The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-16 00:00:00

of the King of England.—( Hear, hear.) Here arose the Z e stion—was this revenue continued in the Crown for the _ si ntenance and education of the infant Prince? If the case Were so, there was no distinction between that revenue and the r est of the Civil Li. -2t, which was a provision for the Royal household. If it were not, it was wrongfully continued. He ?ft, that th e P r i nce ' s d e bts having to be paid in 179 5 , Sir 011 0 Anson, Attorney- General for the Duchy, claimed the arrears which had accrued du:irg the minority, and they w ere found to amount to no less a sum than 233,0001. The reve nues of the Duchy had since that tine been considerably in creased. If. th e r e f o re, they were now allowed to accumu l ate fo r the benefit of the Queen's son, he might find himself in p o ssession of such a sum as 600,0001. or 700, 0001 . Now , he t hought that there could not be a more unfortunate circum 11Thee for a young Prince than that upon attaining his majority e should be entitled to receive so - large a sum as more than half 4 million of money. Ile could not conceive a bette r p re- ZiiPtion or device for educating and instructing a spe ndthrift ng--( Hear.) Under these circumstances he thought that Corn Mon sense pointed out the course to be adopted, namely, that those revenues should be assigned to the purpose of edu cating the Prince, and if they were so appropriated, he did not 7° why they should not be considered part of the sum vote d or the maintenance of the Royal Household.—( Hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL said it was stated that this source of r evenue was attended by circumstances which in many in- St ances were inconvenient and vexatious. It was asserted , too , that in point of fact, greater expenses were incurred, and a more numerous train of offices kept up than were requisite for the proper management of the Duchy. With respect to these Subjects we have submitted our advice, and we are authorized to introduce 1311 s to promote the better management of these r evenues, in order that the whole of the offices belonging to the m should be inquired into and altered, and a greater ze etrity for continued better mmagement being afforded by the accounts being laid every year before Parliament, giving a statement with respect to the income and disbursement of these Du c hi es. Lie thought, therefore, that so far as the statement of his Hon- and Learned Friend regarded the evils of the pre sent system, herMajestv's Government had proposed a remedy for all those which he had pointed out.--:( Hear.) Though he lama way of his own in proceeding to remove these defects, he Must correct them by introducing Bills and undertakine. the Office of Ministers of the Crown for effecting that which we assent to and pr pose. We have submitted the same proposal Which he must make for the reform of these establishments, should he, instead of the responsib:e Ministers of the Crown, i ntroduce measures for accomplishing that object.—( Cries of ~ No, no," from Mr. Buller.) He should suppose that the Hon. Member was ready to bring under the notice of Perlia silent the reforms to which he had adverted. lie, on the other hand, had stated on the part of Ministers that they meant to Propose Bills on their own respen.ibilitv, and with the con sent of the Crown, to effect the intended reforms. He, how ever, should say that there were many questions connected with the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster that would re quire a good deal of time to examine, and considerable re search in matter of details and attention to various circum stances, in framing a remedy. With respect to the tin dues, the complaint always urged on the part of the people of Cornwall was—recollect that they are subject to peculiar c ues, which raise the value of tin on import. He thought tne Honourable Member for Kilkenny, who, he believed, was about to address the House, would agree with him that a change might be effected, embracing a simpler mode of collection, and keeping in view the import duties on tin, as compared to the peculiar advantages with re spect to other metals which the people of that part of the country enjoyed. He was persuaded that this ques tion should be looked into, with a view not only to prevent the Pecuniary grievance, but to advance the general interest of the country. Well, then, came the point of greatest difference between the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard and the motion which we mean to submit. The Bon. and Learned Member proposed that the whole of these revenues should be surrendered by the Crown to the public Management, and that an equivalent should be given to the Crown for the loss of this revenue. Now, what we have to State is, that on considering this whole matter of the revenues of the Crown we reflected that here was an ancient and accus tomed revenue received for centuries in some respect or other by the Crown. We then had to determine whether it was the advantage of the Crown and the public that an ancient revenue of this kind should be commuted for a species of revenue of a different description, it never having been applied to the dis charge of the expenses of the country, or to any general liabi lity for the support of the army and navy. Well, then, could We advise the Crown to part altogether with these revenues, in order, as the H o n. and Learned Member for Liskeard said, that it should receive an equivalent from the public ? 'We certainly did not consider it our duty to make that proposition. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated that he was ready ,. to propose a sufficient equivalent.—( Hear, hear , hear. ) tie did not believe that her Majesty's Government or the House would assent to the proposal, or that they could so ill represent the country as to say, " The present Queen Shall have a less revenue than her royal uncle, or the present is a time when the just and fair income of the Crown ought to be diminished."—( Cheers.) He was afraid that the revenue proposed to be granted instead of the ancient and meet's turried income, would be more grudged and given less wil lingly than that for which it has been substituted, which stood on a forting of prescription, and which had never been interfered with in the manner which had beep laid down. Why if, instead of the present motion, we had to-night c ome down and given our assent to the surrender of the t Whole o f t h e revenues , an d reso l ve d that every shilling should ue placed at the disposal of Parliament, there would be found Ze Member at least—he meant the representative of South- Su —to excla:m, '°lt is very well to make this nominal '''''nder, but you charge it on the Civil List, and thus grant an a equivalent for what you profess to t ake awa y . " No doubt tha t i',ould have been the languag e of the Hon. Member h s for Southwark and others , and ther efore he was confirmed in the opinion that if her Ministers were to advise the Crown to make such a surrender, they would recommend that which bad never before been attempted, and which, so far from proving satisfactory, would be met by the announcement— "We were told we should be called on for no equivalent ; you have no right to any." And if an absolute increase of the revenues of the Crown were made to the extant of 30 ,0001., or 40,000/., or 50,000/., it would be represented as an augmentation of her Majesty's income, which had never been received by her predeecssors.