Star. — London, England, 1819-03-31 00:00:00

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. This Gazette contains t h e appointment, by the Pawl Rs our, of the Right Honourable Guam= Earl of Moaron, Knight of the Order of the Thistle, to be his Majesty's Com missioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Panics Rummy has ordered letters patent to pass the Great Seal, granting to the Rev. &maw Boa., D.D. the dig nity of a Prebendary of the Collegiate Church or St. Peter, Westminster, void by the Oath of the Rev. Wu. DotituAs,A.M. NEWSOM 117171111211 TO asava IN This MOO= TAILLIAKIIIT. Town ofiCarrkkfergus—The Honourable Gamma Haatu.rou COIIIIIIO/` called Earl of Bacrese. Earmgh of Tavistoek oini Peres purr, Es 4. in the room of Lord WILIAM( Round, who bas accepted the Chiltern llunereds. BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. Thomas Reed and JobJohi filiddlemas, Newcastlespost-Tyne, merchants, from Marzh 27 to May 15, at eleven, at Glad hall, London. BANKRUPTS. William Stubbs, Leek, Staffordshire, innholder, to surrender April 8, at one, 10, and May 11, at ten, at the Roebuck lan, Leek. Anomie., Messrs. Cruso's and Coupland, Leek ; or Messrs. Long and Austen, Holborn-court, Gray's Inn. Samuel Tuffley Ilarding, Charles Oakes, and Thomas Willing ton, Tamworth, Staffordshire, bankers, April 27, 28. and May 11, at twelve, at the Castle Inn, Tamworth. Actor nits, Messrs. Hicks and Braikcnridgc, Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn; or Mr. Nevill, Tamworth. Frederick Simpson, Huddersfield, wool-stapler, April 10, at the Swan Inn, Halifax, 14, and May li, at the George Inn, Huddersfield, at eleven. Attornies, Mr. Beckett, Noble` street ; or Mr. Scatcherd, Halifax. John and Thomas Gaunt, Armley, Leeds, woollen-manufactu rers, April 2, at five, 3, and May 11, at eleven, at the Court-house, Leeds. Attornies, Messrs. Few, Ashmore, and Hamilton, Ilenrietta-street, Covaut-garden; or Messrs. Up- ton and Ca Leeds. John Barnes, I'ortsea, builder, April 26, at .twelve, 27, at tar., and May 11, at twelve, at the India Anna Inn, Gos port. Attornies, Messrs. Alexander and Holtne, New Inn, London; Mr. Cruickshank, Gosport; or Mr. C. Wray, I'ortsea. __ • John Pearson, Portsmouth, mercer, April 26, at one, 27, at eleven, and May 11, at one, at the India Arms Inn, Gosport. Attornies, Messrs. Alexander mid Haute, New Inn, Lon don; or Mr. Cruickshank, Gosport. Joseph and Charles Bigg, Hatfield, Herts. common-brewers, April 3,6, and May It, at ten, at Guildhall, London. At tornies, Messrs. Nicholson and Platt, Hertford. Edmund Mingay Cntterill and Charles George Cotterill, Vine street, Llquorpond-street, bacon-merchants, April 3, 17, and May)i, at eleven, at Guildhall Attornies, Messrs. Kind and Co. Thrugniorton.st met. William Helph, Lewknor, Oxfordshire, farmer, April 3, 17, and May 11, at eleven, at Guildhall, London. Attornies, Messrs. nose and Slater, Gray's Inn. Maria and Joseph Peginni, Artillery-street, Old Artillery ground, dealers and chapmen, April 3,6, and May 11, at ten, at Guildhall. Attorney, Mr. Walker, Lincoln's Inn- Acids. Thomas Richard Moore, Denniatk-court, Strand, paper-stainer, April 6, 17, and May 11, at eleven, at Guildhall Attor niel, Mrs,:rs. Alexander and Holm, New Inn. Henry Winbolt Anderson, Cushion-court, Broad-street, coal merchant, April 10, 17, and May 11, at one, at GuildhalL Actor nirs, Mr. Coleridge, Secondaries Office, Coleman-street ; or Messrs. Willis, Clarke, Coates, and Watson, Warnford,- court, Throgmorton-street. DIVIDENDS to be made at GUILDHALL. April 20, It. Boyle, Upper Thames-street, merchant, at 12. Hay la, J. Polley, New Liond-streit, furniture-printer, at 11. April 10, J. Tucker, Long-.lcr e, linen-draper, at ten. April 17, J. S. Briglr., W. Bright, M. Bright, and 11. Bright, Coventry, and Foster-lane, ribbon-manufacturers, at twelve. April 17, It. and A. Wilkinson, Jeffries-square, merchants, at eleven. 