HC Deb 25 March 1850 vol 109 cc1370-89
MR. TRELAWNY

begged to move for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. His Motion had two distinct objects, public economy and private security. He claimed that the property should be managed as productively as possible, consistently with due regard to the rights of tenants. But with regard to the past, neither object had been secured, not that there had been no amelioration. He believed the inhabitants of these two Duchies were exposed to greater hardships than those of other parts of England. It was perfectly true in the county of Cornwall there had lately been some alterations, but these had not been carried nearly so far as they ought to be. Seeing that the country would at no distant day be called upon to provide an income for the Prince of Wales, it was desirable that his property in the Duchy of Cornwall should be improved to the utmost possible extent in order that a considerable fund should be accumulated by the time His Royal Highness required a separate establishment. The right was questioned, and the Morning Chronicle claimed for the Prince the power, if he pleased, to play "ducks and drakes" with the property, or "to spend its revenues on Christmas trees and plum-cakes"—a remarkable circumstance when it was considered who was reputed to influence the counsels of that paper. He had given notice of a Motion on this subject so long back as 1844; but in consequence of a Bill having been brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth to promote the settlement of disputes between the owners of properties in these Duchies and the Government, until he saw what compromise would be made between these parties, he had deferred bringing forward his Motion. As be could not get primary evidence on this subject, he should be obliged to resort to evidence which, however, was not of so satisfactory a nature as he could wish. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read a number of returns which he had prepared of the income derived from these Duchies, and the expense of management, and also all the lawyers' charges.] The hon. Gentleman's secondary evidence consisted partly of returns regarding the management of other Crown property, by which he showed that on 122,000 acres of forest property there had been no balance in favour of the public; that the High Meadows woods had been bought for 160,000l., and had last year brought an income of only 68l.; that the lawyers' bills had been enormous, especially on the occasion of a certain lawsuit with Lord Churchill, which after years of litigation and an expense of many thousand pounds, ended without decision, in consequence of the death of one of the parties; and he argued that as these things occurred in the management of the other Crown property, what was likely to be the case with the Duchies, and was it not suspicious that inquiry was refused? With regard to the Motion which he submitted to the House on this subject last year, the result in one respect had been such as to induce him to bring forward the subject again; for, on his return to the country, one of the first persons he met was a gentleman who was interested in the matter, who told him that since the subject had been brought before Parliament, the officers of the Duchy, from whom formerly decent attention could not be obtained, were now more considerate. The accounts which had been laid on the table for the present year, were also somewhat more detailed, a result which he attributed to his last year's Motion, and encouraged him to continue agitating the question. Further accounts, however, ought to be furnished, and he conceived the House had a right to demand that they should be prepared in any way it pleased, because an Act of Parliament existed, providing that returns of the income and expenditure of these Duchies should be annually presented to Parliament within a month of the meeting thereof, and in such shape as the Treasury required. As ancillary to his argument, he might be allowed to allude to what occurred in 1795, when the House was applied to to pay the debts of the Prince of Wales, amounting to 161,000l. On that occasion, His Majesty George III. sent a message down to that House, in the course of which he said— 'Anxious as His Majesty must necessarily be to relieve the Prince of Wales from these difficult- ties, His Majesty entertains no idea of proposing to his Parliament to make any provision for this object, otherwise than by the application of a part of the income which may be settled on the Prince; but he earnestly recommends it to the House to consider of the propriety of this proceeding for the gradual discharge of these incumbrances by appropriating and securing for a given term the revenues arising from the Duchy of Cornwall, together with a proportion of the Prince's other annual income. At that time direct assurances were then given by the Crown and by the Minister of the day, that the Prince would not run into debt again. But a few years elapsed when the Minister again came down with a message for the payment of the Prince's debts, which amounted to 600,000l., chargeable on this revenue, but which the faithful Commons again paid. It might be said there was no probability of anything of this kind occurring again, but it was the duty of that House to provide against the possibility of any charge of the kind being made on the revenue of the Duchy. In these days of economy, the House would be wanting in duty to the public, if it did not prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding. It might be said that the public had no interest in the matter; but this was an erroneous view of the subject. The House might not be aware that formerly there were certain dues on tin, when raised, to which the Duchy had a right. These dues had been abolished, and