effect-that when a estate to be sold for any surplus remaine of the debts should sonal property, and ter of real estate, as t law. The proposal, -re there was no dihould go in the manbe fairly supposed to He hoped the Bill ss the second reading. = BATH said, that existing law was to gether; but this Bill, a tendency to sever the object of those the Bill in the other y the law of primoour personal against sted their Lordships ion the measure. ARROWBY thought the Bill was merely nd just what was now unjust, it ought to be rdships. He did not, understand the opera explanation or time for consideration. The object of this Bill was stated to be to facilitate the transfer of the Duchy of Cornwall offices from rooms in Somerset House to a new house to be erected for that purpose. In order to carry this out, it was proposed to give the Duchy 16,8891. for pay half their present premises, and also to the amount of the excess above that sum which the new premises might cost. Now, before he assented to this Bill, he wished to be satisfied that the Duchy of Cornwall had a vested interest in the premises in Somerset House under the 59 Geo. III., a matter on which he entertained considerable doubt. Of course, if there was such a vested interest, it would be necessary to But even in that case he pay, for it. strongly objected to pay any portion of the additional cost of the new premises. The revenues of the Duchy now amounted to 57,000l. per annum; 13,000l. per annum was paid in salaries to officers, and the Council were laying by 25,000l. per annum for the Duke of Cornwall. Under these circumstances, he could not assent to charge the nation with any part of the cost of building an ornamental building in Pimlico for the convenience of the Duchy Council, who were administering what was always contended to be private property whenever Parliamentary inquiries were talked of. He thought that some further explanation should be given before the House consented to read the Bill a third time, for it was read a second time on Friday after midnight, had gone through of the House) with- Committee on Saturday, and was again before the House on Monday morning; and this adjournment was the more necessary, as the Supplementary Estimates were fixed for this week, when this Vote of 16,8891. would be taken. He wished to have a copy of the contract, and an estimate of the proposed works, and of the value of the rooms now occupied at So-For Beverley, v. Hon. merset House. He had taken some trouley. from Lord CAMPBELL the effect of the Bill ng that it would not ir rights, ALE said, he would e, on the understandnittee should not be y. till To-morrow. COMMONS, ly 24, 1854. art of Chancery. Land Revenues of the Highways (Public Health Gold and Silver Wares. WALL OFFICE BILL. Reading read. d Question proposed, e read the third time D WISE said, this was Bills which were being he House without due ncellor ble to ascertain whether the Duke of Cornwall had a vested interest, but all he could find was an Act of the 15 Geo. III. c. 33, which stated that His Majesty having purchased Buckingham House and the large gardens adjoining, wished to settle that palace on the Queen instead of Somerset, or, as it was then called, Denmark House, and proposed to give the nation Somerset House in exchange. This arrangement having been completed, the Palace was converted into offices for public business, such as for Stamps, Navy, Ordnance, and the Dachies of Lancas the Duchy of Cornwal and he would on that spent hund dentifying and ado arter. If it was Teienee of public b pied by the off Cornwall should be poses, why not give of rooms at Whiteh e office. But he understand why it & magnificent set of pose, Many noble possessed est men per annum, and t large building for business. Until th before the House, cided opposition MR. HENLEY precisely the same ing Bill; it was second time, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. knew nothing about its contents. He did not see how the Duke of Cornwall murred greatly to the principle obtained any vested right by this arrange- in the Bill with respect to, the p ment, and it would be very difficult to only half the unknown expens prove to him how a few rooms, worth, Duchy of Cornwall. The Bill pl perhaps, 2,000l., could create a claim for country to an unlimited amoun a consideration of 16,8891., or even double was no estimate of expense, or o that sum, which this loosely drawn Bill bable cost that would fall on the might entail upon us. As a representative by transferring the offices from of the people, he protested against these House to the new building in constant attempts to take the public money This sort of bargain the country for such unnecessary, and, he must add, be no party to. He hoped the r such unjustifiable purposes. Baronet would consent to postpon until they had the Estimates bef and heard the explanation. SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH said, the only object of this Bill was to give to the Duchy of Cornwall precisely the same LORD JOHN RUSSELL sai holding in the public offices to be esta- not