17, T. Merac and M. La Porte i‘lerac, Queen-street, Cheap side, warehousemen, at one. April 20, F. Parsons, Duke-street, breeches-maker, at eleven. April 20, W. Gill.nore Harvey, of Battle, gunpowder-manufacturer, at twelve. April 20, 11. and W. Cutbush, Maidstone, cipenters, at one. April SIO, F. Rr•l land, St. James's-Areet, perfumer. April 3, A. B. French, Old *pith Sea Douse, merchAnt, at ten. April 17, I'. Meru and M. La Porte Merac, Queen-street, warhousemen, at one. April 17, 11 Lane, irmirer, at ten. DI VI DEN D:i to be made in the COUNTRY. April 30, R. Orme, Chester, draper, at eleven, at the White Lion Inn, Chester. May 1, J. Hodgson, beor-brewer, at eleven, at the Pied Bull Inn, Chester. April 17, W. Conan, Liverpool, liquor-merchant, at eleven, at the Star and Garter Tavern, Li verpool. April 8, M. Falk rer and W. Birch, Manchester, sta tioners, at eleven, at the Scar Inn, Manchester. April 23, C. Ormerod, Rochdale, innholder, at ten, at the Swan, Rochdale. April 21, T. Greer, Upper Arcley, farmer, at eleven, at the Pig and Castle Inn, Bridgnorth. April 21, I'. D. and W. Tuekctt, Bristol, wholesale grocer', at one, at the Commercial Rooms, Bristol. April 12, J. Underhill, Birmingham, merchant, at 11, r the Royal Hotel, Birmingham. April u:,, R. Leigh and D. Armstrong, Liverpool, merchants, at twelve, at the George Inn, Liverpool. April 26, J. Jackson, Middleton, merchant, at five, at the Duke's Head, Kings Lynn. April 23, R. Ray, Norwich, grocer, at four, at the Rampant Horse, Norwich. April 21, J. Briggs, Seukoates, grocer, at eleven, at the Dog and Duck, Hull. April 24, C T. Coots., Sutton, grocer, at eleven, at the Lamb Inn, fay. April 26, S. r. Holland and P. Ball, Worcester, hop merchants, at eleven, at the Unicorn Inn, Worcester. April 24, W. Worrall, Liverpool, merchant, at one, at the George Inn, Liverpool. CERTIFICATES-Arm. 17. I'. Caumont, Old 13rozol-. tro,t, merchant. H. Butler, Lem ington Priors, butcher. T. Atherton, Live. pool, farmer. John Ilargis, Southampton-street, ornamental paper-manutlcturer. J. Russell, Palace-Wharf, South-Lambeth, tintber-nterchant.— J. (Beeson, Cork-hill, liateliff.-crow, potatot-merchaut. Bolt, Bath, groct r. 11. Townsend the younger, Aldermanbury, mer chant. J. Burroughs, Great Hermitage-street, spirit-merchant. R. Friday th.! y ger, Islovotth, barge-master. R. Taylor, of Vl:tory, meaboan. It. Day, Crooked-lane. oil-broker. Araa too.—M. Noble, Lancaster, chemist. E. Thompson, of (:lobe-:hairs, Rotherhithe, ship-builder. J. T. Oxenham, Os ford-street, mangle-maker. William Kern, of Newcastle-under- Lrme, maltster. DISSOLUTIONS OF rAßT:gunsturs. Brown and Co. coal-merchants. Marreco and Co. London. David, aid Co. Craylord, Kent, calico-printer 6. lLsilnweli and Co. Jlanchester, carriers. Yates and Co. Alartehcstrr, ca -li:s-printers. Da Fontaine and )fathieu, Worship -street, livery stable-keepers. lhment and Turner, M - ancltester, callenderers. Shuttleworth and Stevens, Poultry, auctioneers. Ligh And 'lowan', Wandsworth, coal-merchants. Croxen and nodding ton, Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, butchers. Fletcher and Gaskell, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, corn and flour dealers. Malins and Smith, Webber -street, Illactafriars-road, bakers. Stephens and Salter, Bridport, Dorset, sail-cloth-ma nufacturers. John, James, and William Kershaw, and John Atherton, Ilurst-within-Whitfield, I krbyshire, cotton-spinners. Wilkinson and Co. Barbican, merchants. Watkins and l'etts berton, Queen-street, Oxford-road, tin and iron-plate-workers. Car and Cutts, Sheffield, opticians. .1. and J. A. Thwaits, 1.-igh-s•-reet, Burton Crescent, artist , . Wat.iim and Warkinson, Leeds, woolstaplers. Cardwell and Co. Manchester, silk and cotton-manufacturers. Daniel and D lareland, Bishopsgate-street, linen-drapers. Wilkes and Baker, Birmingham, clock-dial-ma rufacturers. Orbell and Baker, Great Henry, millers. Knight and Barrett, Northamptortastreet, Clerkenwell, cabinet-makers.l J. and M. Hodson, Leominster, Herefordshire, dress-makers.' Wale and t Oardner, Curtain-road, iron-founders. Witham and Woodward, Free-school-street, Southwark, grocers. Sheasby stcd Wilsor, Coventry, carriers. Petty and Co. Ifolbeck, near Leeds, e arthen-ware-manufacturers. Abbott and Viveash, Mark lace, atter:sirs. Forristall and Davey,. Black Rock Hot wells, Gloucestershire, quarriers. Wade an( Green, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, braziers. Mitchell and Co. Flland, Yorkshire, dyers. Rodman and Douglas, Bath, free-stone-quarriers. Smith and Co. Sunderland, brewers and spirit-merchants. Davies and G ro om, Welsh Pool, common-carriers. Fearnsides and Ilsr reps), Dewsbury, Yorkshire, linen-drapers. Browne and Banks, Ririe, Isle of Melt, librarians. Barrows and Marston, ar ouse/ham, cestaserdiants. 