--( Hear, hear.) Then did we not judg,e right in saying, 4 , While we are ready to reform abuses and have the acquiescence of the Queen in the steps which we mean to take for the better management of the properties of these Duchies, and whilst we disclaim all mystery as to the income which the Crown may receive, we are not prepared to make the surrender which is pointed out, particularly when the Civil List is not greater than was granted to her Majesty's uncles, and not greater, I am sure, than the people of this country would be willing to pay ; for I venture to asset that it is not the opinion of the people of this country that we should show on this occasion a more nig gardly disposition towards her present Majesty than that exhi bited to her predecessors?" Such, then, being the disposition of the people, we, representing them, thought it right to submit the Civil List which we have introduced, and not to make a surrender of those revenues which , while it should involve considerable diminution of the fair rights and former property of the Crown, would produce nothing of satisfaction, but induce opposition as to a new claim, which, while it tended to weaken and impair the splendeue of the Crown, would not prove agreeable to the people.—( Cheers.) Mr. HUME felt that the abuses of the present system by which this Duchy was managed, were, at all events, acknow ledged. The propositions which the Right Hon. Gentleman trade would be of great advantage ; for they would tend to show what the real revenue of this Duchy was, not the present income derived from it ; for that, he feared, would be found small, owing to the gross mismanagement which had prevailed. The next improvement intended was, that the care of these revenues should not be left to an irresponsible person, but en trusted to that House. Now, here arose a question of the greatest importance. The people of England ought to know What were the whole of the revenues which appertained to the C rown . Now, the revenues of these Duchies were never brought before the Civil List Committee. The con sequence was, that the Committee recommended a grant which they considered sufficient and adequate to maintain the dignity and honour of the Crown. The sum recent ' mended to be given was 385,000/., in addit ion to which these '-'uchies, if properly managed, would yiel d 100,0001. a year. Note, was that too much or too little ? Should the Queen .Change her mind, or her advisers, would she be bound 'lot to take a larger amount than was now in tended to be given ? The chance was, that those who sue eeeded the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, would have a different opinion, and it was on that ac count that he wished to have the abuses which had been pointed out prevented in time, and an ameliorated system adopted.-- (Hear.) He regretted extremely that her Majesty's Minis ters had not advised the Queen openly and fairly to put an end to the abuses which existed, and to trust to the liberality of that House, which, if it saw the opprobrium of being con nected with the ill-managed system under which those Duchies Were placed, cast aside, would not raise a single dissentient voice to the preposition of a liberal compensation. He thought the present motion extremely ill-judged, and not cal culated to effect the object which her Majesty's Ministers had in view. —(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that the points in which all seemed to concur were, first, that t he attenti on o f th e Legislature should be called to the import d uty on foreign tin ; next, that the leasing power which a PPertained to the Duchy of Cornwall should be so amended as to • s - give a protection to property in that county analogous t o that which existed with regard to other property. The oi e l ,f l t Point was as to the better management of offices, an Pet which would be aceomplished by having the accounts ;11bl-flitted on proper responsibility, so as to afford an oppor tritY to correct the abuses which m i g ht be p roved to exist. a Honourable Friend (the Member for Kilkenny) had Stated that the question of the retention of the Duchies of C ornwall and Lancaster had never been sub mitted to the • 'seussio n on thi s su bject. Supposing that an equivalent was vo ted for th e l oss o f ancient territorial possessions , -it must be dr awn from the Consolidated fund, and would constitute a si,., "ge not very palatable to the community.—( Hear, hear.) S " the fears of his Hon. Friend that the remedies now pro 'eci would be counteracted by those who m i g ht succeed to tho se who no w held office, he should, so far as he w as con cerned, g i ve no groun d f or th e a pprehension, inasmuch es af ter the holidays he should, in his capacity of M inister of the gr °lv n, introduce the practical measures of which he had On notice. He should certainly introduce these Bills in fie ry faith, and with every disposition to give a remedy for li n er Y One of those cases of abuse which had been stated by delMembers. With this understanding he did hope there t lii u 'd be no additional delay in respect to the Bill under e ussion G, F. YOUNG said, what he wanted to know was, THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DId`,CENII3ER 16, 1837. to the extent of 94,0001. a-year, it was absolutely proposed I that the amount of the new Civil List should be increased by no less a sum than 10,0001. a year. What cause was there for this ? He did not object to the first item upon the Civil List— the sum allotted to the Civil List. He was not disposed i to interfere with a sum which, for upwards of half a I century had bren provided for this branch of the Royal expenditure.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The second class of items comprehended the salaries of the gre-t officers of State, there of the officers and menial servants of the Royal Household, and the superannuation and retired allowances payable to persons of the latter class. These were the items to which he objected, as having been made extravagantly, as having been carried up to the high pitch of war prices, and as never having been reduced; whilst it was notorious that the pay and emoluments of almost all the officers in all the other establishments had been materially diminished. It was the duty of the House to avail itself of this opportunity to begin the work of reduction as regarded the salaries of officers deriving their pay frem the Civil List. This would become apparent when he mentioned that the expenses of the Lord Chamberlain's Office now amounted to 66,000/., whilst in the reign of George 111. they amounted only to 48,0001. ; that the expenses of the Lord Steward's Office now amounted to 36,0001., whilst in the reign of George 111. they amounted only to 29,000/. ; that the expenses of the office of Master of the Horse amounted now to 20,6001., whilst in the reign of George 111. they amounted only to 12,7001. Thus it would be seen that in