The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING-,

grettcd to hear from the Right 11;m: the Secretary for
lroland, that there was something like apathy on that
question in Ireland. He believed that that was the c,he;
but it was easily accounted for, as the dc,!3truction of the
potato crop, the famine and consequent calaraiiic s, had,
to a great degree, depreciated the worth of the most
valuable land. In that country, containing twenty mil-
lion of statute acres,-competent authorities had declared
that there was close upon seven millions uncultivated,
and of the latter five millions were capable of reclama-
tion. Notwithstanding that this was the state of the
case, the able-bodied were being forced by tyrannical
and unnatural means out of the country, in order that
they might go and cultivate the wastes in North Ame-
rica. The Noble Lord (Bernard) called that a compre-
hensive measure.
Lord BERNARD—I said nothing. about emigration
being a comprehensive measure.
Mr. REYNOLDS thought the Noble Lord had done
so, but at auy rate certain members of his school held
that opinion. Connected with this subject he woald
mention a remarkable fact which had been communicated
to him within the last forty-eight hours by the lion.
Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Browne), who stated
that his house America had drawn on his house in Li-
w rpool bills from Irish emigrants in favour of their
friends to induce them to • emigrate. These bills
amounted in numher t, 8,000, and were for sums vary-
ing from 11. to 301., giving an aggregate sum of 51,000/.
That might be called a comprehensive measure, but he
called it opening the, arteries of the prosperity of Ireland
and bleeding the country to death. With respect to the
Committee on the Irish Poor-law, he entertained great
hopes from it. Ile was totally opposed to disturbing
the principle of that law. He looked OR it as the poor
man's charter, though he believed that it had sometimes
turned out to be the rich man's warrant, assisting him in
his tyrannical measures for depopulating the country.,
But he believed that such arrangements were likely to
be made in the poor-law and its details as would
punish the landlord for carrying. out his depopulating

Mr. MONSELL was very glad to hear the promise
given by the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland with re-
spect to the three 13111 s he proposed to introduce. He
was quite sure that if the Right Hon. Gentleman intro-
duced the Bill on the subject of landlord and tenant, as
amended last year, with some few alterations, he would
confer a great benefit on Ireland, and induce tenants to
expend capital on their lands. Nevertheless, he (Mr.
Mousell) must express his regret that, with respect to
one Bill of almost paramount importance, the Right Hon.
Gentleman had said nothing. He alluded to a measure
in reference to the management
Court of Chancery. of estates under the
Mr. R. FOX dissented from the proposition of the
Hon. Mover of the present proposition with respect to
undertaking the cultivation of waste lands, and thought
that the application of freestrade principles in respect to
Ireland had rendered it' impossible to cultivate those
lands with any success.
Mr. CRAWFORD said he should not press his motion
to a division if the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ireland
would intimate that there was a prospect of the mea-
sures he had referred to being introduced within a rea-
sonable time.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was understood to say that
two of them, referring to renewable leaseholds and the
improvements upon land, would be introduced almost
immediately in the House of Lords.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD, under these circumstances,
withdrew his motion.
DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER.
Mr. THELAWNY rose to move for a "Select Com-
mittee to inquire to what extent the public are entitled to
claim an interest, present or prospective, in the manage-
ment of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, respecting
which returns are annually presented to the House, and
whether there is not reason to hope from those returns, as
well as other circumstances, that an improvement in the
management of those estates in particular, by the sup-
pression of antiquated and superfluous offices, and the
diminution of the salaries of officials, would greatly in•
crease the joint net income of the two Duchies." The
Hon. Member explained that when he last introduced
the subject, he was met by the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government with two objections, the first of
which was that he (Mr. Trelawny) had admitted that
those properties were much better managed now than
they were formerly. Now that Was perfectly true, but
it did not follow from that that they could not be much
better rnanag, d still ; indeed, the slightest in-
vestigation of the recent returns to Parliament
on the subject of their revenues, would
made
convince
any one that a large saving might still be
in the incomes of these Duchies. The other objection
was that he (Mr. Trelawny) proposed to sell those
Duchies, and apply the proceeds to the public ser-
vice. Now, if it could be shown that the ancestor of
the proprietor of any estate within the Duchies had paid
threepence five hundred years ago to the Duchies, and
that hie land became liable in consequence, to be claimed
by the Duchies, he had no doubt that it would appear to
the House to be a fit subject for inquiry. The Hon.
Member then read a series of returns for 1846, setting
out the expenditure of the Duchy, which amounted in
the gross to 20,816/. 17s. 6d., incurred in getting a sum
of little more than 50,000/., which appeared to be the
income. The returns of 1847 appeared to be about the
same. In these times of financial reform, he thought it
was the duty of the House to look narrowly into those
matters; and he could assure the House, if it granted
the Committee, that he would make out such a case of
oppression and mismanagement as would in every re-
spect justify the inquiry.