Parliament had given compensation in lieu of a charge on the Consolidated Fund to the extent of 15,000l. a year and over. It was a question with him whether the Duchy would have had any considerable balance to show but for this annual windfall. The public who paid this sum had a right to know how the Prince managed his estate, as any further grant would be greater or less accordingly. The accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster were generally more systematically kept, but they exhibited an extraordinary number of minute items, many of them for as little as 1s. and 1s. 6d. Why not consolidate such a property, and thus diminish the enormous expenses of agency and supervision? He found in one year there were 500 items for small sums varying from one shilling to ten shillings. It was obvious that no estate managed in such a way could be conducted in a satisfactory manner; and it was the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill to enable the Crown to get rid of all these small charges in the shape of rent charges. Such a course would be infinitely better for both the Crown and the public hereafter. The property of the Duchy of Lancaster was scattered over not less than twenty-one counties, and it was impossible that it could be properly managed. He complained, also, that the officers of the Duchy refused to give information as to this property, beyond what was strictly stated in their annual report. He was happy to find that the Government had ordered Mr. Anderson, the able and intelligent accountant, to examine into the accounts of the Woods and Forests, who had shown how irregularly they had been kept; so much so that the accounts had not been regularly made up for five years, and the utmost confusion was the consequence. He (Mr. Trelawny) had no doubt a similar result would take place, if a similar investigation was made into the accounts of the Duchies. He had been informed that recent sales of property belonging to the Duchies had taken place at Dorchester, Exeter, Kennington, and other places; but no account of these sales was given in the report, nor was any information furnished as to the terms which were obtained. He did not mean to say that there was anything dishonest in these proceedings; but he thought the House was justified in calling for an explanation, and requiring the details to be furnished to it. He had to complain that in two years 20,000l. had been wasted on Tywarnhaile mines, on pretence, he supposed, of kindness to the rural population—a pretence very inconsistent with the charge against the Duchy in the letters of the Morning Chronicle Commissioner, with regard to the Duchy's treatment of poor cottagers. Farther, he complained that their still remained a want of complete security of title in districts where the Duchy had property. In ten counties in England there were parcels of this property which lay scattered in every direction, and the alleged rights of the Duke were a trap to unwary purchasers. It was successfully contended that the nullum tempus Act was not applicable to Duchy property, and till the Act of 1844 nobody was safe; but even that Act was partial and insufficient. Before that Act the payment of 4d. a year to King John was deemed sufficient to shake the firmest title as against the Duchy; and even now in any county but Cornwall it would do so, and, as to Cornwall, it would still do so, in the case of estuaries, royalties, and franchises. Under these words the Duchy were claiming wrecks and arms of the sea. Lord Coke called the Duchy "a great mystery," and a great mystery they seemed determined it should remain. The rating of minerals was a point he had noticed in his resolution. The House might not be aware that the reservation of dues in money saved them from being rateable, so that miners might be attracted to a district, and be made chargeable on the property there; and then the mine might fail, and have contributed nothing to the support of the population it had fostered. He had heard the Duchy had so reserved their dues. If so, it was their right to do so, no doubt; but it was again not very consistent with their vaunted interest in the state of the poor. The right of Parliament to interfere could not be pretended, considering the numerous instances in which Acts of Parliament had been passed directly interfering, and even compelling the annual returns of the state of the income and expenditure in such form as the Treasury required. The Treasury was therefore responsible for any mismanagement; and, if so, how could it be said that it was not the duty of the House, to whom the Treasury was responsible, to insist on full attention being paid to these matters. Again, he had to complain, that before 1844 the officers of the Duchy had neglected to hold assessionable courts for the renewal of leases, which had occasioned great dissatisfaction. These were courts existing from time immemorial, and it was only at these that transferences of properity could take place. The neglect to hold these was a breach of implied faith to tenants. However, he merely mentioned that as indicative of the past spirit of Duchy management. But he had a more serious charge to make. He held in his hand a letter from a Cornish magistrate, of high character and station, distinctly charging the Duchy with having refused to fill up leases with new lives, which had from the earliest times been the custom in the property, and on the faith of which improvements had been made—which would now be lost. This was primâ facie a gross case, and at least demanded explanation. There were many matters connected with the Duchy of Cornwall which required consideration, and with which the House ought to deal, and he hoped the House would grant the inquiry for which he moved: on every ground, public and private, it ought to be conceded.

