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

COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS.

The general committee on elections were then sworn at
the table.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.

On the second reading,

Alderman SALOMONS opposed the measure. His
constituents complained that they had to go through all
the inconveniences incidental to those interested in private
bills, whereas this was a public measure of considerable im-
portance. The Thames Conservators enjoyed enormous
powers over the river utterly inimical to the
interests of denizens on the banks of the river.
The bill would endow the Board with enormous taxing
powers on parties selling goods on the river, and enable
them to charge tol s upon all who travelled on the river.
As it would materially interfere, and unjustly so, with the
trade of the river, he begged to move that the bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. This should
have been a public not a private bill. It would
endow a private board with enormous and exceedingly
arbitrary powers to interfere with the trade of
the liver, and all people transacting business on its
banks. He confessed he was surprised to see the name of
the hon. members for Bath (Mr. rite) and Abingdon (Mr.
Norris) on the back of the bill.

Mr. NORRIS supported the bill. The object of the bill
was simply to alter the license tax fixed by the
bill of 1857 which was introduced and passed as a pri-
vate bill. A toll would be charged per head on pas-
sengers by steamboats, instead of now a specific sum
for the ordinary license. The conservators would ob-
tain no more power by this bill than they now enjoyed by
law. The fishing powers proposed by the bill would be like
those in force before the passing of the Act of 1857. Power,
too, would be taken to punish, by fine, persons shooting
offensive matter from barges or otherwise into the
Thames ; thus the cleanliness of the river would be
promoted. The house ought to read the bill a second
time. and then subject it to an ordeal of a committee
up stairs.
Mr. TITE supported the bill, and had put his name on
the back of it, because it would enable the Conservators to
punish gas companies and others who polluted the river.
Surely this was an object worthy of the support of the
house. (Hoar, hear.)
Mr. LOCKE supported the amendment, because the bill
would be inimical to the interests and pursuits of his con-
stituents.

Mr. CRAWFORD opposed the bill, and trusted that the
Government would institute an early inquiry into the con-
dition of the river and the powers of the various municipal
bodies under whose management it was placed. There
were innumerable objections to the bill.
Mr. MASSEY said the act of 1857 was a compromise,
under which certain disputed rights between the Crown
and the Conservators were accommodated and defined.
That bill had worked well for six years, but the Conserva-
tors urge that they needed some slight extension of their
powers, the chief of which was the right to frame bye-laws
to prevent the pollution of the river, He agreed with his
hon. friend that it would be well to make the inquiry he
proposed, but that was no reason why the salutary
powers sought by this bill should not be granted. He
wished to express no opinion as to the mode in which the
Conservators had performed their duties. It would be
best to read the bill a second time, and to enter up stairs
in committee into a careful examination of its provisions.
Alderman SIDNEY and Mr. ANGEBSTEDI supported the
amendment.

Mr. HENLEY considered it rather anomalous, after
giving the Conservators taxing powers, to suggest in.
quiry. This should have been done before the powers
were given.
The house negatived the bill without a division.

SPIRITS DUTY.
In reply to Mr. STANSFELD,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
that her Majesty's Government had obtained all the infor-
mation requisite to ascertain the exact nature of the work-
ing of these duties. He wished decidedly to state that it
was not the intention of the Government to propose any
change in the spirit duties. (Hear, hear.)

POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
The second reading was postponed until Monday.
Allowance to the Prince and Princess of
Wales.

The house having resolved itself into a committee for the
consideration of the Queen's Message upon the subject of
the marriage of the Prince of Wales,

cated with an arrangement for the payment of the large
debts at that tirab due by his royal highness ; but the total
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 andpartly
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 Nrajesty's Government nor the desire
()flier 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 l 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-year. 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 Wales
(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 Prioce 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 p, opose to
the house will therefore, in the whole, amount to a charge
of £50,000 a year—£4o,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 life 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 who 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.