three offices only there was an excess of 31,0001. as compared with 1792. What ground Was there to justify this large increase? The same observation applied to many other offices connected with the Civil List. It seemed that the pay of the Yeomen of the Guard, mere officers of state, amounted to upwards of 33,060/. What necessity Wag there for such a charge as that? The menial servants were necessary no doubt; but their salaries did not amount to more than one-third of the sum paid to the Yeomen of the Guard. But the most preposterous, the most outrageous thing of all was, that the expense of keeping the accounts of the Civil List amounted to 10,0001. a year. The annual expense of the establishment of clerks and paymaster in the Lord Chamberlain's office amounted to 3,1101; and the mere expense of keeping the accounts in I that of the Lord Steward, to 4,7281. Thus it appeared that a sum of nearly 10,000/. was annually expended for the mere purpose of keeping accounts—accounts which, be would venture to say, would he much better kept, by officers of a different description, for less than one-third of the amount. He objected, too, to the superannuations and retired allow ances, many of which ought to he reduced. But there were two offices against which he had most strongly protested in the Committee, and which he certainly hoped the Throne would abolish : he meant the offices of the Governor and Constable of Windsor Castle, whose salary was 1,1201. a year, and the Lieutenant- Governor, whose emolmuments amounted to 173/. a-year. These offices were both of them perfect sinecures, and ought to be expelled from the . con sideration of the House as totally indefensible. Then, again, there was the Master of the Buckhounds, with a salary of 1,700/. a-year. Such an office, in such times, could not be defended—it ought to be abolished. The pressure of taxation upon the general comforts of the people was not sufficiently considered. The new Civil List had been pre- pared in such a way as to bring upon the Queen all the odium of maintaining a large, expensive, and unnecessary establishment—such an establishment as existed only under that most profuse and extravagant of monarchs, George IV.— [ Hear the Honourable Gentleman read passages from the reports of several of the Committees, in which it was de clared—let, that the only justification of the departure from the Civil List of 1792 was the increased price of all provi sions and of all the necessaries of life, in consequence of the war ; and, 2dly, that as soon as the war ceased and prices again reduced, the expences of the Civil List ought to be re stored to what they were prior to the commencement of the French war.] He should conclude by moving that the amount of the present resolution be diminished by the sum of 50,000/. ; that was to say, that it be reduced from 385,0001. to 335,0001. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to remind the Hon. Member for Kilkenny that when he com pared the establishments of 1791 with the establishments of the present time, he was enieavouring to institute a compari son between two periods which had nothing in common with each other. In earlier times, as the Hon. Member for Kil kenny well knew, there was a vast amount of fees, of perque sites, and of other emoluments, which did not find their way into the estimates in the shape of salary, but which, neverthe less were included in the charges of the several departments. In consequence of suggestions feequently urged upon the House since 1812, and especially by the Hon. Member fur Kilkenny himself, a Commission of inquiry was appointed to look into the whole of the fees of the household, with the view of amending the system. The Commission prosecuted its inquiry with considerable success, and the result of it was that the system had been more or less amended. The object that the Government now had in view was to carry the amend ment still further, and as far as possible to get rid of fees altogether. But suppose that the proposition of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny were adopted, and that a re turn were immediately made to the charges that existed upon the Civil List in the year 1792, what would be the re sult of it? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must in form the Hon. Member for Kilkenny that the effect of carry ing. his plan into execution, and of adopting the scale of sa laries that existed in the royal household in 1792, would be in many instances to increase the emoluments of officers instead of reducing thorn. The result of the Hon. Member's plan would be to give too much in some instances, and too little in others. The Hon. Member had entirely excluded the fact_ though when the last Civil List was under the consideration of the House, he grounded a heavy complaint upon that head —the Hon. Member had now entirely excluded the fact that the Committee of the present year had very materially re duced the amount of salaries paid to the high officers of State. The Lord Steward was now appointed to receive a smaller amount of salary than in 1792 ; so also was the Treasurer of the Household, and so also was the Comptroller of Household. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated this to show that the estimate of 1792 was not applicable to the present time, even for the purpose of economy. Tho stlaries of the clerks and accountants of which the Honour able Member complained so much were, many of them, less now than in 1792. Those who in 1792 received annual salaries of 560/. a-year, now received no more than 260/. te year. He might mention many other instances in which si milar reductions had been effected. In the Lord Steward's department alone the reductions amounted to several thousands a-year. The salary of the Master of the Horse, it was true, bad been somea hat increased ; but why ? Because formerly there were attached to this office allowances of horses and of forage, betides many valuable perquisites of horses and car riages, which were now wholly excluded. Formerly the offi cer who surveyed and condemned horses and carriages as too old or too much worn for the Royal service was the very offi cer elm, upon his own part, was entitled to receive the things condemned as his own perquisites. That was a system which the present Government thought ought not to be continued, and it was consequently abolished. But the result of it was, that the fixed salary of the Master of the horse had been some what increased. But his objection to the amendment pro posed by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny did not rest only upon the grounds he had stated. Would any Gentleman whom recollections extended to 1792, pretend to say that he could now keep up his own private establishment at the same rate of expenditure as before the commencement of the war ? Compare the amount of tradesmen's bills iii 1792 with those of the present time. In 1792 the charge for butchers' meat was sd. a pound ; in the present year it was Bd. In 1792 the price of butter was Is. ; in the present year it was ls. 6d. In 1792 the price of oil was ss. per gallon ; in the present year it was 7s. 6d. So that when the Hon. Member talked of re duced prices as compared with 1792, he must observe that the reduction did not apply to the items which ordinarily came within the range of tradesmen's bills. If the Yeomen of the Guard now received some increase of pay, it was because they had been deprived of perquisites to which they were formerly eet;tled. Then the Hon. Member complained of the retired allowances. These allowances would be gradually dimi nished ; but it was absolutely necessary that some of them should continue. There was not a family in the kingdom which had not its old retainers—it was impossible that the Crown should not have some also.