Star. — London, England, 1825-05-28 00:00:00

q~. .:.r- ~~: , . • ~~ [_ PAA 'I'A. P#OCEE DING S. -.• OW.- HOUSE D . F LORDS, MAT 27. The Earl of KINGSTON presented a Petition from Castle I.yntt, in the County of Cork, complaining of oppression under the Irish Tithe Act. Referred to the Committee on the State of Ireland. Mr. MASON, from the East India Company, presented the annual Account of the sale of enodi and merchandise. —Laid on the table. Earl TORRINGTON presented a Petition from the Workmen of the London Docks, in favour of the Equitable Loan Company Bill, and two others to the same effect from Parishes in the County of Stafford.—Laid on the table. The Earl of LAUDERDALE had no doubt, that if he thought it worth his while to canvass the origin of these Petitions, he could prove that most of them had been got uto by the subscribers to the Equitable Loan Bank, and that individuals had been paid to sign twenty, thirty, or forty names at once. Lord SUFFIELD was happy to say, after the extraordinary assertion made by the Noble Earl, that he held a Petition in favour of the Equitable Loau Company Bill, signed by 502 of the most respectable Inhabitants of the City of Norwich, comprising the Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Alayors for several preceding years. He could say,.from his own personal knowledge, that there were not more respectable persons than those who had signed this Peti tion.—Laid on the table. The Noble Lord then presented similar Petitions from the Silk Manufacturers of the City of Coventry, and from a number of Land-owners of the County of Norfolk.—Laid on the table. Earl TORRINGTON presented Petitions to the . same effect from Thomas Wood, auctioneer, and 200 other individuals, and front 120 Inhabitants of the Town of Chelmsford. Laid on the table.. A similar Petition was also presented by Earl Rosstso, from the Parish of St. Catherine's, Ratcliffe-highway.—Laid on the table. Lord DACRE presented Petitions in favour of the same Bill, front the Manufacturers and Traders of Dartmouth and North ampton.—Laid on the table. The Duke of G RA ETON presented a Petition from the Owners and Occupiers cf. Land of some Hundreds in the County of Suffolk, against any alteration in the Corn Laws.—Laid on the table. The Earl of KINGSTON presented Petitions from the Ater. chants, Manufacturers, and Traders, of the Cities of Cork and Limerick. in favour of the Irish Pr ovincial Bank BilL—Laid on the tabli. The Earl of LAUDERDALE said that this was one of those Bills in which Companies prayed to sue and be sued by their trea surer, and which superseded the power both of Parliament and of the Crown. .He hoped that the Bill would be postponed till there had been sufficient time for consideration. The LORD Cll A N tELLOR said that the Bill was UNARY in adequate to its own objects, and required the deepest consideration. ROYAL MESSAGE. Lord LIVERPOOL said, that the amount of the provision to the Duchess of Kent did not exceed £6OOO a-year, and nothibg could exceed her care and attention to the cbject of the Message. In the other case there was a child six years of age. No addition had been made to the allowance at present made to the Duke of Cumberland. All that their Lordships were called upon to do was to signify their willingness to concur in an addition of £6OOO a-year to the allowance of the Duchess of Kent. and the same sum to the Duke of Cumberland. He hoped the vote would be unanimous. Lord DARNLEY bore testimony to the exemplary conduct of the Duchess of Kent.— Agreed to, MM. con. Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the Dissenters of Wisbeach, praying to be relieved from the Test Act.—The Noble Lord also presented a Petition from the Dissenters of Dartford, in favour of the Catholic Claims. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a Petition from C. Short, praying for compensation under the County Courts Bill. The St. Catherine's Docks Bill was read a third time, and passed. Sir J. Yokes and others, from the Commons, brought up the Colliers' Docks Bill. The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a Petition from the Pawnbrokers of Liverpool, against the Equitable Loan Bill. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL. Lord DACRE movedthe second reading of the BiU. Lord LAUDERDALE said, that the understanding bad been that Counsel were to be heard on both sides on the second reading of the Bill. Lord DACRE said, that upon certain parts of the BR be was certain that their Lordships would not hear Counsel. He could not suppose that the House would 1 ear Counsel, on so narrow a point as the principle of the Bill. The Company had no other objects, except to act as pawnbrokers, taking only legal interest; an ltistitution which could not tail to be highly beneficial to the co- munity. lieu object was to assimilate this Institution to those charitable ones en the Continent, or !rich had called forth the approba ion of the ablest and rno.t benevolent men. The opposition to which the Bill had been subj-cted, he was compelled to say arose from interested motives on the part of those who feared their own private interests might be affected by it. The accommodation tO the Public would be 20 per cent. less than what they at present paid. He trusted, therefore, the Bill would be allowed to go to a Committee. He must oppose the introduction of Counsel. Lord LAUDERDALE s:ood there to assert the consistency of their Lordships conduct. Was the House t • shut their doors against Counsel in a point of so much importance to the Petitioners? None ot the cases that • had been cited bore upon the point. His Noble Friend had stated the object of the Company to to to relieve the poor; but he could prove that it was a Company that dealt in Shares. From the diviaions in the Courts of Law the legality of the Company had not been proved, and it was therefore necessary that Counsel should be heard. The LORD CHANCELLOR differed from some of the opinions delivered in the Courts below. The Com pany, when first form-d, were not entitled to act as a Corporate Body. The House was bound to look at su:h Institu ions with a jealous eye, as much mischief had arisen within the last two or three years from similar Institutions. He zhould think it his bounden duty to oppose the Bill in every stage, and should Counsel at the bar prove his opinion to be et roneous, then let the Bill be passed. Tie clause of suing and being sued in the name of an Officer of the Company afforded no se eurity. The only adequate security was a grant from the Crows, • or incorporated by a charter. What would be the condition of the Members of those Companies, if the law afforded them no security as to their transactions with each other? Ile was clearly of opinion that Counsel should be heard. —For hearing Counsel 20—Against It 20. ' •I'onblanque was heard *same side. ' to Monday, to from the Master Ma measures might be Torkmen.—Referred reading of the St. , next. cet tabs Inhabitants ' the Corp:intim day for the further Elective Franchise SW, matter of course, which it was to be Honourable Gen. bringing the measure 14Incurable Gentleman it would inevitably excited in Ireland. M. C. 1111101131- Carnall a person Cape of Good Hope. the present Govern: sanction the tyranny ircumstances be was Pttitioner, and were sentenced to trans the Governor, Cott- OR his way w Putt to house of the Pet( he made his escape, ~~~ ,~ . . - ~-.-""7 but notswith the privity or knowledge of the Petitioner. Oa the' news of his escape, the Petitioner was dragged from Ws home to the Cape, without a warrant, and imprisoned in a cell twelve feet by eight, and sworming with vermin. He was subject to fits, yet no person was suffered to come near him. According to the Dutch laws, no poisoner Is allowed to be imprisoned more than eight days without being broughj to trial. This individual, how ever, was imprisoned several days beyond that term, without being brought to trial: he was eventually convicted, on the evi dence of a Hottentot Slave, who since confessed that sbe bad been compelled to give evidence against Mr. Carnall under pain of severe flogging. Thus it appears that any person wbo ventured to find fault with anything at the Cape, was liable to be persecuted, even to death, by Lord Charles Somerset. He was fined fifty rig dollars, but the Government were dissatisfied with the sentence, and appealed. He was tried a second time, and sentenced to trans portation for five years to Botany Bay. Against this sentence he appealed to the Governor, who, in his great mercy changed the sen tence to that of five years' banishment from the Colony, He then applied for permission to settle his affairs and secure his property, but that permission was refused. He bad confined himself to the statement of the facts of the cave, and would leave it to the disposal of the House. Mr. WIL 510T-HORTON said, that the punishment of the Petitioner was not the act of the Governor, but of a Court of Jus tice, and it would be impossible to do more than to pledge them selves as to inquiry, and to afford redress if any substantial Injuries were committed. In the Public Press no less than 24 inculpatory articles bad appeared, which were sufficiently galling, but the pre sent Petition was yet more so, because the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) should have recollected that Commissioners had been sent to the Cape in 1823, for the purpose of examining how far the Dutch laws, still in exiifence at the Cape, could be assimilated to those of England. He was Lot opposed to inquiry—on the contrary ; but he called on the House to wait until a Report should be re ceived from the Commissioners. He had received a Report relative to the case of Edwards, which he should lay upon the table if any Honourable Gentleman would move to that effect. He thought it impossible for Lord Bathurst to reverse the judgment on the Peti tioner, and to afford him pecuniary compensation, as prayed by him, upon a mere u pads statement; but as soon as the inquiries could be made, if any injuries had been illegally or oppressively in flicted on the Petitioner, it should be, as far as possible, redresxed. Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that the delay of the Report was to be attributed to the illness of one of the Commissioners. After a few words from Mr. R. C0L10111414 the Petition was or dered to be printed. A Message was brought from the Lor de, acquainting the House, that their Lordships had agreed to the St. Katharine's Deets, and other Bills. Mr. BROUGHAM moved the first reading of the Bill, for in corporating a College in London, which was agreed to, and was ordered'to be read a second time on Monday neat. Lord A. HAMILTON moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Small Debti Bill for Scotland, for the purpose of moving that it be read a third time this day six months, it being so much altered from its Original shape that he would disclaim it. Th#LORD ADVOCATE moved that it be read a third time now, which was agreed to without a division, and the Bill passed. Mr. CANNING laid upon the table Co rrespondence between British Ministers and Foreign Powers, relative to the Slave Trade. • The House divided—For hearing Counsel 30—A Counsel was then called in, and Mr. Vonblan J mind the Bill.—The Recorder followed on the ear The further hearing of Counsel was postponed • -which day the House adjourned at Nine &Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. I • Mr. S. WORTLEY•prevented a Petition from I , assfacturen of Sheilield, praying that some ma adored to prevent Combinations amongst Work to the Committee on the Combination Laws. Mr. CALCEAFT postponed the second rea Olave Hart-street, Tithes Big. until Wednesday Col i onel DAVIES presented a Petition from cc of Worcester, against certain Does exacted by of Bristol. Mr. LITTLETON moved the order of the di • consideration of the Report on the Irish Elective for the purpose of discharging it. This was a r after the fate of the Bill, upon the success of wi sequent. C con olonel DAVIES expressed a hope that the I tletnan would take an early opportunity of bring again before the House. Sir J. NEWPORT hoped, that the Honou would not again bring the measure forward, as it had to increase the irritation already too much e After a few words from Colonel Pawns, and • sox, the Order was discharged. CASE 07 JOHN CAHNALL. 111. r. HUME presented a Petition from John . • •asiss had been recently baithhed from the Ca ; _ pe 0111114 en and liberal pellet ar sh" Meets he thought that they mould never sane oessubszes exercised to oar colonies. The dent sbetgt " ass: a• were verified by the oath of the Pe • as hams Edeneda a notary, was se • FueSadasi timing a a for tate st i l n en t of ytars for Writing a letter to ill Jackson, het equested ente rs4 re n tre s h iney me an nt c eL Or a t the Omer, where they "PPtcl ; there he THE FQFAL FAMILY. y. On the motion of the Cnancat.r.os of the Excwitausa, the House , resolved itself Into a Committee of Supply. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then, after some prefatory observations, stated, that at the marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, in 1818, an addition of _6OOOl. a year was made to his ' income, and an annuity of 60001. a year was secured to ' the Duchess of Kent, in case of her surviving the Duke her husband. That undoubtedly was a very liberal and fair proposition, as it regarded the then situation of her Royal Highness ; but it was not granted with any view to a family ; for 60001. a year was obviously not sufficient to enab!e her Royal Highness to main tain her state and dignity; and, at the same time, to educate her children. Without going int& minute de tails, it would be clear to the House, that considering the situation in which the young Princess stood to the Crown, it was the duty, as it would be the inclination of the House, to provide for her education. He had not the honour of being connected with the Duchess of Kent, but from the concurring testimony of all who knew her, he could say, she was a most amiable lady, and had discharged her duty in the education of the young Princess in the most exemplary manner.