'ION OF PRIZE-MONEY. men slaves taken in the Givota, April 1, .?t, Strand, and recalled there. Blouoni, at Greenwich IfilopitaL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 30. The Loan Chter Juirtee sat upon the Woolsack in the fore noon, and heard ('nursel upon certain pending Appeals, which lay over since the Learned Judge last attended for the purpose. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool sack at the usual hour ' • after which a good de .d of routine and private-business was disposed of. The Earl of BEAUCHAMP presented a Petition from Nor wich against the continuance of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. The Poor's Laws' Amendment Bill was returned from the Commons, by Mr. S. tistraNE, with their acquiescence with the Lords' Amendment thereto. The Quarter Sessions Division Bill was read the second time. Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the town of Nottingham, praying their Lordships, should a Bill for the esta blishment of Courts of Requests in that town come before them, that they would not concur in the same. . The peculiar prayer of this Petition gave rim. to some conver sation between the Noble Presenter, the Earl of Rowers, and the Noble and Learned Loan on the Woot.same ; the last men tioned seeming to think that the Dill contemplated by the Peti tioners being of a local nature—such a Petition could not, con sister.tly with their Lordships' Orders, be received. In the result it was agreed that the consideration of the ques tion should be adjourned. hle degree of unpopularity, in CIRCULATION OF THE OBSERVER. such t public distress. The No like the present, of great The Editor of The Observer submits to the Public said , that Parliament had granted the ble Lord had the following Statement of its Sale during the last rio titsP4bilfringiane:;:rvjera-ard--- a proposition, at a petiod Half Year, October 4, 1818, to 28th March, 1819: the Kip P's ,son;pe and that therefore it ought now Sunday, October 4, printed - 11,133 14 to be • die Duke of York. That the grant to Sunday, October 11, printed -11,092 given to s. 'Um a-year to the late Queen, as the Custos of t _Sunday, October 18, printed - 11,187 ', late Majesty was not oppos ed at the time in that day, October 25, printed - 11,330 .; might be easily UC ouse (it was in the Commons) g je i nday, November 1, printed - 11 , 4 50 1 counted for, from the great and momentous ques- Sunday, November 8, printed - 11,900 Sunday, November 15, printed - 11, 1 90 Lions under discussion at that p eriod, and which Sunday, November 22, printed - 13,925 Sunday, November 29, printed - 11,850 Sunday, December 6, printed - .4,000 the measure alluded to was m rni e g et h i t ng ea w si i l th y m pr u e c v h en c t un a ti q de u r e a s t t i i t on l. of £lO,OOO he fl u o .a rn s present or not at the time Sunday, December 13, printed - .1,890 Sunday, December 20, printed - :1,550 on his pat tin not op- December 27, printed i 1,315 t - Sunday, January 3, printed - 1 1 ,1 8 7 there w before etahsea house ,n yd der el i ction u ai ld d n u o t t y now recollect ; but if Sunday, Sunday, January 10, printed - 11,207 t h e present grant . Were the allowances o f te Sunday, January 17, printed - 11,850 poging that measure, it was no argument a in dn to sit th favourth ealat it Sunday, January 94, printed - 11,67 5 Queen, as Custos, proper. he would Sunday, January 31, printed . 11,400 thew'a spp sorotOriteitly of the o grantfl'"k ; e Duke in the 'case of the late but . he utterly deLied Sunday, February 7, printed - 1 1 ,6 50 Sunday, February 14, printed - 11,500 Queen (though there was certainly some d ifference Sundry, February 21, printed - 11,506 between her Majesty's situation and that of the Duke Sunday, February 28, printed - 11,506 Sunday, March 7, printed - 11 , 448 of York), and he equally denied the propr i ety in the Sunday, March 14, printed - 1 1 , 375 case of the Duke of York. That th e Duke of York Sunday, March 21, printed - 11,380 was very properly constituted Cusios of the King s Sunday, March 98 , printed - 11,536 Person, he most readily admitted; and lie was satis fied that his Royal Highness had undertaken that high and important office with the full determina tion to execute the duties of it with the most affec tionate zeal. But when they came to the question of allowance, what was the ground alleged for it?