—( Hear, hear, hear.) There were two places of this description now, and there was a recommendation in the Report that upon a vacancy one of them should be suppressed, and one only should re main. If there wore—but which he did not think there was—but if there were, as the Honourable Gentleman seemed tei imagine, the possibility of introducing further economy in the Civil List, he hoped it might be, as it certainly ought to be, made. Looking forward to a protracted reign, he con sidered it was the wisest and best economy on the part of Parliament to make such an arrangement is the outset as would prevent the possibility of debt. The Hon. Gentleman had compared past times with the present ; but what did the policy of past times lead to ? They led to the contracting of debts on the part of the Sovereign, and to the payment of large amounts by the country in aid of the Civil List. The Hon. Gentleman ' had complained that adequate information bed nf)t been furnished to the Select Committee on the sub ject of the Civil List; hut be (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) begged to say that the explanation which had been afforded by the present Government had been much more full than had ever been given by any Government on any former oce:sion. Under these circumstances, he thought he might humbly entreat the Committee to agree to the vote. Mr. HAWES was compelled to declare that he conceived that the present Civil List WAS larger than that which was granted in the last reign. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated his dissent from that proposition. He (Mr. Basses) would shortly state the grounds on which he believed it to be perfectly correct. The amount of the Civil List in the last reign was 51 0,000/. : from this was to be deduCted 50,000/. granted for the Queen's privy purse, thus reducing the Civil List of the late King to 460,000 a / s . la ' i l a le be e f s o t r i e mi t xt h e e d s ex el p e e c n t d c it o u t r l e m o i f tte tl e ie , present Sove reign,obviously making an in crease as compare d w ith wa tl s te 4 l 7 B. o si o C " iy i li List of 10,000/. But it would be said, that while in one de partment of the Queen's establishment thero was an increase, in another department there was a decrease. In the ladies' departmert :the increase occurred, while in the gentlemen's department the decrease took place. The increase and decrease, however, nearly balanced each other, still leaving the present Civil List 10,000/. greater than the last. The last Civil List, again, was 10,000/. more than the one preceding, while in referring to the debates on the Civil List of George the Fourth, even the amount of that list was considered to be un necessarily extravagant. It was not his wish to observe a too rigid economy in the Parliamentary provision for the Crown. Let it be proved to him that the sums proposed was necessary, end he zliould be r::::,: ) . to concede them. The Select Com mittee -were bound to place their reliance upon the representa tions of the Minister; but, although he was as one of that Committee so bound, yet, unless the Minister made out a case, what would be the benefit to the public of investigation into the nature and management of the Duchy revenues if any im proved income which might result from it was to pass to the Crown ? In his humble opinion, the Crown should depend upon its hereditary revenues entirely, or else throw itself upon its loyal Parliament, with full confidence that a fair provision would be made for the maintenance of its dignity. He thought the transaction was liable to no small suspicion. It was said that the sum of 385,000/. was suFficient to maintaix the dignity of the Crown, and that the hereditary revenues were equiva lent to that amount. Then why, be asked, should Parli anent be called upon to vote that sum ? Again, he would be gial to know whether, in the event of an Heir Apparent appearing to claim the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, Parliament would be expected to supply the deficiency, which, if the statement of the Government was correct, would then occur in the Queen's income ? If the revenues of that Duchy were neeelsary as a portion of the present settlement, it was ob vious that settlement would be inadequate upon their deduc tion. This was a matter he thought called for some expla- nation. Sir R. INGLIS thought the Rouse was bound to resist some of the arguments laid down by the Right Hon. Gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had promised that Parliament should have au account of all the receipts of these revenues. But it was nut an account that the Hon. Member for Southwark wanted—it was the money. He con ceired that the Right Hon. Gentleman had by prcenising these accounts conceded the principle that Parliament had a control over them. If the Crown had an absolute right to the dispo sition of these revenues, why should it be made to render an account of them ? If it had not, then the ground taken by the Government was utterly untenable. Mr. WARBURTON contended that it was expedient, not only for the stke of the inhabitants of the Duchies, but for the sake of the whole empire, that their management should be transferred to the Woods and Forests. Ho saw no reason whatever why the president Parliament had established ie its Acts with regard to Church property, should not be applied to the Duchy revenues. Mr. B AINES should support the proposition of the Go vernment. Mr. BROTH E RTON thought that if the public were to have the trouble of improving the Duchy revenues, while all the benefit was to go to the Crown, they would be losers, in stead of gainers by the transaction. What he s'iould propose was, that in proportion a; the rentals of the Dachy estates were increased there should be a deduction from the parlia mentary grant. Mr. HARVEY said, that as a new question had been brought before the House he should claim its indulgence for a few moments. In his opinion, the Honourable Baronet the Member for the University of Orford had raised the issue of the question. They had heard much lately of " fine old Eng lish gentlemen ;"" for his part, he liked of all things to hear a fine old English prerogative Member of Parka meat. — k Great laughter.) That Honourable Baronet had hardily and at once stated that the revenues of these Duchies were the private property of the Crown, and that Parlia ment would have no more right, and just as much, to break open his iron chest and appropriate his money as to claim these revenues. That was intelligible language, and he quite believed him when he said that if he were mi nister, he would not incur the responsibility of proposing the arrangement suggested by Gover nment. Why, he agreed with him. Ministers either went too far, or not far enough. Thby were even dangling in their arms the reck less child of expediency.