Motion made, and Question put— That a Select Committee be appointed, to in- quire to what extent the public are entitled to claim an interest, present or prospective, in the management of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, with respect to which Returns are annually made to this House; and, with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall in particular, to inquire where its accumulations are invested; who is the heir of personal estate to the Prince of Wales; whether Duchy dues from mines are reserved in minerals or money, and whether they are rated to the poor; whether mines are directly worked by the Duchy officers; what number of claims to estates have been made and not sustained during the last six years; whether there is any good reason for the direct exception of certain kinds of property in the Duchy Act of 1844 (such as royalties, franchises, and estuaries), from the statutory provision for the quiet of titles, now applied to Crown property, to private property, and most descriptions of Duchy property; and, lastly, whether the management of the Duchy estate has been satisfactory as regards the public, fair as regards its own tenants, or productive of improvement in the state of the rural population.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

, in resisting the Motion, trusted to be able to convince the House that there was no ground for granting a Committee of Inquiry into the management of this property. The grounds alleged by the hon. Member for Tavistock for his Motion, were that the property was mismanaged, that it was managed so as to injure the public, and that acts of oppression were exercised under the mode in which it was managed. It was manifest that the House had no right to inquire into the management of any property unless it was of a public character. They had no right to inquire into the management of property purely of a private nature, and the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that this property was primâ facie strictly private. The original grant was by Edward III. to the Black Prince; it was not connected with the Crown in any way, except during a time when there was no heir-apparent; but as soon as one was born the property vested in him entirely, save that he could not dispose absolutely of the fee-simple. The heir-apparent was born Duke of Cornwall, and he had complete power of disposing of the revenues of the Duchy, from his birth till his accession to the Throne, exactly as he might think fit. He (the Solicitor General) could not therefore see the distinction between this case and that of any other private property, except that it was held in this instance by a personage of the most exalted rank, save one, in this country. The case was strictly one of property belonging to an individual in his private, and not in any public capacity. The hon. Member, in justification of his proposal for inquiry, had contended that in the Act of the 1st and 2nd of the Queen, there was a clause directing the accounts of the Duchy to be annually submitted to the Commissioners of the Treasury. But it might be very proper for Parliament to provide for the security and preservation of the property of the heir-apparent; but that Act did not make the property public property, or impress upon it a character which should impart to the public any concern in it. They could only have the right to inquire into the disposal of any revenues in which the public was directly interested. The hon. Gentleman had argued that when the Prince of Wales became of age it was a matter of considerable moment to know what were his private sources of revenue. The mere contingent possibility that the Prince of Wales might ask an allowance to be paid out of the taxes, did not confer a right on Parliament to inquire how he managed or applied his private property. It did not appear that the property had been mismanaged. The salaries for six years previous to Her Majesty's accession amounted to 8,677l.; they were now 2,500l. Savings had been effected to the extent of 10,672l.; but, making allowance for superannuations, the reduction might be estimated at 8,126l. The returns from the property had progressively increased, and had amounted to 22,000l. a year since the management had been transferred to the Council. In the absence of any specific charges, it was sufficient to show the great decrease which had taken place in the expenditure, the reasons why that expense should be incurred, and the improvements which had taken place. With respect to a diminution of stock from 600l. to 800l., it had been directed when the Assessionable Manors Act was passed, that certain stocks should be applied to defray the expenses. To prevent the accumulation of water, it had been thought advisable to work certain mines till the price of copper and other circumstances should allow the property to be let again. That had been done for two years. The House would bear in mind that the property was now managed by a council, who conducted the affairs of the Duchy with great care and attention, and who were well acquainted with the subject; and although the charges might appear considerable, it must be remembered that the nature of the property was peculiar, consisting of small portions, scattered over a great number of places. It might be desirable or not, that the property should be otherwise situated; but there were no means of altering it, and the hon. Gentleman did not propose to do so, but merely to inquire into the mode of management; and he (the Solicitor General) had shown how it was managed, and that the amount of charges for managing had of late considerably diminished. As to the improvement of the property, a considerable amount had during the last few years accrued from fines, and the granting of a number of new lives, and for a period of many years the property had increased in that respect. In 1750 the amount received for fines was about 9,000l., but during the reign of George IV. the sum had risen to 19,000l., and during the reign of William IV. the sum of 32,000l. was produced by fines. These facts proved that a very great improvement had taken place in the property, while, at the same time, he had shown that there had been a great decrease in the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman stated that oppressions were practised in the management of the property. Now, as he had before said, this property was not public, but absolutely private; but if it were so managed as injuriously to affect the property in a legal or illegal way, it might be a fair subject for the House to inquire into, with a view to protect the property; but the hon. Gentleman was bound to specify what those acts of oppression were, and to be prepared with the details. As regarded the persons who had advanced money on improvements, and on the lives failing were unable to obtain a renewal, the House very well knew that that was an every day occurrence in the case of renewable leaseholds, and he thought they would be hardly induced to institute an inquiry upon the complaint of a tenant that had been ill-treated by the exercise of his landlord's undeniable right of not renewing a lease. This was a case which it appeared to him must be left to the working of the law, or else leave must be moved for to bring in a Bill for the alteration of the law. The hon. Member did not do that, but merely moved for inquiry, saying that he had abundant evidence to produce before a Committee. But that would not do. It was necessary for him to specify the particular grounds upon which he meant to rely in order that the House might judge whether it was a case for inquiry or not. He confidently submitted to the House, therefore, that this Committee ought not to be granted, because the property in question was absolutely private property, and managed for a private individual, although one of exalted position; and because the fact of accounts being laid before the Treasury and Parliament did not take it out of the category of private property. If the House considered the circumstances of the case they would find that the property was really well managed, and that there was nothing before them to warrant a suspicion that this was a case for inquiry.

MR. BOUVERIE

said, that the question was of a double character—first, the right of making the inquiry, and secondly, the expediency of making it. He had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor General with great surprise upon this being private property, into which the House had no right to inquire. Why, if there was any one property in the whole country of a character to justify a public inquiry, it was the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. It had been created by Act of Parliament; it had been constantly dealt with by Act of Parliament; and it was now under the management of trustees created by Act of Parliament. His hon. and learned Friend must know full well that this was not a matter of doubt or dispute—that the grant by Edward III. which constituted the Duchy of Cornwall was an Act of Parliament, and could only stand as an Act of Parliament. But not only had the property been created by Act of Parliament, but it had been constantly dealt with by Act of Parliament. At the time of the establishment of Queen Anne's civil list it was expressly assigned by statute to the Crown for the maintenance of its honour and dignity; and it had been specified in subsequent civil lists, either in terms or specially excepted, but excepted by name—thus showing the right of Parliament and the public to take a direct interest in it. If, as he earnestly hoped, the Prince of Wales should come to man's estate, the House of Commons would be asked to make provision for him. This Duchy was an appanage of the Prince of Wales, given to him by Act of Parliament, and to which he had no right but by Act of Parliament; and it was therefore a very material public question in what manner the property was managed, and how the revenues were disposed of, for it might be that the property was so valuable, and the revenues so growing and productive, that in the course of some fifteen years the produce, if discreetly managed, might yield so large an in- come as to render it unnecessary for Parliament to make further provision for the Prince of Wales. He might add, on this subject, that besides the returns being annually laid before Parliament, the office of the Duchy of Cornwall was a public office in Somerset House, for which no rent was paid. Under such circumstances, it could not, he thought, be justly contended that this property was in the same position as private property. At all events, he should like to know what difference there was between the right of Parliament to deal with the inheritance to the Crown lands, which were under public management, and with the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. It stood peculiarly in the position of a property belonging to the public, into which the public was entitled to inquire. What then was the case for inquiry? The truth was, it was rather a difficult matter to make out the case, for the materials were not laid before them; but there were strong grounds for supposing the management would not he found so creditable if the light of public investigation were thrown upon it. He had before him the accounts, and an abstract of the returns of the Duchy of Cornwall laid before the House for the last eight years, from which it appeared to him that the trustees had been doing that which they had no legal power whatever to do. He found by the last account that 4,333l. 1s. 4d. had been received in repayment of balance of advances previously made from the revenues of His Royal Highness to the corpus of the estate, for the expenses of the Assessionable Manors Commission. The Duchy Act gave the trustees power to appropriate the revenue to the general purposes of that Act, or to apply money arising from sales and exchanges to pay certain expenses therein specified; but, he contended, that the trustees, when they once had made advances out of revenue, had no legal power to recoup themselves out of the inheritance. Then he found the following entry among the expenditure:— Payment to the account of the Duke of Cornwall at the Bank of England, under the Act 7 and 8 Vict., c. 65, of a portion previously paid to the revenue account of His Royal Highness, of the purchase-money for the enfranchisement of copyhold property at Kennington, required by the London and South-Western Railway Company, 3,750l. What had become of the remainder? How much was the original sum? Surely, the House, to whom the account was presented annually, had a right to inquire into these circumstances. He asserted, then, that upon the face of the accounts there seemed to have been transactions which did not appear to be justified by the Act of Parliament under which the power had been taken; and surely they formed a legitimate subject of inquiry. There was another subject connected with the accounts upon which no information was afforded. Credit was given for a payment of 952l. 12s. 2d., "by the assignee of the lease of toll tin, for interest on money expended in the purchase of lease." Tin toll was a sort of royalty, but no information was given respecting this transaction. It appeared that the trustees had been advancing money to some one, the purchaser of this lease, to enable him to purchase it; but they had no sort of power under the Duchy Act to do this. These were slight instances, it was true, but they showed that this great property was not managed in the same correct and accurate way that a private property well looked after would be managed. In the eight years during which the returns had been made, he found that the income had amounted to 354,000l.; in the same period the expenditure, on account of salaries and establishments had been 71,000l.; on account of law charges, surveys, &c., 22,000l.; making a total of 93,000l. for managing a total sum of 354,000l.—a circumstance affording an indication that there had not been a careful management on the part of the trustees. He could not tell what other inference could be drawn from the facts. One word with regard to the Duchy of Lancaster. The account of the revenue and expenditure, as laid before Parliament for that Duchy, was, he must say, even more extraordinary and unsatisfactory than that of the Duchy of Cornwall. He found from the annual return laid before Parliament, that the gross receipts had been 273,224l. in nine years; out of which had gone to "salaries and allowances to officers—not including receivers and agents—62,558l., to "audit expenses, books, and stationery," 32,251l., law charges 14,948l., while Her Majesty had only received 112,000l. The revenues of this Duchy were part of the Crown revenues, which Parliament had assigned to Her Majesty. That was true; but it was quite a new doctrine to hear a Whig Government, the representatives of Burke and Fox, contend that Parliament had no right to inquire into the management of this property. Just seventy years ago, Mr. Burke brought into that House a Bill to improve the management of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster, and "to provide for the application of the rents thereof to the public service," and a similar Bill for the Duchy of Cornwall. Very warm discussions took place in the House of Commons on those Bills. It was then said, as at present, that the revenues were the private property of the Crown, and that it was therefore impossible the House could deal with them. But in those discussions Mr. Fox said— He could not help declaring, if it should be resolved that Parliament had not the right to interfere, to reform, or, if necessary, to resume the grants they had made to the Crown for public purposes, in short to see to the proper application of the money, there was at once an end to the liberties of the country; such a vote would in its consequences amount to a dissolution of the Government as modelled at the period of the Revolution. When, then, the practical result of the management of this great property was, that an average revenue of 32,000l. was obtained, but that only 12,000l. a year found its way to Her Majesty's privy purse, it struck him there was a strong primâ facie case for inquiry. In conclusion, he must repeat, that under these circumstances, he felt bound to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend.