— Nothing but expense. And what were the expenses of executing the office ? It was quite clear that when his Royal Highness went to Windsor, there could be no expense incurred there, because there was a table expressly provided for him at the expense of the King's establishment. What then remained but travelling expenses--and could this be seriously urged, when it was known that his Royal High ness's residence at Oatlands was not ten miles h o rn Windsor? and if even he went from London, was it not equally well known that the Royal Duke enjoyed the advantages of the offices of Commander-in-Chief, seldom allowed in time of peace—which were not merely pecuniary, but consisted of the use of horses, &c. which might be eerily employed to execute the duties of this office? Ile agreed, that if such an al lowance was requisite, reasoning with regard to the legitimate objects of the Privy I'urse would lead to the conclusion, that upon that fund, if any, this al lowance ought to be charged • but he di ff ered with an opinion in another place, that the allowance ought to be so charged, because they still came to the ques tion, whether the allowance was necessary or not ? and for the necessity, no ground whatever had been made out. The allegation of expense was altogether untenable. It was absurd to all.ege that there could be any expense incurred equivalent to any thing like £1 0,000 a-year ; and unless it was to be affirmed that no office ought to be given to a Prince of the Blood without attaching a salary to it, he saw no possible ground for sustaining such a grant. He said, a Prince of the Blood, because he observed that in the Act there were Commissioners appointed to take charge of the King's private property (one of whom was to be a Master in Chancery), an office of great delicacy and importance, and perhaps of great trou ble and difficulty, and they were expressly to act without salary, fee, or reward. Why then should these iientlemen be thus called upon to act without any emolument, and £lO,OOO a• year be given to the Duke of York? It was a painful duty imposed upon him, but he felt it to be a public duty, to oppose this grant to the Duke of York, and that duty he must fulfil. Ile, as he said before, respected his Royal Highness for his public services, and esteemed him for his private virtues, but a sense of public duty compelled him to oppose the allowance granted by the present Bill. The Earl of LlVERPOOLobserved, the Noble Earl had talked of the repeated propositions which had been made for the reduction of the Windsor Esta blishment, which had been invariably opposed. He (Lord Liverpool) challenged the Noble Earl to ad duce a single instance, previous to the last Session of Parliament, in which any direct proposition had been made for reducing this Establishment ; and he would ask any man, whether last Session, when her Majesty was at the point of death, was a fit time for entertaining a proposition for altering entirely his Majesty's Establishment?—( Hear, hear),—With re spect to the Grant to the Queen, she was entitled to all she had received, living with the King, for had she been separated from the King, she would, by her marriage -settlement, have been entitled to a much larger sum. With respect to the Windsor Establish ment itself, he had made every enquiry into it, and he did not believe there ever was an Establishment conducted with a more modest economy. The prin ciple of the reduction had been, what degree of re trenchment could be made in consequence of the death of her Majesty, who, had she lived longer than the King, would have been entitled to £lOO,OOO a yeal? Her Majesty's decease had left it open to con sider what reduction might be made in the number of State Officers. The Noble Earl