—(a laugh ;)—and, after seven years' apprenticeship in the nursery, they were still nothing more than wet-nurses. In this difficulty it was the duty of Mem bers of Parliament to interfere, and infuse a little healthy no urishment into the bantling. The Hon. Member for Ox ford had termed the arrangement a bargain. It was so oa one side. They were told that her Majesty was willing to bring a munificent usufruct to the public Treasury, on condi tion of her receiving in return an equivalent, and no more. Now, he appealed to the commercial Members of that House to run an eye over the balance-sheet prodnced by the Govern ment, and see how both accounts met. On one side there is no dispute—a solid sum in quarterly payments, and without deductions, was to be handed over to her Majesty. On the other hand there appeared the droits of the Admiralty, the Four-and-a-half per Cent. duties, and other like items, form ing together a grand aggregate of princely munificence. Now what was the total amount during six long years of time, namely, during the reign of William the Fourth, reported as received from these splendid sources of Royal munificence ? Something less than 70,000/. From the way the Report was drawn up—and the clever hand that did it no doubt brought to bear every possible farthing he could—it was ingeniously left to the imagination whether the amount was 70,0001., or 70,0001. for the whole six years; but the latter, in point of fact, represented the sum for the en tire period. But then it was said that this did not include the revenue from the Woods and Forests. Now he had before hire the Report from the Woods and Forests, and from it it appeared that though there was a considerable revenue aris ing from that source, yet for the year to which the Report re ferred there was not a sum exceeding 5,0001. brought to the public account. Would the House believe that, after giving credit for all the rents that arose from the management of the Royal parks, such was the expense of keeping teem that the expense exceeded the receipt by 34,0001. a year? It had been asked in the Committee by the Hon. Member for Kil kenny—who, he was glad to perceive, notwithstanding all these discussions, found time to take an uninterrupted nap— (Loud laughter, in the eourse of which Mr. Hume exclaimed, I was only thinking")—it had been asked by the Hon. Member, if the proposed sum of 383,000/. was to be deemed abundantly ample for every expense connected with her Majesty's state? and he was replied to in the affirma tive. Now, he would ask the Right Honourable the Chan cellor of the Exchequer one question—had the estimate of 383,0001. been made in the contemplation that her Majesty was to derive the slightest advantage from the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster? If lie could answer this question in the affirmative, he, for one, would vote for any addition to that sum of 385,0001. which should cover that contemplated advantage. Therefore, whether few or whether many went out with him, he should press his motion to a divi sion. And for this reason : they were told that if they did not go on with the Bill that night the stern duties of Christ mas would interfere, and prevent it from receiving the Royal fiat. It was clear, therefore, that unless the House inter posed at present, all pretence of interposing at a future period would be sheer hypocrisy. He knew that there was little sympathy in that House with the feelings of the people. If the Right Hon. Baronet, end his adherents and eubseraient tools were in power, they could not make a more uneonstitu- II tion proposition. While Ministers were professing to endea your to stifle the Pension List, they were giving to the Queen a grant exorbitantly large in its amount, but rendered much more fearful by the patronage which would accrue from it. They were about to place an instrument of per sonal power in the hands of the Crown, the consequences of the exercise of which it was impossible for any man to foresee. The principle of the measure was such that he was convinced that if the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer were sitting on the Opposition instead of on the Treasury Bench he would enter his most formal pro test against it. They were told that if the continuance in office of the present Government were endangered, the march of improvement would be endangered. The march of im provement I What improvement could be expected under a Government ready to place this enormous revenue in the hands of the Crown, without annexing to it any responsi bility ? He perfectly recollected, and he was sure the Right Honourable Member for Tamworth, recollecting the effect which the exercise of his temper produced on the occasion, would confirm his statement, when an Hon. and Learned Gentleman, afterwards Lord High Chancellor, declared it to he the result of his deliberate judgment that these funds ought to bemade available, if necessary, for public purposes. Lord Althorp stated also that such was his impression. But what was the use of an impression if that impression were not car ried into effect ? It had been stated that the reason why it was not so was, that Ministers had misunderstood their Royal Master He had no doubt whatever that if her Majesty's Mi nisters had only hinted to her that these revenues ought to be placed at the disposal of Parliament, she would most readily have complied with the suggession. He trusted he had sufficiently shown the delusive character of the present proposition. If the Crown conceded these mighty rights as a boon, why not reject the Civil List, and let the Crown resort to its own property ? Why take advan tage of her Majesty's tender years, and induce her to enter into a compact so prejudicial to her By a paper which had been laid on the table of the House, on the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Ox ford, it was made to appear that the proposed arrangement would be greatly prejudicial to the Crown. He would nut enter into particulars to show the delusive character of that paper. The people did not want to obtain any advantages from the Crown ; but they ought not to be cheated by a delu sion. All they were to obtain for the 3t35,0001. a-year which they were about to grant to her Majesty was 12,0001. arising from the hereditary revenues, and the revenue arising from the Woods and Forests, which in no case could exceed 6,0001. a _ ye ar ; and which was so shackled that it recently amounted to only 5,0001. He had done his duty. He should take the sense of the House on the present proposition. The House then divided— For the ameadment 52 Against it lB4 Majority 132 On our return to the Gallery, e we found Mr. ATT WOOD proposing another amendment, the nature of which we were unable to collect, but which the Speaker stated was in. admissible. The House than resolved itself into the Committee. The preamble of the Bill was postponed, and the first and second clauses were agreed to. On the CHAIRMAN reading the third clause, to the effect that an annual sum of 385,0001. be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, &c. Mr. FIUME would should shortly state his objections to the vote. It was founded on the Civil List as stated in 1816, one of the most extravagant periods of modern times. He did hope that the time had arrived when they should be allowed to return to the quiet and less cxpeniive times that existed before the commencement of the French war. This was the feeling that animated the Members of the pre:ient Ad ministration when, in 1517, they pressed upon the then ex isting Government the appointment of the Finance Com mittee, which Committee, in its first report, recommended that all the natThlishments of the State should, with as little delay as possible, be reduced to the same scale as that upon which they existed in 1792. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted extracts from a number of treasury minutes, and from the reports of Select Committees appointed under different a dministrations from 1816 to 1831, for the purpose of show ing the str , ng, and ul - pnirrous opnion prayrilcd on all sides, and with all parties, that all the establishments of the country should be reduced to the same scale as in 1792. But whilst the other establishments had been diminished he (Mr. Hawes) was not bound to grant 10,000/. more on the present Civil 'List than was granted in the last reign. This sees one point which he wished the Chancellor of the Exche quer to consider. The second point to which be would advert was the large amount received by the Crown from intestates' estates. In a case in which he was personally interested (as we understood), out of 140,0001. received by the Crown from an intestate's estate, no less than 70,0001. was actually ap plied towards the furnishing and embellishing of the Palace (as it was called) at Brighton. Knowing this fact, he had a right to inquire how it was intended that sums of mon, y coming from such a source into the hands of the Crown were in future to be dealt with. From Intestates' Estates alone an additional 10,000/. a-year accrued to the Crown ; therefore, according to his view of the case, the present Civil List ac tually amounted to 20,000/. more than the last. To this he was by no means disposed to agree; and he should, there fore, after the amendment of his lion. Friend was disposed of, propose a reduction of the vots to the amount of 10,000/. Mr. F. BARING said that his Hon. Friend wished the House and the public to understand that thseproposed Civil List was larger in amount than the Civil List of his late Ma jesty. His Hon. Friend said there was now no Queen Con sort, and therefore 50,000/. ought to be deducted from the amount of the last Civil List in order to make a fair comparison between it and the amount now proposed. But if his Hon. Friend wished to make a fair comparison between the proposed Civil List and the Civil List of the late reign, he should com pare those items which were in the List of the last reign with those of a similar description in the present List. His Hon. Friend did not act quite fairly when he told the Committee that they ought to deduct 50,0001. from the amount of the late Civil List when estimating what ought to be the presentCieil List, be cause there was now no Queen Consort, and yet to complain that 10,000/. should be added to the present Civil List, because the Sovereign happened to be a queen and not a king. The 10,000/. was added for the establishment of ladies. He ( Mr. F. Be!inE) need not argue that an establishment of ladies was absolutely necessary in consequence of the Sovereign being a queen.—(Hear, bear.) His Hon. Friend had lost sight of this, and he had likewise put aside the question of pensions. Did his Hon. Friend mean to tell hire (Mr. F. Baring) that, by any calculation he could make, the power of giving 1,2001. a year in pensions would ever amount to 75,0001. a year, which was the extent of the power that existed in the late reign ? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It must be remembered, when discussing this question, that his late Majesty. was King of Hanover as well as King of England.—( Hear, hear.) And although the revenues of Hanover were mainly appropriated to the benefit of that country, yet it was fair to presume that some part of those revenues were available to the support of the dignity of the King of England as well as that of the King of Hanover. These were sources of revenue which her pre sent Majesty did not enjoy ; were she in possession of them, she no doubt would derive a greater amount of revenue than she would now do from the present proposition. His Hon. Friend had said that the amount of the former Civil List was very large, and on too high a scale, and that considerable reduc tioos might have been made in it if it had been under the supervision of Parliament ; but his Honourable Friend ought to recollec, that he was speaking of a Civil List of a very dif ferent description from what existed now. If they looked to that expenditure which had been transferred from the old Civil List to the present estimates laid before Parliament, and pieced under the supervision of Parliament, they would find that a very considerable reduction had been made in the annual expenditure on account of those estimates. Ho ( Mr. F. Baring) was perfectly well aware of the case to which his Honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth had referred. It wa in case where there existed very great doubt as to the right of the party claiming to be allied to the intestate. He never could prove his ease—he had failed twice before a court of law. The Crown, therefore, very naturally refused to give the property to such party. His Honourable Friend bad complained that the Select Committee bad not exa mined all the details of the items constituting the Civil List, and that therefore the Committee had no means of de ciding what ought to be their amount. But what did his Hon. Friend expect to do with regard to the Civil List ? His Hon. Friend said that it was compared with the Civil List of the reign of George IV., which was a very expensive reign ; but what was the fact ? Did not the Committee take this course? Did they not observe the expenditure, under the different heads, in the reign of William IV. ? They all knew that when his late Majesty presided over this empire the dignity of the Crown was maintained in decent splendour-- that there was that noble hospitality upheld which was worthy the sovereign of a great empire ; but they knew, else, at the same time that there was no extravagant or profuse expendi ture on the part of the Crown ; and that his late Majesty might have this praise added to his other praises, that when he left the Crown to his successor he did not burden the country with one sixpence of debt.—( Hear.) What, then, could they, in common sense, have as a better standard by which to compare the present scale of the Civil List than the Civil List of the late reign ?—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had talked of going back to the principles of 1792 ; but in how many cases was his lion. Friend pre pared to do this ? In all matters, save in the article of money, no one was more ready to ridicule the " wisdom of our ancestors" than his lion. Friend. They were, however, now arguing in 1837, and not in 1792. Did his Hon. Friend apply the principle of his argument to his own private affairs ? Did lie pay the same rate of wages to his servants now that was paid in 1792? Every gentleman knew from his own experience that they could not bring down the expenditure of the present day-down to the standard of 1792. Was it to be expected, when shopkeepers, farmers, merchants, and country squires lived in a very different style and adopted essentially different habits from the style and habits which prevailed in 1792, when what at that period were considered luxuries were now regarded as common necessaries, and were more remem bered for their being being absent than present—when this gradual alteration in the habits of life took place among all ©!asses of people, was it possible to expect that the Crown —that the head of the empire—should remain unaffected by the general change, and its dignity continue to be supported on a scale of expenditure adaeted to a state of circumstances of altogether a different nature ?—( Hear. ) Mr. HAWES said a few words in explanation, referring to the Report of the Civil List Committee in support of his former statement. Mr. GROTE observed that there were two points in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Portsmouth, which seemed to require special notice. One was the rise in the price of articles of provisions since 1792, and, from the tenor of the Hon. Gentleman's observations, it would seem fortunate that a Civil List had not been proposed of double the present amount, for such was the only inference which could be drawn from those remarks. In the next place, he must remark on the extreme inutility of the Committee, of which he (Mr. Grote) and the Hon. Secretary for the Trea sury were members.—( Hear, hear.) If the Civil List of the late Monarch were to be handed down to the present Sove reign without alteration, why did not the Government do so on its own responsibility ?—( Hear, hear.) Taking, however, a different view from the Hon. Member of the fitness and amount of the proposed Civil List, he should vote for the reduction recommended by the Honourable Member for Kil kenny, and he conceived it a proper and reasonable proposal. He was prepared to say that the whole amount might be lessened by 50,000/. y He would most willingly support, not only every thing which could add to the comfort and elegance, but also to the dignity and splendour of the So vereign, but he did aot think that the suggested reduction would detract from any of these. Before he sat down he must enter a strong protest against the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord the Member for Stroud, that the respect which the House entertained for the Sovereign was to be measured by its willingness to grant money for the use of the Crown. He would maintain the direct contrary, and assert that the best friends to the maintenance of the respectability of the Crown were those who were most anxious that it should not appear in the light of an odious and unnecessary burden on the shoulders of the people.—( Hear. ) Captain PECIIELL said that the lion. Member for Kil kenny had omitted to notice the fact, that whilst the fees in the Lord Chamberlain's department were done away with, the theff: is s te in nc,..o otlic e e tt of the hought ltshoartd itS t w ew as ar h d igh were tim too that t still hr left i n Ma jesty's tradesmen should be relieved from the payment of the present enormous fe . ei for procurlog their warrants. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. and it related to the department of the Master of the Horse. As all the Queen's pages were now presented with commissions in the Guards after a certain period of service, he suggested that commissions in the navy should also be held out as as inducement and reward for good conduct. His late Majesty William IV. had introduced naval men in many situations previously occupied exclusively by military men; and as there were four pages connected with the Master of the Horse's department, he suggested that two of these should be chosen from persons fit to have commissions in the navy._( Laughter.) A n d if th e Ri g ht H on . Gentleman snould meet with any difficulties in procuring fit persons from among the midshipmen, he (Captain Pechell) mialet possibly be able to furnish him in a few rears with a candidate for the office.—( Hear, and laughter. ) Mr. C. BUL LE R, though he could not entirely go along with the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, would go so far as to say that it appeared to him that the proposed Civil List was couststuted on a scale wholly unsuited to the age in which they lived.--( Hear.) What he complained of in the pro posers of the present Civil List was, that the) did carry back their ideas to past times, by ; giving to the Monarch an estab lishment entirely unsuited to modern notions of necessity or dignity. They had taken their ideas of luxury and magnificence from an age long pessed ; they had given a most splendid establish men t, an d gon e back, as it appeared to him, to an almost antediluvian period. —( Hear, hear, and laughter.) la forger times undoubtedly many of the greater nobility had performed menial offices in the eitab lishinents of the Sovereign acid of persons of high degree. lie believed that it was Burke who had stated that an Earl of Warwick had been Clerk of the Kitchen to one Monarch, and that one E ar l o f Gl ouce ster had occupied a similar si tuation under - an Archbishop of Canterbury ; but why was it now necessary that they should go back to the period when these menial offices' were performed by Noblemen rind Gentlemen? Why was it necessary that the Queen's furniture should be superintended by a Nobleman under the title of Lord Chamberlain, with a salary of 2,000/. a-year ? 'Why were the expenses of the table n ow to be regulated . by another Nobleman designated the Lord S sward ? Why was the situation of manager of the Royal Stud, under the designation of Master of the Horse, to be filled by another Nobleman with a salary of 2,500/, a-year ?He saw no occasion for this, and he should vete for a reduction equa l in amount to that sugg es ted by Honourable Friend the Member for Lambeth. He would abolish the offices of Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, Mistress of the Robes, Master of the Buck Hounds, and Constable and Keeper of the Round Tower, the yearly salaries of which .amounted together to 10,009/, ex- actly the same sum as his Hon. Friend had recommended. After the disposal of the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, he should support a proposal that the total amount should be 375,000/. instead of 385,0001. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose only to take the opportu nity of contradicting the mistake into which the Honourable Member for Liskeard had fallen. 'He was entirely in error in supposing that the great officers attending the Court, to whom he had alluded, were in the enjoyment of sinecures ; they had duties to perform, and he (Lord J. Russell) could not imagine that a Sovereign could hold a Court and main tain sufficient dignity without them.