— He should therefore propose, that an addition of 60001. a year should be made_to the income of her Royal Highness. He next came to the situation of the Duke of Cumberland. On his marriage an addition of 60001. a year was proposed to his income ; but with that pro position of the Crown, the House of Commons had not thought fit to acquiesce ; principally on the ground that the marriage was not considered so satisfactory as to induce the House to acquiesce in the proposed increase; and afterwards, in 1818, the House, to a similar pro position, urged the same arguments; but the objections then stated did not apply to the circumstances at pre sent, for the young Prince -was not then born ; but he was now arrived at the age of six years, and though not in the same position of proximity as the young Princess Alexandrina, with respect to the throne, yet the House would perceive that there was a great public interest concerned, in giving the Prince an education in this country. Though his Royal Highness had for some time resided abroad—( Hear, hear)—yet he could assure the House that it was from no distaste, but from a feeling that he could not reside here on a similar foot iug with the other members of the Royal Family. He should propose, therefore, an increase to the sante amount as that which he had proposed for the Duchess of Kent. Mr. BROUGHAM coincided with the Right Ron. Gentleman as to the vote for the Duchess of Kent, but with respect to the other vote he would observe, that he believed the objections formerly urged against the grant to the Duke of Cumberland, were not on account of the marriage, which it might be presumed was not exceedingly unsuitable, or the King would, as he might igly , have prevected it. His (Mr. Brougham's) real belief was, that from some rooted dislike on the part of the people of the country, which was also felt by their Re presentatives, the refusal to increase his income might be traced. In that dislike he would not say whether he partook, but certainly it was a prejudice which pre vailed with every man, woman, and child in the country. The Duke, though possessing no office like the Duke Cambridge, still chose to reside abroad, and his in come at present of 19,0001. a year, was certainly equal there to 25,000/. in England. The people had a right to know why he did not reside here ? Let him do as his brother the Duke of York, who, though crippled by debts, to the diminution of the dignity, as he thought, of the Royal Family, did not apply to that House for the payment of them as otheri of the Royal Family' had done once and again. Though so crippled (and really he was ashamed.to mention it). as to have his carriage taken in execution ; and what Honourable Gentleman was there who would not think himself dis graced if he could not attend a Race C :urse wit' ont a chance of such an accident ? yet no application had been made • but he (Mr. Bropgham ) would rather vote a grant to pay those debts, than give it to another member of the Royal Family, who, for aught they knew, might be wallowing in wealth. Mr. HUME could not agree with his Learned Friend that because an indi v id u.l chose to get in debt, it should aerelore be ground for an application.to Parliamen'.— He was very glad to accede to this proposition on be alf of the Duchess of Kent, tl.ough he thought it was rasher tat dy justice, and ought to have been proposed two or three years ago. With regard to the vote of the Duke of Cumbetland, if he would stand alone, lie was resolved to take the sense of the House upon i:. Tie circum- 4.'Mllfi7TWWr VPN'Tio 'stances were thesame, except this young Prncesi educa-*1 tion - but was 6.0001. a-year necessary tor that purpose? He A4r. Hume) would undertake that for 1001. in the Nei; College he would get a better education than if 6,0001. a-year WAS given for that purpose. With 19,0001. a-year the Duke ontiht to educate his own children. — He would object to this vote, if it were only on this ground, that it placed the young Prince on a footing with the Heiress Apparent. Sir I. COFFIN said. if the Heir Apparent was in such a state of embarrassment as had been stated, he hoped the Crown would take steps to have the debts immediately liquidated. lie knew that to his tailor his Royal Highness was at present indebted 212,000. Mr. MONCK thought the allowance to the young Princess too much, hut he did not consider that the Duke of Cumberland was entitled to any addition. Sir CHARLES FORBES thought it a disgrace to ~the country that the Duchess of Kent had been so long allowed to live on so inadequate an allowance as 6,000/. Ile heartily agreed in the proposed addition. Ile should - also agree in granting the additional allowance to the Duke of Cumberland, which would enable him to live in this country. Ile thought it a disgrace to the country that the Duke of Cumberland should be condemned unheard. Sir J. Al A RJORI BANKS would willingly support a grant to the Duke of York, who had always been such a distinguished and benevolent friend to the military. Mr. T. WILSON said, if they sought to instruct their Princes in what would promote moral good feeling and humanity, they should do it at home. lie felt great