had said, he had no objeztion to the Establishment, except to that part which related to the keeping up Windsor Castle, and the Grant to the Duke of York. With respect to the first object, Windsor Palace was not the Palace of the Regent, it was an additional expense beyond what would have existed, but for his Majesty's in disposition ; the whole subject had been before Par liament, and it had been decided that this expense was not to be thrown on the Regent, but that it ought to be defrayed out of the particular fund ap propriated to his Majesty's Establishment. With re spect to the Grant to the Duke of York, he (Lord Liverpool) contended, the Privy Purse being the pri vate property of the King, could not be made avail able to the purpose of paying the Custos. It was the private property of his Majesty, who might will it in the same manner as any one of their Lordships could will their property. In• what had fallen from the Noble Earl, on the subject of the Grant to the Duke of York, he (Lord Liverpool) could not but consider the Noble Earl had treated the subject very unfairly. Would the Noble Earl say that he believed the Duke of York, or any other person; could hold that high office without incurring very considerable expense, independent of travelling expenses ? Did Noble Lords believe that the Queen with her £58,000, and her £lO,OOO, .was getting rich? It was well known what endeavours. had been made in other • ........- ... -...... places to delude the peopl e ou t hi s . subject ; but the The tot een asu l l s e n° r, Wangdoism:te; now vied; ktP:ne!ciaetect: petty ate died possessed of. How had she spear's; money ? Had she dissipated it in riot and ext ra , gance ? He could answer that goestion. state, from the letters and applications he h ad ceived, the amount and extent of her almost be ar ,d." — less charities, and the numbers of individuals r - sa now mourned her loss in bitte r tears of sor .„„ —( Hear, hear).—Previous to the King's indispose;,, he frequently assisted her Majesty in her ch • after his melancholy indisposition commenced, ti' s resource failed her, and not only that, but her jesty took upon herself the burthen of many of King's pensioners. This circumstance had ta il e d much to straiten her Majesty, and the state in whi c i her property was at the time of her death, was ac. counted for by this circumstance. The Noble Lai observed, that by the death of her Majesty, the P r i g . Regent might have appropriated the 4.35,000 o s: d ; the Queen had enjoyed, to any part of the Civil Lit. his Royal Highness had, however, liberally reiir quished it to the Puhlic, and all which was now 7s . quized was, that the Duke of York should too £lO,OOO a•year to defray those expenses which ev. s id attend the high and important office to which he had bcoo appointed. The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM said, t-at intention of their Lordships had originally bean. to.: the King, upon his recovery, might find his usathi;sl.. ment as nearly as possible in the same state as beftos his indisposition. At present there was no rtonanFili:- Officer about the person of his Majesty, and :he Cio. tos ought to receive a salary that a responsible Officer might be so employed. At present, should the King be ill-used, it would be impossible to find out the Officer cb.trged with the care of the Royal Person. For himself he should have preferred making the Council responsible, ard allowing them a salary. la the present stare of tie country, he thought thst rot a shilling shoal be spent uenecessarily, but the ao rangement for the comfort of the King was the last quarter to which the eountry . would look for econo my. As there was no responsible Offietr about tLs King he must take the Custos as he found him, aad he was not to be deprived of the salary becaase he was the King's son. No person could s'er a memeo suppose that the Duke of York was actuated by ars sordid motive in taking upon him the care of tEe Royal Person. The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, that t s e sum in question was not a salary, but an indemnE Ication for expenses that would necessarily be incurred by the Custos, and it was not proper that a charac:cr so elevated should