Lord PALMERSTON said—l rise, sir, to propose to the
committee a resolution for the purpose of providing, in the
words of the Message from her Majesty, an establishment
for the Prince and Princess of Wales suitable to the rank
and dignity of that station. (Hear, hear.) And in doing
BO I would remind the committee of that of which they are
all aware, that we have the happiness of living under a
constitutional monarchy, and the people of thiseountry not
only are, perhaps, more than at any former period, sensible
by positive experience of the blessings which that form
of government confers, but they have also an opportunity
of appreciating its value by contrasting it with events
which are passing in other parts of the world. (Cheers.)
We see in the East some of the evils which are incident
to arbitrary sway. 'We witness in the West the wide-
spread misery and desolation which are sometimes created
by democratic and republican institutions. (Loud cheers.)
We enjoy a happy medium between those two extremes.
Our institutions not only confer happiness and tranquillity
upon the people of these realms, but enable them to enjoy
the most perfect freedom of thought, of speech, of writing,
and of printing, and above all uncontrolled either by the
dictates of despotic authority or by the Lynch law of an un-
governable mob. (Cheers.) I trust that the people of this
nation will long continue to enjoy these advantages, and
that their hearts will be directed towards the Almighty
Dispenser of events with thankfulness—reverential thank-
fulness for the lot which has thus been assigned them, and
I am persuaded that their bosoms will be full of the most
affectionate attachment towards that sovereign and family
under whose mild and beneficent sway, humanly speaking,
thosel,hree blessings have been administered. (Hear, hear.)
are maatrteeres
an
•
occasions s i
joy
ys inan ha u mr
el: i affairscin g
pirna
produce pleasure
vent s h
t whichat
begins and ends with
arises.
But there are other wther occasions
connect the present with the future—when joyful
the happiness
which mankind enjoys at the moment is also an earnest and a
security for future happiness. Such aocis gi
asion. is the pre-
sent, when the heir apparent of the Crown
a marriage which will not only, I trust, be
productiveng t o contract
f
do-
mestic happiness for the family irrahich it is to be celebrated,
but will hold out to this country a prospect of a long line of
succeeding sovereigns who by transmitted qualities and by
the recollection of the conduct of those who went before
them, will, I trust, imitate the virtues of the stock from
which they may spring, and will contribute as much as the
present family does to the happiness, and welfaro,and dignity
of the country over which they reign. (Hear.) The people
of this country have always been disposed readily to give
whatever may be necessary to maintain that due dignity
which is essential for the monarchical institutions of the
country, and I am persuaded that upon the present occasion
the proposal which it will be my duty to make will be
acceded to with pleasure and readiness by this house, and
will be sanctioned by the people of this country. In consi-
dering that which it may be fitting upon the present occa-
sion to grant to the Crown for the establishment of the
Prince and Princess of Wales, it is right to look back a
little to see what has been done upon similar occasions in
times gone by. Now, if gentlemen will look at the speech
of Mr. Pitt, when, in 1795, he proposed an establishment
for
that
the then Prince and Princess of Wales, they will see
he stated that the Prince of Wales in 1715, and the
Prince of Wales at an earlier period, in 171-,had each
their a net income of £lOO 0
addition to the revenues of the D '
i
f clear from the word
a
, 00 a year n the one case, in
uchy of Cornwall. It is not
words made use of whether in both
that income was in addition to the revenue of the cases
Cornwall, but I rather infer that it
was .
Eve Dr
yuhcohdyy e: f
is
aware what a great change has taken place in the
value of
money since either of these remote periods, and how little
the same nominal amount in the present day represents the
command of things which that amount gave either in 1745
or in 1715. Coming down toll later period, in 1795, when
Mr. Pitt proposed, and the house consented, to an este,
blishment for the then Prince and Princess of Wales, the
arrangement was not a simple one, because it was compli-

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
£40,000 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
in Canada, amounting to something like £14,000. The total
amount of the various charges paid during 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 how expensive it was to provide for the
princes of the royal family by anything like landed estates.
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 revenues of the duchy
(Oh, oh.) The revenues of the duchy were so peculiar that
he believed on the death of a Prince of Wales they would
`net 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. He 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 (he
revenue of the duchy, or whether it was to be regarded as
the private property of the Prince of Wales. He was en-
deavouring to point out incidents connected with this set-
tlement so as to secure the public at large against being un-
fairly charged with a heavy expenditure which ought not
to fall upon them.