The motion having been seconded,
• Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had on a former oc-
casion stated reasons why the motion of the Hon. Gen•
tleman ought not to be agreed to. With regard to the
revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, they were the pro-
perty of the Prince, of Wales, and the manner in which
the affairs of that buchy were managed in former times
was different from the present. It appeared as if the
Hon. Gentleman wished to appropriate the revenues se
the Duchy, in great part, to the public service. Nos
that was an appropriation to which the House ought not
to assent; neither, in his opinion, would the House. The
lion. Gentleman stated that there was great oppression
and bad management in the collection of those
revenues ; but he was of opinion that the Honour-
able Member was under a misapprehension. The
Honourable Gentleman had complained of the expendi-
ture Incurred in the collection of the revenues. Now, he
(Lord John Russell) believed that many large pro-
prietors in this country gave as much, if not more, to
their collectors.—(Hear, hear.) He knew, in his own
family, some of the agents receive as much as 2,0001. a
year, for their services in that way. By the law the pro-
perty of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall was
in the Crown, and according to the practice and usage or
the Parliament, it could not be taken from the Crown;
and such being the case, both by law and fact, ho hoped
the HOUS3 would not agree to the motion.
Mr. P. CAREW felt that great thanks were due to
the Hon. Member for Tavistoek for having brought for-
ward this motion. The system complained of ought not
in his opinion, to be longer tolerated; and he hoped th.
House would grant the Committee, and pledged himselt
should it, that they would show such a case of intolerable
grievances and oppression as would justify the inquiry.
Mr. HUME must say the Noble Lord had not taken
the proper view of the subject, and in comparing th,
revenues 'in question to the Duke of Bedford's property
he should recollect that those revenues were public pro-
perty. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster wer;
40.000/. by the last returns, Including 7,0001. surphus
balance of a former account. That left 33,000/. actual
revenue in rents and sales for the year, and 12,000/. out
of the 33,000/. were all that came into her Majesty, al:
the rest was waste. The public had a right to know
whether the property was properly managed. He main-
tained it was nut; and he would ask any gentletna;
in that House whether he would say, if bo only go
12,000/. out of 33,0001., that his property was well ma-
naged? The Hon. Gentleman who brought forward the
motion had shown that a great deal of waste was' in-
curred in " sixpences." It would, he contended, be fur
the interest of the Prince Royal and the Crown that the
Committee should be granted, for it would lead to
better management of the property in those revenues.
The Hon. Member then directed attention to the rat,
levied on metals, end said that the country gentlemen in
Cornwall had induced the Parliament to take off the
royalty so levied .to the amount of '15,000/. or 16,0001,
and to put it on the Consolidated Fund, in order to re-
lieve themselves from payment of it. With respect to
the pensions derived from those Duchies, he saw tine
Chancellor " John" Lord Campbell, received 2.0004
He did not know whether he did anything for that pen-
sion; perhaps he did—oh, yes, he kept "the seals."—
(Laughter.) Then, again, he saw th.e name of Edward
George Anson, as " Axe-bearer" to the Prince of
Wales, 306/.; while the Forester received only 35/, for
keeping the forest. He should like to know what Mr.
Edward George Anson did ? The Hon. Member con-
cluded by saying he should support the motion.
Mr. MILNER GH3SON thought,that inquiry into
the management of the Crown lands was much
,callea
for. Those lands were vested in the Crown by Parlia-
ment, it was the duty of Parliament to see that the)
were properly managed, and he believed that her Ma
jesty's Government ought to allow some inquiry, which
would be for the advantage of the Crown.
Mr. RICARDO was of opinion that if it were only
for leading to the adoption of a better system in the
working of mines, that the inquiry asked for ought no;
to be opposed. Under the present system, the most
serious dilapidations were caused by mining under towns,
and instances of great oppression were the consequence.
In his own place—Stoke-upon-Trent-4hey were so un-
dermining the place that they were actually breaking
down the town; and recently 30 or 40 houses had fallen
from that cause in the Duchy of Lancaster. It' then, it
was only to put a stop to such a syatetn and state of
things, the House ought not to refuse the inquiry.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that those cases of destruc-
tion of property, of which the Hon. Member for Stoic(
complained. did not at all relate 05 the property of the
Crown. They were cases of private property, in which
individuals were exploring for ore; and the damage done
had been made subject of inquiry before a court of law.
He hoped the Ilouse would look rightly at the question,
and not consent to the inquiry.
The Earl of LINCOLN, as associated with the
Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, might be expected
to say a few words on the subject. His object would bt,
to show that the Hon. Gentleman had no right to deal
with the Crown properties, in England, in the way sug-
gested. If they so dealt with these properties, they
would uptifiru many of the rights of private property of
this country. He would deal with the Duchies of Corn-
wall first. How stood this Duchy? It was granted by
Edward the Third to the Black Prince, by charter,
which was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and by this
Act the Duchy was vested in the Prince of Wales,
as Duke of Cornwall, for ever, until ho was
raised to the Throne; and if he had a son, the
duchy was to pass to him. Therefore the public had no
present interest in this duchy. The only right which
the public could have in this duchy was prospective;
but then that only applied to the time which preceded
the birth of a Prince' of Wales, after the former Prince