§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)said, that he wished to call attention to an item of £16,216 15s. charged on the Consolidated Fund for an annual payment to the Duchy of Cornwall. This sum was charged in pursuance of what was done under the Statute of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 120, by which certain coinage dues, &c. were abolished in the counties of Cornwall and Devon. The amount, which was fixed in 1838, was peculiar, because in examining Sir Reginald Welby it appeared that £16,216 was fixed as perpetual compensation for the loss of part of £11,356. It seemed a little difficult to understand how a sum of £16,000 odd could be the proper compensation for losing a portion of £11,000 odd. But what he wanted to call attention to was an absolutely illegal payment. This sum of £16,216 included in it an amount for post groats and white rents. The Statute to which he had referred gave directions to the Lords of the Treasury to ascertain what had been the clear net annual income from these sources year by year during the preceding 10 years. They had found that the sum of £10 a-year only had been received by the Duchy, and the commutation money of that £10 a-year was £630 12s. 2d. The Lords of the 217 Treasury had by Minute determined that this sum of £16,216 should be paid less the sum of £630 12s. 2d. as from the 5th of April, 1841, as that sum was the commutation money, for the loss of £10.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was dealing with money that had been voted by the Committee of the House?
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was dealing with money applied by this House from the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe only question that arises is whether the payment is out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the Votes passed by Parliament.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHThis particular sum is out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am afraid it would not be in Order.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHIf I am out of Order in raising it on this Bill I will not continue the discussion; but—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question before the House is the appropriation of the moneys voted by Parliament.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that this matter was one within the scope of the Secretary to the Treasury's duties, whose salary was included in the Appropriation Bill; and he apprehended he would, therefore, be in Order in referring to it. The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that for many years after the 5th of April, 1841, this payment of £630 12s. 2d. had been annually paid by the Treasury without any authority for so doing; and in reply to a Question as to whose duty it was to have seen that the payment of this money was duly authorized the Secretary to the Treasury had replied that it was nobody's duty. He desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that money was thus paid away without any efficient control on the part of the Treasury. The Treasury under this Statute were directed to report what they did to the House of Commons; that they did so report that they had ordered the £630 to cease; and notwithstanding that they yet continued that payment secretly and behind the backs of the public to the Duchy of Cornwall.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)said, the hon. Gentleman had stated the 218 facts with substantial accuracy; and if the matter could have been questioned immediately after the transactions to which the hon. Member referred—at the beginning of the present Reign—he would have had some doubt as to whether there was a sufficient warrant for continuing those payments. But this, of course, was a payment which had been continued for many years, and micas to which Parliament had had many opportunities of expressing an opinion. He certainly did not think that there had been any concealment in the matter. The whole question of the income of the Prince of Wales was considered at the time of his marriage, and a careful estimate was made, and his income was made up to a certain, figure by a grant from Parliament, and it was quite clear then that this was treated as a matter of income for which the Prince of Wales had to give credit in one sense. He thought it right also to say that, while the bargain was assented to by King William, he had considerable doubt as to whether it was binding on the Prince of Wales, although on that point he had not sufficiently studied the matter to give a final legal opinion upon it. On any occasion when that income again came to be re-adjusted, this matter might then be duly considered; but under present circumstances he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would rest satisfied with having called attention to the matter.