think the right hon. Gentle blished at Pimlico as it now enjoyed in Henley) correctly understood th Somerset House. In order to build those and object of the Bill. It was offices it would be necessary for him to convenient for the public service come to the House for a Vote of 16,8891., Inland Revenue Department sho and he would on that occasion explain the moved from the offices it formerly reasons for the proposal, if the House The premises in Broad Street a wished. The removal of the offices of the were sold, and they realised up Duchy of Cornwall was entirely for the 100,000l., and the department convenience of the Inland Revenue De- moved to Somerset House. Wh partment, and it was thought to be well removed to Somerset House it y worth paying half the excess required for that there were certain offices t the new offices to have the additional ac-blished by Act of Parliament w commodation at Somerset House for that wanted for the Inland Revenu department. He would reserve any further ment. Well, the question was explanations until the House went into the House would refuse to sanc Committee of Supply. an arrangement as that propose MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he objected The Duchy of Cornwall had n to appropriating the public money to any remove. If it was the wish of t such purpose, for, if they affirmed such a that there should be sufficient principle, there was no knowing where the dation for the Board of Inland expenditure would stop, and the nation had of course they would carry that already spent hundreds of thousands in effect; but he agreed with the beautifying and adorning edifices in that Gentleman that the House ough quarter. If it was necessary for the con- full information, and he had no venience of public business that the space to postpone for some days the occupied by the offices of the Duchy of tion of this Bill in order that t Cornwall should be devoted to other pur-mation might be afforded. The poses, why not give them an equal number good for nothing unless the Vot of rooms at Whitehall or some other pub-mittee of Supply was granted. lic office. But he must say he could not the Duchy of Cornwall could understand why it was necessary to erect that if they were turned out a magnificent set of buildings for this pur- rooms in Somerset House. the pose. Many noble Lords and hon. Gentle- have other rooms in which to men possessed estates producing 57,000l. their business. There could be per annum, and they did not require a to erect a great building for tha large building for the transaction of their He would move to postpone business. Until the whole matter was laid reading till Thursday. before the House, he should offer his decided opposition to it. MR. HENLEY said, this Bill stood in precisely the same category as the preceding Bill; it was read on Saturday for the second time, and he, with other Members, MR. DIVETT said, he thoug ponement would not altogether case. He considered the proc the Council of the Duchy of tyrannical and overbearing in the and he was not disposed to vote t the words Thursof the Question." :-Ayes 79; Noes and agreed to. ■Thursday next. c., BILL. onsidered. SELL said, he would on of the following freshment to Voters on That seemed to be the opinoble Lord in 1840, and Sir agreed with him, that the gist of the whole matter with which they had to deal was the intention, but now they were prepared to say that every kind of refreshment given to voters must necessarily be given corruptly. He hoped the House would not affirm the clause. have also arisen as to day of polling be or be is expedient that such d; be it Declared and or causing to be given, of nomination or day of ch Voter having polled y meat, drink, or enterment, or any money or r to obtain refreshment, en to amount to bribery may be, within the mean and read 1°. MR. HENLEY said, he thought this clause went much too far, as, by it, if any person not having the slightest concern in the election gave a voter a pint of beer he would be liable under it. He thought the treating clause in the Bill quite sufficient, and could not understand why they wanted to carry the law further. The hon. and learned Attorney General knew as well as any one that when voters came together there was a great deal of what was called good fellowship; what was termed a dry election was unknown, and, do what they would, they would not be able by an enactment to introduce a change in the habits of the people of the country. He believed that by making the law so stringent it would remain a dead letter, and they could not commit a more absurd mistake than to imagine that the more severe the law was the more efficacious it would be to put down corruption. If the present clause was adopted, the 4th or treating clause would be all moonshine, and had better be struck out. The only result of enacting such laws as this, which visited innocent hospitality with the same penalty as corrupt treating, would be, that while the great fish would slip through the net, the little fish, whom every one thought should be let go, would be