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I should have hope I that the reso-
lution would have been passed nemine contradicente—
(loud cheers)—but as it has met with some unexpected and
plhlorobrondepl
.unnecessaryioiegssveiaetni
proposition.
am.
be
the discussion,feeling I think
to
onit my
this
side dutyo
of
the
to h
eheoxups express s se
nwhat
f
peenragt
een,
aernadl I
, htahvaet tnhoe
dporno
hp
to sei t iwon e fll the n
consideredobl e
(Cheers.) We trust it may be adequate, and
I think no one can describe it as excessive. What strikes
me as most remarkable in the observations of the hon. gen-
tleman a-d 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
iftnavetohdueur
cophfaystt. mh eayrletbdieuscvteicrny
possible even
better
of the vote proposed by her Majesty's Government.
(C h e
managed e rs.)
It is
verythepossible
than in h
er are the
rents
n rentss
of andeni revenuesosevery mayes estate
beten
the increased
countryin ; atime,nd
as
I do not think the country is prepared to grudge to his
Royal Highness the advantage of that increase—(hear,
dehear)—andoeend discretion
ei
rs
ent
tootna to
nall
theimpossible thathis
Royalwlth Highness
gr e t pru
he may 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 dis-
sentient voice, but at least without a dissentient vote—
(general cheering)—and if there be any point of detail in
regard to the management of the duchy that hon. gentle-

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1861

men opposite may wish to be made acquainted with, the
of,portunity will be open to them at some future stage of
the bill. (Loud cheers from both aides 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 proposition. (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 fr'end. The noble lord named 1745, and it does
to happen that his history was in a very minute 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), 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 d..chy in the first instance,
which would leaveso 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-
bli-hment. and it is obvious it is not a jointure out of which
it would be possible for any Princess of Wales to defray 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 had the use of
Marlborough-house for important public purposes, which
would otherwise have coat 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 Stares, 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-
eeives £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 time 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 eaten-
, 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 id no foundation for any supposi-
tion of the kind, (Cheers.)
Sir J. TRE LAWNY 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 roperty 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.) '1 he 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 o 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 tithes there was a
pwohicicahtiocnrusthoepd
atrhleiamtinennteras oefoniCoprrno:
wall,
obnuetruousponloctahleitraxa
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. BOUVERIE thought his hon. friend (Sir J. Tre-
lawny) was rather unreasonable in complaining that
Burke's advice was not taken. If it had been, Parliament
would have had to provide now the lull 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
ornwall undertook their control, had by 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 hon. friend the member for Tavistock
(Sir J. Trelaw 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
would feel a sensation of agreeable surprise at the modera-
tion of proposal. (Cheers.) From what he had heard the
general impression was that a larger proposal would have
h en made than that submitted by the noble lord, and he

thought the publio 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, hoar.)

In reply to a question from Mr. AYRTON,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERstated 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.:—
" Thut the annual sum of £lc,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
s,,le 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, postvAing 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 recemmf ndation 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. I t 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 to Jones and Robinson, who were not recognised
acsomagmeonntss,mteoandtobsasit. And
dpl what was
late Mr. Coppock,
the election agent, said of the act at the time of its passing
that the country might know very well what the House of
expenditure
the sugar that enabled
the noxious draught to be swallowed ? Why, the expenses
of candidates
and bards were to be put down—that was to say, the legiti-
mate wer e towas b
toe reduced.eColoursed, were abolished,
and the illegitimate

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 intimidation—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 disentitled 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-
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 thr, hi ,use sanctioned the principle of allowing
memt ers to receive money testimonials, it was bound, in
common justice, to allow every voter in England to receive
every shilling ne could get for his vote, otherwise it was
drawing a monstrous distinction in favour 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 opinion that the best remedy to
diminish bribery would be by disfranchising individuals in-
stead of a whole constituency.
Mr. PIGOTT was convinced tLat the clauses of the bill
would have a valuable effect in repressing-corrupt practices.
Lord R. MONTAGU thought some more effective pro-
vision ought to be made for preventing bribery and undue
influence by persons holding high ffices 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 (the Duke of Somerset) and by
the Secretary of the Admiralty, to influence voters in favour
of their nominees.

Sir F. GOLDSMID supported the bill, and hcped the
amendment would be considered in committee.

Mr. PACKE said he thought the house ought to be very
careful how 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 aisavowed any special merit in its
character. It was quite true, as an hon. member had ob-
served, that the mea,,ure would not prove perfectly effectual
for the objects intended, but it did not follow 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 becond time.
UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTINUANCE