REPORT OF AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 15 June 1860)

§ LORD KINGSDOWN
stated for the information of their Lordships the mode in which the accounts of the Duchy were kept.

§ LORD VIVIAN
rose for the purpose of asking the noble Duke below him (the 502 Duke of Newcastle) a question as to the meaning of a remark which the noble Duke used in a former debate, but which then escaped his notice. The noble Duke was reported to have said that the Duchy had always exercised its rights with leniency and forbearance, and that many of those noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were now most forward to complain had received favours at their hands. He wished the noble Duke would explain who were the parties to whom he referred. A noble Lord who opposed the Bill the other evening, but who was not now in his place (Lord Churston) had authorized him to say that he had never received any favour at the hands of the Duchy; for himself he could say that he had never asked for or received any. The Council of the Duchy, he considered, had failed in their duty if they had granted any, and he challenged the noble Duke to mention the names of the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen to whom he referred. He might say here, too, that he had been taken to task for applying the term "sharp practice" to the officers of the Duchy. He was quite aware that that term ought not to be applied unless there were ample means of justifying it. He did not apply the term to the Council—the term was applied to some of the subordinates; and he only wished that noble Lords who were on the Council would examine into these questions and see for themselves whether their conduct did not deserve the name of "sharp practice." He had formerly explained that he had no longer an interest in the Bill— the case in which he was interested was decided before this Bill was brought forward; but he had thought it right to refer all the correspondence that had passed between him and the officers of the Duchy in reference to that case to the hands of an eminent counsel, whose name he was not at liberty to mention because he had only received his reply as he entered the House; but it was to the effect that he thought a degree of pressure existed which few gentlemen would have thought it desirable to exercise; and however technically justifiable the course of the Duchy might be it was one which he would not advise any client of his to take unless he were a Jew or "some sharp practitioner." It was legally right, but it would hardly be thought right by any fair-dealing man. He might also add that he was borne out by many of his Friends—some of them Members of the other House of Parliament 503 —in the application of the term "sharp practice" to the conduct of the officers of the Duchy.

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
said, he did not rise to discuss the provisions of the Bill, but to reply to the question of the noble Lord—a question, however, he must say, which appeared to him to be not only a singular but an irregular one. The noble Lord asked him what he meant by an assertion that was made in the noble Lord's own hearing, and which he then allowed to pass without challenge, but now came down with it cut out of a newspaper, and challenged its correctness. He had not a word to say against the correctness of the report, which he believed conveyed a fair representation of what he said, but the noble Lord had put into it a word which he did not use, and which he did not think was in the report. He never said that either Lords or Gentlemen had received favour at the hands of the Duchy. What he said was, that noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who were most forward in complaints had derived great advantages at the expense of the Duchy. In saying this he intended no personal attack on the noble Lord himself, still less on the noble Lord who had been before alluded to (Lord Churston), there was no one who had shown more courtesy, and he might say kindness, to the officers of the Duchy than that noble Lord. He was stating a general fact which applied to all the landed gentry of Cornwall. There was no reflection on them; but, nevertheless, for several years past a course of events had taken place tending, pro tanto, to enrich the landowners at the expense of the Duchy. Fifty or sixty years ago a measure was passed through Parliament by which about 20,000 acres of land, the property of the Duchy, were disposed of at nominal prices. Then came a dispute about the settlement of the septennial leases. Though it was generally admitted that the holders of those leases could not enforce any right to renew, yet by the Cession of Manors Bill the property thus held on leases was converted into freehold, by which several years' value was added to the property of the landowners. Then, one of the most ancient rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was the duty on tin. Disputes, however, arose with respect to them, and a Bill was introduced by Lord Mont-eagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which these tolls were given up, the Duchy receiving a compensation out of the 504 public Exchequer. He had no hesitation in stating that if those rights were existing now they would be worth £25,000 a year. Altogether he believed that the property the Duchy had lost of late years in this way was of the value of between £50,000 and £60,000 a year; and this was a public question, because it must be remembered that the revenues of the Duchy diminished the provision that must be made from the public Exchequer for the heir to the Crown. The subordinates of the Council had been accused of sharp practice. As to that he must say that they had occasional law suits; but considering the nature and extent of the property these were very few, and he did not recollect a single case in which the Duchy had not been successful. Was not that a proof there was no sharp practice in the matter? He could assure the noble Lord that he would not make either himself or his colleagues angry by the employment of these terms; and as to the opinion which the noble Lord had read he knew nothing of the counsel or of the case that had been submitted to him; but he was quite willing to take the opinion of any independent and honourable man whether the opinion which the noble Lord had read was a fair description of the transaction. The noble Lord had made these complaints to him several months ago, and also to his noble and learned Friend opposite, the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord Kings-down); and they had both gone over the noble Lord's case with the utmost minuteness, calling in the aid of their most experienced servants, and they convinced themselves that there was no just cause of complaint against what had been done. He did not say the noble Lord had not a case; when both he and his noble and learned Friend began to look into it they thought he had cause of complaint, but they were now satisfied that the decision was legally, morally, equitably, and generally right. As to any other complaints the noble Lord or others might have, he could only say that if they were sent to the Council he would take care that they should be investigated.

§ LORD VIVIAN
thanked the noble Luke for his offer, and said he would accept it.

§ LORD PORTMAN
said that the noble Duke who had to-night defended the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall was not a Member of their Lordships' House when the first investigation was made into the affairs of the Duchy. The Report then made 505 to the House was that customs had been abandoned, fees and heriots had been lost, boundaries of estates had become doubtful, and adverse claims had been made which had grown into habits, if not into legal rights. It had taken the Council twenty years to put the affairs of the Duchy to rights. The Council did not wish to encroach upon the property of others, but it was their duty to guard the rights, privileges, and estates of the Duchy.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH
said, he remembered, in the days of His late Majesty, George IV., great complaints had been made of malversation in favour of particular individuals, and against the interests of the Duchy. He deprecated the employment of such terms as "sharp practice."