the subject of registra-
tion of marriages. He thought all that was now required
was a registration of the Roman Catholic marriages, which
might be done by the priests without imposing on them
any great additional labours. He was opposed to the idea
that a general registration of marriages would increase
civil marriages. He was surprised at the timidity of the
right hon. baronet in not dealing with that branch of the
subject, as it was easy to bring forward a measure that
would meet with the approval of the people of Inlaid. The
provision for registering the marriages of the members of
the Church of Ireland and Protestant Dissenters might re-
main as at present.
Mt. HADFIELD hoped that equal facilities of registra-
tion would be granted to all denominations.
Mr. MO NSELL said the Scotch system of registration
had been found to work well in that country, and he thought
it would be the best system to introduce into Ireland, and

he urged on the Government to try it. The only difficulty
they had to contend with was the registration of Roman
Catholic marriages.
Sir G. BOW YER approved of a complete registration of
marriages, but admitted it was surrounded with greater
difficulties than the registration of births and deaths Be-
fore they introduced a system of registration of marriages
they must get rid of the Irish law w th reference to mixed
marriages, which made it penal for a Roman Catholic priest
to celebrate mixed marriages. There would be time to con-
sider and discuss the registration of marriages after they had
decided on the registration of births and deaths. By divid-
ing the subject they were more likely to come to a satisfac •
tory conclusion.
Mr. BAGWELL admitted it was the Roman Catholic
clergy who stood in the way of a system of registration of
marriages being introduced in Ireland; but he considered
this a most inopportune occasion on which to deal with the
question.
Colonel DICKSON saw no reason why marriages should
not be registered by the par ties interested in them. He
supported the amendment.
Mr. M'MAHON felt quite sure it would be impossible to
establish a system of registration of marriages in Ireland as
long as the penal enactments prohibiting mixed marriages
by Roman Catholic priests were kept in force, but, then,
nothing could be easier than to introduce a clause in the
present bill abolishing those enactments.
Mr. I. BUTT supported the bill, and deprecated the off•
hand legislation which had been suggested by the hon. mem-
ber opposite.
Sir R. PEEL quite agreed that it would be very impor-
tant, if it were possible, to establish at the same time
with the registration of births and deaths, a registration
of marriages ; but the discussion which had taken place
had convinced him that the house was in favour of the
bill going on as at present framed rather than he should
be charged by the house to introduce a subject which
would certainly require_ material alteration in the machi-
nery of the bill, and make all impracticable. The prop..sal
of his noble friend would involve material alteration of the
marriage law of Ireland. The act of 1844 imposed great re-
strictions on a portion of the dissenting body in Ireland,
and they would never allow any exception to be made in
favour of the Roman Catholics until their own grievances
had been amended. He trusted that the house would pass
the bill in its present shape, and not put, upon him the
painful task of seeming to endeavour to fix upon Roman
Catholics restrictions which were conscientiously die US( e -
ful to them.
After a f w words from several hon. members,
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against ....
Majority
The house went into committee, and, on the motion of
Colonel DUNNE, the Chairman reported progress, and the
house resumed.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was recommitted, and an amendment proposed
by Sir R. Peel was agreed to.
DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
QUALIF. CATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION
BILL.

This bill passed through committee, on the understand •
ing that the discussion on the bill should be taken on the
third reading, on the 4th of March
PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT.

The house went into committee, on the motion of Mr.
SCHOLEFIELD and a resolution was agreed to for bring-
ing in a bill for the amendment of the law relating to
partnerships.