MR. W. P. WOOD

, being in some degree connected with the Duchy of Lancaster, thought it his duty to make some observations with regard to the terms of the Motion, and the object it had in view. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had contended that this property ought to be distinguished from private property on several grounds. No doubt, in one respect, it was distinguished from private property, inasmuch as, at certain periods, it might be right for Parliament to take its amount into consideration, such as at the settlement of the Civil List, or of an appanage upon the Prince of Wales. But there were no such questions now before the House; and the property of the Duchy of Lancaster was, at this moment, vested in Her Majesty for Her private use, just as in like manner the property of the Duchy of Cornwall was vested in the trustees of the Prince of Wales for his private use. It was not the mode in which a property was created, but the purpose to which it was applied, that made it belong to the public; and with regard to the property of the Duchy of Lancaster, his hon. Friend was in error if he assumed it had been created by Act of Parliament. It was originally a private property, and it had always been kept apart from the general property of the Crown, under different Acts of Parliament. But the real question for the House to look at was, how and on whose behalf was it managed? It was not in either case managed by public commissioners or public trustees. True, the trustees were appointed by Act of Parliament; but for whom were they trustees, and to whom did they account? For the Prince of Wales, in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, and the money was paid over to the treasurer of his Royal Highness. It was not the fact of the trustees' accounts being laid before Parliament that made them accountable to Parliament; the persons to whom they were accountable were those who were entitled to receive the money. Everybody knew the Duchy of Lancaster was the private property of Henry IV., who, when he acquired the Crown, being afraid the property would merge in that of his higher title, took care to have an Act of Parliament by which they were kept distinct. So it continued until the time of Edward IV., who declared the Duchy of Lancaster forfeited; but he kept it distinct from the possessions of the Crown, though in a somewhat different form to that in which it had been placed by Henry IV.; for he settled it upon himself and the future kings of England, to be for ever separate and distinct from the property of the Crown. If it had not been for that Act of Parliament, a question might have arisen at various periods of our history, particularly on the marriage of Philip and Mary, and the Revolution of 1688, whether the property had not passed to other owners than the Crown. The real and true point, however, was, whether, supposing the property to be grievously mismanaged, the public was wronged to the extent of one shilling. If any one was wronged, who was the person most entitled to complain? Her Majesty in one case, and the Prince of Wales in the other. In what respect had the public been wronged? Reference had been made to the amount of legal expenses of the Duchy of Lancaster. With reference to the office he had the honour to hold—that of Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy—the income of which was 600l. a year, he had no hesitation in saying, that unless the court was put upon a much better footing than it was at present, he would not continue to hold the office; but he hoped the Government would be induced to assist him in the endeavour, with the consent of the council, to put the court upon a better footing. There had been presented to him a memorial signed by a large number of the solicitors of Manchester, forming the Law Association of that borough, stating their desire that the court should be continued, but requesting efficient reforms to be made in it commensurate with those already effected in the High Court of Chancery. At the present moment the court was actually behind the High Court of Chancery in point of reformation; but he hoped it would soon go beyond it, and keep pace with the projected reforms about to be extended to the Irish court, which must eventually be introduced into the English Court of Chancery. There was one particular advantage in the Lancaster Chancery Court—it had not the enormities of the Master's Office. Cases were not kept there year after year; accounts were taken de die in diem; and, on the whole, after some improvements, he had no doubt but that the court would work most satisfactorily to the public.

SIR R. PEEL

said, that some experience in Parliamentary discussion had led him to the conclusion that he was an unwise man, who, speaking in the House of Commons, should deny the absolute right of the House to do anything it thought proper. The power of the House of Commons was very wide and expansive. In this case the question was not the abstract right, but the justice and the expediency of exercising that right—namely, of instituting certain inquiries, and doing certain things. If any one had used the expression that the House of Commons had no right to institute an inquiry, he apprehended it was meant thereby to draw a distinction between inquiry into that hereditary property of the Crown, which the Crown had assigned to the public in lieu of a certain allowance for the civil list, and into such property as that of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which had been specially reserved by the Crown, and which continued under the exclusive management of the Crown. In the case of the Crown property assigned to the public during the endurance of the civil-list arrangement, there was clearly a right, on the part of the House to institute inquiry; for they had a direct, manifest, and present interest in swelling the revenues of such property so far as they could, and in seeing it properly administered. But the case of the property of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, especially that of Corn- wall, stood upon a different ground. At the period when the civil list was made, those properties were reserved by the Crown, with the full assent of Parliament; the management was left to the Crown; and it would conduce much more to the good management of that property if it were left to the administration of the Crown, than if the House of Commons were to interfere with it, unless, indeed, there were clear and signal proof of a necessity for such interference. He did not moan to deny, notwithstanding the special nature of the property, that if the House had reason to believe that the revenues were applied to corrupt purposes, or were profusely squandered, or that the law expenditure was wasteful and profligate, that there would not be a case to justify the institution of an inquiry; but he positively denied that there was ground for the slightest presumption of any such abuse. He had some slight connexion with the Duchy of Cornwall, having the honour to be a trustee of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, for the purpose of receiving the accumulations of property invested in the funds; and he must express his firm belief that there was no property, public or private, which, speaking of late years, had been better administered. Look at the persons concerned in its management. When he saw men of such eminince as Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and other gentlemen of high character and station, willing to devote their services to the administration of the affairs of the Duchies, he must deprecate an inquiry that would infallibly tend to prevent the Crown from having the invaluable services of men of such eminent station. What were the facts with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall? No doubt, during the last reign, there had been instances of very high salaries; no doubt there were persons holding Parliamentary office connected with the Duchy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock had shown that during the reign of William IV., the charge for salaries was 8,677l.; but the present charge for salaries was only 2,500l. The law expenses averaged, for nine years ending in 1840, 4,100l.; but they were now conducted with far greater economy. The greater part of the law business connected with the Duchy, under a recent arrangement, was done in the Duchy Office; and the charge incurred for 1849, in respect to solicitors' bills, and law officers, had not amounted to more than 37l. An increase had certainly taken place in respect to superannuation allowances; but they had been granted for the express purpose of diminishing the number of officers, and retaining only those who bonâ fide were concerned in the administration of the Duchy. Complaints, it was true, had been made of hardship with regard to leases. In former periods, he believed, the Crown properties were regarded as a sort of public domain on which all might safely trespass; every one took what he could get. The convenient doctrine was, that "the Crown must be liberal," and "the Crown must deal with great indulgence and forbearance to all claimants." A different system was now acted upon. It was now thought desirable to make the most of the Crown property. Instead of granting leases on small rents and extravagant fines, the full annual value of the property leased was now realised. Of course, this change of system led to complaint; but the House would see, that if they were to administer the property justly, and diminish the future charge which the country might have to bear in making provision for the Prince of Wales upon attaining his majority, it was impossible to do this, and, at the same time, silence the complaints of those who had local interests, and had been accustomed to a very different principle of administration. The hon. Member for Tavistock had given as a reason for the inquiry, that those who made hypothetical charges ought to be satisfied. It was surely enough to have an answer for every charge that had some sort of foundation. One of the hypothetical charges rested on the allegation that some portions of the Duchy property bad been sold to a railway company. If it had, he ventured to say that the whole money so received had been strictly applied to the purposes of the trust. Was there the slightest presumption of mismanagement, or the slightest ground for Parliamentary inquiry, because the Duchy of Cornwall, having property through which a railway passed, bad sold what was required for the purposes of the railway, and received a sum of money in lieu? Such a charge was not even hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman had introduced a new principle of debate. His (Sir R. Peel's) noble Friend the Earl of Lincoln last year, upon a Motion of the hon. Gentleman, made a most satisfactory and convincing speech, which he (Sir R. Peel) had hoped settled the ques- tion. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of replying to that speech, but he did not avail himself of it. With that the House was entirely satisfied. The whole of the arguments, repeated to-night, were refuted; the distinctions between the property of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the other hereditary property of the Crown were clearly stated. If the hon. Gentleman had said to-night, "I will answer the speech of last year now;" this, though it might not be a very Parliamentary course, would not have been a very irrational one. But the hon. Gentleman said, "I will take a newspaper which I think deals hardly with me, and will presume that it contains the sentiments of the Earl of Lincoln, and will proceed to reply not to the speech made by Lord Lincoln, but to an article in the Morning Chronicle, which I will substitute for the speech. This was an example of the hypothetical charge to which the hon. Gentleman had attached importance. But he hoped the House was satisfied as to the administration of the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, and as to the total absence of any, the slightest, presumption of abuses. No property, public or private, was managed more carefully, or with a greater desire to meet every just claim of the tenants, or of those with whom the Duchy had been in contact or collision. There was no estate on which greater desire had been manifested to prevent the possibility of abuse, to abolish useless patronage, to substitute bonâ fide working men for great officers with high titles and large salaries. There was no department of the State in which there could be found greater purity of administration, greater desire to do justice, or greater economy. Under these circumstances, instead of discussing the abstract question whether the House of Commons had a right to enter into an inquiry into the affair of the Duchies, he protested altogether against its justice or its policy. They could not institute an inquiry without weakening the authority of those who were conducting these affairs with entire success. Inquiry would imply suspicion; and he hoped the House of Commons would not consent to disturb, by a needless investigation, an arrangement which was working perfectly well, and with regard to which there was not a presumption of abuse or negligence.

MR. M. GIBSON

said, the House had been told by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that the courts of the Duchy of Lancaster were so defective, that if they did not amend their ways he should be under the necessity of leaving them, or of coming to Parliament and asking its assistance to reform them. He thought this question very important, for he had often heard it complained that these separate jurisdictions, clashing with the laws of the realm, were very undesirable, and whenever Acts were passed dealing with particular counties, clauses were inserted in them reserving the rights of the Duchies. The effects of this state of things were often very vexatious, and not in the main favourable to the public welfare, and were therefore, he thought, fit subjects for inquiry. The fact of such powers being exercised over Her Majesty's subjects, gave the House a fair right to inquire whether any portion of the funds of the Duchies should be applied to the maintenance of those jurisdictions.

MR. HUME

said, of the power of the House in this matter he had no doubt; public property was within the cognisance of Parliament on all occasions if they saw ground to make an inquiry. Twenty years ago he had brought the case of the Duchies before the House; and he could recollect the time when nearly the whole revenue was employed in paying salaries. In the management of the Duchy of Lancaster much improvement had taken place; but as there were still charges which absorbed 20,000l. out of 32,000l., there could be no doubt that this was a very heavy amount. There was still a multiplicity of offices—receivers with 1,100l. a year, and the like, and all these matters should become subjects of inquiry. Many small dues were levied, of which he ventured to say the proceeds were absorbed in the expenses of collection; these were attended with very great inconvenience to the parties who paid, and with no profit to the receivers. If he could have been the adviser of the Crown on this occasion, he should have said, "by all means let the inquiry take place. "The inquiry into the management of the Woods and Forests had been productive of very great public benefit, and he thought that now proposed would also be attended with good results. There might be in the minds of some a delicacy about showing accounts; but there ought to be no delicacy; they were public accounts. The House had a right to know how the accumulating funds paid to the trustees were invested, and how they were applied. In one year these had amounted to 41,000l., in another to 12,000l., in another to 7,000l. They knew what took place during the period of George IV.'s minority. The property of the Duchy of Cornwall, he believed, was misapplied, and never accounted for. The House ought to be vigilant that no portion of the property was misapplied, and the public had a right to know how it was applied, looking at the call that would be made upon them when the Prince of Wales came of age. He thought the Government, by consenting to lay the accounts before the House, had opened the door to any inquiry, and afforded opportunity for discussion. As an instance of the necessity there was for giving due attention to this subject, he might mention the tin duties, which formerly yielded a sum of 15,000l. to 16,000l., and were paid by the mining proprietors of the Duchy of Cornwall. All at once he found a Bill brought in by which they had been relieved of that impost, and the amount was placed on the Consolidated Fund.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, as the inquiry into the management of the Woods and Forests, over which he had the honour to preside, had been alluded to, he would take that opportunity of thanking the Government for the very abundant information they had laid before the Committee. He was unable to give his assent to the Motion now submitted to the House. If anything had struck him more forcibly than another in connection with the inquiry in which he was engaged it Was this, that of all the institutions in the world the House of Commons appeared to be the worst steward of the property placed under their charge. He would not inquire into the reasons why or how; but had that property been more diligently looked into, and had it been placed in pure hands, he believed they would have found much less to complain of. With respect to encroachments made on the property of the Crown, though it might have been oppressive in former times, it appeared to him that in modern times the Crown had been more sinned against by the neighbouring proprietors, than the neighbouring proprietors were sinned against by the Crown. The present resolution was drawn up in a way which might lead to the impression that the managers of the Duchy of Cornwall had been oppressive to the tenants; but he firmly believed that they had done no more than their duty to their employers, as the steward of any private estate might have done. With respect to the question whether the mode of managing the property was fair as regarded the tenants, he thought it one which a Committee of the House should not entertain.

MR. STANFORD

thought it impossible to grant the Committee, as it would be to confound the distinction between public and private property.

Question put, and negatived.