make out bills. The Grant sots fully justifiable upon the same princisle that had justified the Grant to the Queen. Many were of opi nion that the Grant would have been proper if made from the Privy Purse. But in his opinion such a proceeding would have been a violation of the rights of private property. The Privy Purse had been re cognised by Act of Parliament as the private pros perry of the King, and the savings out of it followed the course of the common law. He would ask, whe ther, on the event of the King having contracted debts, such a Grant could be made from the Privy Purse? A proposition might with equal justice he made to dispose of the property that had been left by the Queen to her daughters. Some of the greatest Lawyers of the age had been of opinion, that, in the event of no will, the savings on the Privy Purse would come to the Crown ; though, in some of his opinions on that subject, he had the mortification to find that he agreed with neither side of the House. There oas meanness in the reductions that had been made in the Windsor Establishment, particularly in throwing upon the world persons who had served upon it from 30 to 4.0 years. Many had looked to the situations they held there as a provision for their future days. The details that had been gone into were disgraceful to Parliament, and tended to undermine the digsOty of the Crown ; nor could he see what connection the death of the Queen had with the reduction that had taken place. He should therefore support the Bill. The Earl of DARNLEY thought that the interest of the Duke of York would have been better con sulted, had he come down to the House, and in his place declined the salary proposed to be attached to the office. He should vote for the proposition of his Noble Friend. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE stated, that at the close of the last Session he had observed that the re duction of the Windsor establishment might supply the expense of the Royal marriages. At the com mencement of the King's indisposition, a hope had been entertained of his recovery ; and in that view the Royal Establishment had been continued on the same footing as before. There was then a good ground for the reduction of that part of the Royal Establishment which had been continued under the idea that the King might recover. It he could for a moment suppose, that such a proposal implied any abandonment of the King, he would be the first to take the sense of the House in opposition to it The Bill before their Lordships was, upon the whole, a fair arrangement ; but upon the grant to the Duke of York, he concurred with his Noble Friend (Lord Grey.) But could the services of the Duke of York be recognized by that House, he should cheerfully vote for any remuneration for those services. It would have been better that the claim had not been made, though at the same time no doubt could be entertained that the duties would be most faithfully and ably discharged. He could not concur with his Noble Friend (Lord Lauderdale) that the Privy Purse was the private property of the Sovereign. At the commencement of the present reign it had been merged in the Civil List, and the separation had ori ginated from Mr. Burke's Bill. But the real question was, had Parliament made the Privy Purse private property? Were that the case, Parliament could have no right to enable the Duke of York to giant pen sions out it, and yet l'arliament had charged the whole expense of the medical attendance upon the Privy Purse. Parliament saw that two Privy Purses could not exist at the same time, and accordingly the Privy Purse of the Prince Regent was for his sole use. He could see no impropriety in the salary or rern'-i -aeration of the Custos being defrayed out of t. .e Privy Parse. The office could derive ao additional responsibility from a salary being annexed to it, and he should, therefore, give his negative to that part of the Bill. Lord LAUDERDALE, in explanation, observed, that Parliament might make the same application of the privy rune that had beett mask by thy hing,Wh° nut] The Creole, eight at N. en, Arundel-err!. The rioncer, tot the 1 1: Q ; t r, t -k ' y. 66 1 , [l s .1 MILITARY EXPENSES IN INDIA. The Earl of