caught. He believed that if they agreed to this clause they would have such a shower of qui tam actions after the next general election, that they would be obliged to pass another Act to stop them. He thought it would be far better to leave the law as it stood, and should certainly vote against the clause. Question proposed, now read a second D said, that as the t was illegal to give For corrupt purposes, ause, which was exnature, it was progal to give refresht to vote or who had of the North Chettee the noble Lord the effect that the ish only those who the purpose of core electors, and he could be no objecshment tickets to a THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, not with any view of without hesitation, that the clause passed s. He (Mr. Fresh- on Saturday rendered the payment of any hat 4,000 fourpenny expense whatever connected with travelling If they were divided by the candidate, except the actual exforty houses, those pense of locomotion, illegal. With regard depôts for the elec- to what had fallen from the right hon. - turnpike or a mile- Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), they MR. SPOONER said, he wished to know whether if a voter had travelled 100 miles, and either before or after the election received a glass of beer, that was to be considered bribery? were all aware that a p the voter was guilty of kes and asked him to c Tal they might Ta precluded from agreed with it: clause, and the far too severe. tion Committees w opinion of the Io P ity or otherwise and, if they wer extent? He sh reading of the cl came to be con be modified so a for he quite ag MR. BANKES said, from th the hon. and learned Gentlema torney General, it was clear tha ingenuity of the hon. and learn man only enabled him to step difficulty pointed out by the ho for North Warwickshire (Mr. He thought the clause ought to ed as to effect its purpose withou justice and attempting impossib MR. MORRIS said, he wishe of the hon. and learned Attorn whether a person would not be give refreshment to a voter afte tion was over, when it could r that he was under any influenc quence of refreshment? were all aware that a person giving meat | Member for Oxfordshire, that a and drink for the purpose of corrupting the clause regarding treating wa the voter was guilty of treating, but there perfluous and had better be stru was another question not legally decided as to whether the giving of refreshment to a man coming a distance to the poll could be termed " corrupt treating," and it was of the utmost importance to Committees of that House that that question should be decided. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire seemed to think it would introduce breaches of hospitality, but he (the Attorney General) did not know why. If a man met his friend or neighbour at market and asked him to come home and dine with him, it was not because he came to market, but because he met him away from home, and so it would be when a man went to the poll and met his friend who entertained him, that entertainment would not be on account of his voting. But, with respect to the candidate and the voter, he thought it ought to be decided by the House whether voters should have refreshment given them or not. He was of opinion that they ought not, because it would be well to encourage in voters a feeling of independence, so that they should feel they were under no obligation to the candidate, and that they gave their vote in the exercise of a duty and a privilege which the country conferred upon them. The system of refreshment tickets might lead to many abuses, as some voters might have come to the election with their minds not quite made up, they might meet with persons who would entertain them by means of refreshment tickets, and thus influence them. He was strongly of opinion that refreshment tickets should be made illegal, but he considered that the House ought to decide the whole question. LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, the principle of this clause seemed to be that the candidate's friends should not be allowed to do by means of refreshment tickets that which the candidate himself was precluded from doing, and so far he agreed with it: but he considered the clause, and the penalties embodied in it, far too severe. What the different Election Committees wanted to know was the opinion of the House respecting the legality or otherwise of refreshment tickets, and, if they were legal at all, to what extent? He should vote for the second reading of the clause, but he hoped, when it came to be considered in detail, it would be modified so as to lessen the penalties; for he quite agreed with the right hon. THE ATTORNEY GENER cording to the construction of it would be treating, and, con illegal. MR. HILDYARD said, he the case of a Member going do country to give an account of h ship, and his friends assembled dinner-would it be legal, he contribute towards the payme portion of the expenses conn such dinner? If they might p pense in the one case and not in their legislation was absurd. could be more common than calling his