pleasure in supporting the grant to the Duchess of Kent, from The uniformly exemplary manner in which she conducted herself—(lleat). Mr. BERNAL WAS sorry that the second proposition was brought before the House, as it was calculated to excite feelings which ought not to be aroused. Ile ob jected to the grant of 6.0001. a year additional, because he thought the income of 18,0001. a-year already en joyed by the Royal Duke (a sum equal to 25,0001. to a person living in any part of Germany) was quite suf ficient. But the addifonal grant was said to be for the education of his child. That was no fair ground for the demand. Honourable Members had talked of in sinoations against the Duke of Cumberland. but he , thougi t the proposition o: the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, which made the removing of the child from the care of the father a condition of the grant, a more severe insinuation than any that had yet been made. It might be ' said that the Royal Duke would come and reside here, but what security had they that such would be the case, after this grant were voted ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged distinctly to deny that he had said,or meant to convey any insinuation that a condition of the present grant would be the removal of the young Prince from the care of his father. What he did say was, that it was the feel ing of Ministers, the feeling of the King himself, that the young Prince should be educated in England. It was with that view that the grant was made; he pro posed it on no other ground. But it did not follow from this that he should be taken from his royal father., The Duke of Cumberland might; and probably uould, come to reside in this country ; but the residence here of the young Prince, his son, for his education, was par ticularly desirable. As to the objections which had been urged on former occasions, when a grant was pro posed to the Duke of Cumberland, they were in general founded on the disapproval of his marriage. Some few Honourable Members might have objected to the con duct of the Royal Duke, but the main objection to the increase rested on the disapproval of the Duke's mar riage. It was objected that the Royal Duke did not reside in the country, and at the same time it was said that he was generally unpopular. Now he thought it was too hard for those who held (what he did not ad mit) that his Royal Highness was unpopular in this country, to object at the same time to h:s residing out of it. The fact was, he believed, his residence abroad was occasioned by the delicate state of his Duchess's health, which made a resort to some of the baths on the Continent necessary. With regard to the compa rison which had been made as to the Duke of Sussex, he thought it did not hold good. The Duke of Sussex had no children—at least, he had none who were in the situation of Princes of the Blood. His marriage was not recognized, as being contrary to the Royal Mar riage Act of this country. His Lady did not live with him—she enjoyed an allowance of 4,0001. or 5,0001. a part of which was from the Government of this coun try. There was, therefore, no fair comparison between the situ ation of the two Royal Du kes. Mr. J. MARTIN said he felt it necessary to oppose the repeal of certain taxes-this year, because he did not think the revenue of the country too greai: but he thought, on the same principle, that no unnecessary ad dition should be made to our expenses. He did not think the grant to the Duke of Cumberland necessary, and would oppose it. He would support that to the Duchess of Kent. Mr. Secretary PEEL, alluding to the thin state of the benches opposite, observed that they a ere nearly empty, because Hon. Members felt that the p;oposition of his light Hon. Friend was a fair one, and ought not to be opposed. Upon the first proposed grant—that to the Duchess of Kent—there seemed to be but one opinion; but on the second, there was an objection—that the House had already refused a similar application. The refusal, he contended, was founded on objections to the marriage of his Royal Highness; but since then he had had a son born to him who might hereafter succeed to the throne of these countries. His case, therefore, was different now from what it was then. But the Hon. Member, for Aberdeen, it seemed, was not disposed to allow any sum for the education of the young Prince. At least, he would limit it to 1001. a year, and that in the intended London University, where he might share the education of mechanics. He was rather bur• prised that, as the Hqnourable Member was disposed to favour a cheap.mode of education, he did not point out another University, of which he was the Leared Rec tor, and where it might be had on terms equally rea sonable—(Hear). As to the general question, he thought it would be but fair to place the Duke of Cumberland on the same footing with his Royal brothers who were married. They who objected to the residence of the Royal Duke abroad ought to support this motion, be cause the proposed grant would remove one objection to his not coming to live in England—namely, that his present al lowance was not adequate to support his rank in this country. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said he would support the grant, if he had any assurance that the young Prince of Cumberland should re ceive his education in England. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry he was misunderstood. He repeated' that the principle on which he asked for the grant was, that the young Prince of Cuntberland should receive his education in England. If he did not ask it on that ground, he would not ask it at all. At the same time he did nut think it would be fair to accompany the grant with a clause that the Duke of Cumberland should in future reside in England. Sir E. KNATCH BULL asked—Suppose this grant carried, and the young Prince was kept on the Continent for five or six years longer, would the object of the grant be answered? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had no hesitation in saying, that in such case the object of the grant would not be answered, and he 'Wild be deceived. Mr. DENMAN said. he was certain there was no second opin i on in the House on the propriety of the grant to tie Duchess of Kent ; but he, for one, would not agree to a grant of one shilling to the Duke of Cumberland. It Made a precethnt for similar grants , . . to other Princes, and accordingly, even befo:e it was disposed of, they were asked to pay the Duke of York's debts ; the mom given for which was, that he owed his tailor 12,11001.. — (Hear, and laughter.) Mr. Secretary CANNING protested against the course adopted by several Me sobers, of discussing the rights of persons hypothetically. He thought that aft Illustrious Person (the Duke of York) had been most ufrnofmairblyrindgealt bringing his pr U iv if t l e lo a y e al airs H b i e g i h o n re es p s had abstained arliament Parliament, and it was a most unkind reward for such forbearance, to moot the point by supposititious arguments,whether, if he did apply to the Hous, he would be deemed a fit object of relief? It was not by any person professing friendship for the Duke of Cumberland that his nanie had been introduced, and yet the conduct of his Ito) al Highness had been discussed as freely as if he had brought himself in forma pauperis to sue for relief. With reference to the Duchess of Kent, all parties agreed in the propriety of the giant, and if Govern ment had anything to answer for on this point, it was for having so long delayed bringing it before the House. , There could not be a greater compliment to her Royal Highness than to state the quiet unobtrusive tenour of her life, and that she had never made herself the object of public gaze, but had devoted herself to the education of her child, whom the House was now called upon to adopt. With respect to the vote to the son of the Duke of Cumberland, he begged the House to consider, that this child stood next in succession to the Crown after that person, for whom, on account of his proxiniity, the House had made a more than ordinary prevision. It had been said, that by a residence abroad, the child might have its morals, habits, and notions conta minated, and be unfit to perform the duties of a British Prince; but the object of the vote o to secure the residence in England of the son, and this not because the child was the um of the Duke of Cumberland, but because he was to the throne longiore proxirnus interoako. It was the duty of the Government not to allow any person standil4 in such a relation to the Crown, to be educated nut ofgEngland, and not one shilling of the present grant ought to be issued, if this child were not brought up in this coun try. The original refusal to grant to the Duke of Cumberland an allowance equal to those of his Royal Brothers, was grounded upon "the disapprobation ex pressed against his marriage. The second re usal to make him any such allowance was expressly founded upon the same grounds. After two such refusals, and if there were any deeply-rooted dislike to his Royal Highness lurking, not only in that House, but through out the whole nation, was it not natural that he should seek a retirement in a country where he could asso ciate with the relations of his wife? In this situ itian we now find him, with a son born subsequently to these refusals, and that son at an age at which educa tion ought to commence. lithe Duke of Cumberland had good reasons for residing abtoad, surely the House• ought to rescue the child that might be the future King. The responsibility for the application of this ,grant, lay in the advisers of the Crown. Sir C. FORBES thought that the chief source of the violent animosity that existed against the Duke of Cu tn. berland was his having ousted " the Talents." He thought the grants of the*House to the Royal Family extremely niggardly. Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS should waive all consi. deraion of the grant to the Duchess of Kent, on the propriety of which every person seemed to agree. Con , fining himself, therein., to the Duke of Cumberland. he strongly objected that his allowance should be more than treble that of the Duchess of Kent's, and yet the grant to Ids-child was e q ual to that proposed for the child of the Duchess. The CHAIRMAN now put the proposition of granting 6,000/. per annum for the support and education of Alexandrina, ViCtOti3, daughter of the late Duke of Kent, which was carried unanimously. Upon the CHAIRMAN proposing the vote of 6,0001. a-year, for the education of George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Au gustus, son aids Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland— Mr. CRIPPS rose, and moved that the words" in Great Bria tale,' be inserted after the word education. The CHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER strongly objected to the Amendment, after the unequivocal assurance he had given on the part of Government, thattite money was bona fide intended for the education of the child in England, and in England alone. Mr. J. P. GRANT said, if the Amendment were not carried, the pledge new given to the House would not be recorded at all, and could not in future be acted upon, if the present Administration were dissolved. He should therefore support the Amendment. Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) would vete for the grant without any ouch condition as that expressed in the Amendment; he would support the grant with a view to augment the income of the illus trious individual for whose advantage it was designed. • Lord BINNING said the object of the grant was to enable hi. Majesty to support and educate the child. He strongly objected to the amendment. Sir JOHN NEWPORT placed every reliance on the declare don of Ministers, but the object was, that the child should berths elated in &kiln, and the House could consent to the augmentation on no other ground. Mr. HUSKISSON said this was not a vote for the Duke, but for the Prince of Cumberland. That Prince was not far remote from the succession, and might in course of events be the person on whom the clown should devolve. This was a sufficient reason why his education ought to be liberally provided fop. If the amendment were carried it would become part of the law of the land, and the Child could not go abroad for a month or six weeks, even for the sike of health, or if he did, the Exchequer would not be justifi:d in issuing the payment of the grant. He was as anxious as any person that the purposes for which the grant was voted should be effected, and he cohld not think it consistent with the mode in which affairs were conducted in this country, that the intentions of Parliament should net be attended to. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, his objection was to making this grant to the Duke of Cumberland. He would cheerfully vote it to his Majesty for the education of the child in this country, which he considered to be a great national_ object, but he felt no confidence in the Duke of Cumberland, and would not consent to place the money at his disposal, to be doled out as he should think fit. It was very natural fot the Duke of Cumberland to wish to remain abroad, and he would not vote one shilling that was likely to bring him back again.---If the resolution were not worded so as to prevent the result which be apprehended, he should vote for the amendment. Mr. THOMAS WILSON said, from tie best consi deration which he could give the question, it appeared to him . that unless the object of the vote were more clearly defined in the resolutionialrey should be declir ing the House of Commons of let 5, to have been wrong, without being certain that they were themselves right. Mr. C. WYNN said, there would be no inconsistency between the proposed vote and the former conduct of Parliament in relation to the Duke of Cumberland. On the contrary, when the increase of allowance was le used, one ground for the refusal was, that if *Ay children resulted from the marria.e, they must he pro• vided for by the State. That case had arisen, and they were now called upon to act upon it. • Mr. W AARE said, that he had heard nothing in tl:e course of the rebate which relieved his mind lion) the apprehension that, unless Parliament explicitly declared its resolu. non, this child would be educated out of England. Mi. Secretary PEEL suggested, the ohjcct i f skin ing the education of the child in England could be as well secured by in-erting a declaratory t“:C. CC