LAUDERDALE observed, he had a question to put to Noble Lords opposite, cm a sub ject which he thought of the greatest public impor tance, namely, whether Official Accounts had been yet received respecting the Military Expenses which had been incurred by the East India Company and the Public; but more especially with respect to the Establishments at Ceylon, as he understood that charges on these heads had been made beyond what any man had an idea of, and which were, he thought, to an amount sufficient to keep up a force of three times the number that was actually kept up in this quarter. Earl BATIIURST observed, that he understood Accounts or Estimates had been furnished between the Governments of Bengal and Madras reciprocally, respecting the expenses in question ; and he also un derstood that the Government of Ceylon was also in correspondence with those two on the subject, for the purpose of arranging the proportions of expense which should fall on the respective Governments.— But he had very recently an opportunity of leant ing, that the whole auxiliary force which had been required, was returned from Madras and other quarters, with the exception of some very few na tive regiments. The Earl of LAUDERDALE, in the course of some explanatory conversation which took place be tween hint and the Noble Secretary of State, seemed to deprecate a course of proceeding which may enable one Government to saddle another with an undue portion of expense. Ile wished any Noble Lord was present more officially connected with those depart ments, so as to be able to afford accurate informa tion. The subject, however, was one which de served a further and more serious consideration. WINDSOR ESTABLISIINIENT SILL. The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the Order of the Day on which their Lordships were summoned, for the House going into a Committee on this Bill. The Earl at SHAFTESBURY accordingly took the Chair. 13efore the:r Lordships went into the consideration of the clause F, Earl GREY rose, and, pursuant to his notice, ad dressed the Committee at some length, chiefly in re ference to the clause granting the salary of £lO,OOO per annum to the Custos Persona. The Noble Earl hoped, that in thus coming forward on a ground of public duty, no man would deem him adverse to the system of adequate rewards for real public services, on the one hand, or that lie was callous to the infir mities or afflictions of suffering greatness, on the other. It was with deep regret he felt himself thus called upon ; but in the present distressed situation of the country, no expense, however small, should be unnecessarily incurred. In so doing, he but went upon the avowed principle of the Bill itself, as set forth in the preamble. On a recent occasion, lie un derstood the Noble Earl to admit that the late Bill was in effect as much calculated to meet the expenses which should attend her late Majesty as Queen Consort, as upon the principle of providing for the care of his Majesty's person; as were it otherwise, there should be considerable expense incurred in reference to her Majesty's dower and other charges. And it seemed to him to be argued that the sum in question, viz. the £lO,OOO a-year, was to be considered as a part of these expenses. Admitting that to be the case, for . the sake of the argument, these considerations now existed no longer, and of course no necessity existed for a continuance of the expense on the same scale in any one particular. The reduction he cordially ap proved of, but he should think 4:50,000 per annum would afford a large establishment even for a King under such unhappy circumstances as his Majesty la boured; but he must regard with some surprise that a considerable portion of that sum appeared to be considered as applicable to the keeping up Windsor Castle as a regal residence. Why was not such part ,of the expense met in a similar way with the other Royal Palaces? It was most painful for him to dwell upon this subject; but he could not but think that Ministers had acted most unwisely and injudi ciously, in thus dragging forward th e D u k e o f York a ti ld Cr n. In .ct lit le is rd :cr :as ad pi- Ale a hts re- 'ed ke- :cd vv he eft ev.t lid ins at tai In ing DM ons