tenants together and to them his political views, a Hildyard) did say that it was a ble thing that a representative s frequent opportunities of callin stituents together-of explainin duct and satisfying them that h honestly and uprightly. Hon. had very arduous duties to perfo was of the utmost consequence should stand well with their co and be able to remove any misap that might have existed in th Were they to stigmatise a man to pay a portion of such expens son who bribed? He believed stringent penalties inserted in were placed there and contend so much on account of hon. M siring purity of election as to selves expense. No doubt, if I tributed refreshment with a fluence their election it was corr not so when that refreshment indiscriminately as an act of s the duty of that urrence; but he beinstances in which be traced to publiof ten they were at t; in a large numges of the publican much as had been hat which had been umed by those who ery much regretted ich had been made he Bill, for the suphment tickets, had He felt convinced umber of the indeot avail themselves ey would secure the against actual loss attendance at the a salutary check publicans, and the wly and gradually, blic opinion, be ennain evil. But the ts generality, interwhom the Legislainterfere. Her Maal said, he saw noch prevented a man whom he met to take him; but how would n the servants' hall, e the distinction beuncheon in the sera publican to supthe whole, it would e Bill stand without t penalties to those with corrupt inteney were determined the better course e issue of such mokets as to the Legis uch corruption had to a clause imposing all the penalties which referred to corrupt treating during the election. That being the case, he thought it necessary that they should consider whether or not such refreshment tickets were prohibited by law; and they all knew there had been many cases before Election Committees where candidates had been unseated on account of having given such entertainment, while there had been other cases in which all the candidates agreed to give moderate refreshment to voters. That state of the law was very inconvenient and incongruous, and it was very desirable the House should decide the question. It had been proposed by Sir Edward Buxton and others, to give a limited amount of refreshment, not exceeding 2s. in value; but the objection to that was that they could not well limit the amount of refreshment to be given in that way, and it would be attended with this inconvenience—that every voter who came up could put in a claim, and thus a general system of treating would arise. Now, it did not seem to him to be very unreasonable that about once every three years there should be two days when it should not be lawful to give meat or drink to persons about to vote. Many poor men went out to their work, taking their food with them, and after staying all day returned home in the evening, and many persons in a higher sphere of life were accustomed to pass a much greater number of hours than the period of the day when an election was taking place without taking more refreshment than they could conveniently carry with them; and therefore he did not see the force of the argument about the inability to attend from want of refreshment. On those grounds he certainly thought they might safely adopt the provisions of the clause, but, as to the amount of the penalty, he did not attach very great importance to it. Their object was to declare, by Act of Parliament, whether they would allow or prohibit that mode of entertainment; and, if they determined to prohibit it, he should not object to the course of attaching a smaller penalty. essary. SELL said, if the the position in which od, they would see provided severe pes who gave meat, t to any voter with Euencing him. What the Act of William eriod, now applied to , during, and after uestion also arose as entertainment to a ination and election, House would agree SIR FITZROY KELLY said, he fully agreed that it was quite necessary to settle the law by a decision of the whole House, and the only question was, whether they would adopt the clause with or without modification? He considered that to give refreshment tickets to voters would be nothing more nor less than to legalise a general system of treating, which it was one of the objects of the Bill to put down; and be therefore oppos the kind. There seemed rhy a smaller penalty not be introduced; ther MR. VERNON SMI that of the noble Lord bad not draw the fi Attorney Genera ht, if they impor the Bill, it would ha thely KNIGHTLEY for hon. Gentlem what one's dinner, e it themselves? H. Speaker whether 100 Members in the bars of half-past seve He should support the oderate refreshn M. WINN KNIG The voters were not whatever, the pl effect of d of voters wh of attending ADOLPHU considered th Attorney General Ter to the questi aim that evening il more complex a kere. He (Lord ee bribery and c mach as any one, b to the introduction Lord which rende The noble Lord th cries of "Divide hands of the clock ( to four, when he o third reading was ford University |