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that Hon. Members would be rather surprised, if, when the Speaker of that House leached the Royal Palace, they should find only two footmen to show them the way.— (Hear.,) These noblemen had, therefore, duties to discharge and they did per:fOrm them. Iu reference to what had fallen from the Honourable Member for Lambeth, he did not mean to say that if any amendments had been proposed .to her Ma jesty she would eat have acceded to them ; he felt no doubt but that she would have cheerfully received and accorded to any proposal which might be made ; but he did hope that Hon. Members would not place any difficulties in the way of the Sovereign, tied he could conceive no more painf ul duties which could be imposed on her Majesty's Ministers, then to ask her to withdraw what were considered unjust and unrea sonable demands—( Hear, hear)—and that the House would not make any nice calculations, or objections, to the grant of the same amount, as had been enjoyed by other So.ve reigns.—( Hear. ) Mr. KEMB LE had been returned as a Conservative, and he should be sorry, in the most remote degree, to detract from the comfort or the dignity of the - Crown; but he thought that he should be best acting up to his character as a Conservative by supporting a due and proper regard for economy in that Houie. He could not, conscientiously, vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny and support a reduction to the amount of 50,0001., because be had not heard sufficient reasons advanced for so large a reduction. The House had appointed a Committee to investigate the subject, and not having given power to that Committee to send for persons, papers, and documents, he thought that the House was bound to take the statement of the confiden tial advisers of the Crown, which had been laid before them. By a reference to the papers it appeared that the only diffe rence in the expenditure occasioned by the circumstance of the reigning Sovereign being a Queen was 2,000/. a year—(No, no, from tine iiinisterial Benches.) Such was the fact, for whist the number of ladies in the Household had been in creased, tbel.c. ‘,as a reduction in the number of males ; the inerea , ed expenditure on this account was only 2,000/., and the saving ought to be 10,0001. The increase was 8,000/ therefore, and for the vote of such a sum no ground bad, in his opinion, been stated, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, had referred to the saving of 50,000/. a-year in con sequence of our not having a Queen Consort, but it was highly probable that her Majesty would soon have a husband —( Hear, hear)—and they should recollect that to support his dignity a much larger tutu than the 50,000/. now saved would be required.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The House had been told that the establishment of ‘ l 4illiam the Fourth was fully adequate to the dignity and the splendour of the Crown ; and yet, without any sufficient reason assigned, an increase of more than 8,000/. had been recommended by a Government professing amongst their leading principles a great attachment to economy. Although he could not vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, he would support a reduction to the amount of 10,000/.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN srid a few words in support of the reduction suggested by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth. Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought that he should have no great difficulty in inducing the Hon. Member for Surrey to vote for the reduction of the proposed sum by an amount con siderably larger than he had stated. Was the House disposed to throw away the lights of experience? It was no specula tion as to the amount of the expenses of the Royal House hold. The Report of the Civil List Committee, imperfect as it was in many respects, yet was sufficiently full to give some clue to the amount. At page eleven of the Report there was a summary of the aggregate money received by the Crown during the six years of William the Fourth's reign. The total received durtng this period was 3,000,000 L, and after providing to the utmost for the grants in the reign, and which remained unpaid, there was a surplus of 22,750/. carried to the Privy Parse, exclusive of the 60,0001. a year granted for that purse ; after deducting the 3,045,091/. paid out of the total money received, still there remained an ad ditional surplus unappropriated of 14,909/. Add this to the sum of 22,750/. carried to the Privy Purse, and there would be found an excess of 37,6591. during the whole six years, being 6,000/. a year more than the Crown could spend, even under the old provision made for the Monarch's support, and yet the House was called upon to increase this sum. In addi. tion to all this, there was a proposal in the present Civil List of 8,040/. for unapp.opriated moneys, being, in fact, a proposed expenditure of upwards of fourteen thousand pounds a year more than had been proved by a six years' experience to be necessary. He took it, then, that the Hon. Member was willing that a diminution of 16,0001. should take place ; but in what way did the House get at the reve nues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which were shut out from their control, practically, by the course which had been adopted by the Government? It was not denied that the actual income arising from the Duchies was very little short of 50,000/., and the Honourable Member for Kilkenny would, therefore, have been justified in adding the sum of 16,000/. to that of 50,0001., which he suggested. He knew the effect produced by rumours both in and out of the House, and he would rather vote on a division in favour of a reduction of the amount by 10,0001., if the Hon. Member for Surrey would move it—and he would rather hope in that feeling of Con servative contrition—( A laugh)—that Hon. Member would set an example—than he would vote with a small minority in favour of the reduction by 50,000/. If the Hon. Member would move this by setting an example, and it would be re ceived by the country with 'gratitude, as a sort of Christmas box. It would be a boon, indeed, that it should be proposed by an Hon. Member on that side of the House; and if he would only move that the amount should le‘ reduced to 375,0001., it would be better than to divide with a small mino rity in favour of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. If, however, the lien. Member for Kilkenny should persevere in dividing the House on the course which he had suggested, be should vote with him : but at the same time he hoped that the Hon. Member for Surrey would not be terrified from moving that the amount should be decreased to 375,000/. Mr. KEMBLE—I never said I would move the House on the subject; and I will ask the Hon. Member what he means by Conservative contrition 2—(A laugh,) I only expressed my regret that I sheuld be obliged to vote with the other side of the House under certain circumstances, but I deny that I ex pressed any Conservative contrition ; but, on the contrary, I glory in the principles which I profess.—( Loud laughter. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXHCEQUER felt it his daty to state that the excess of the revenue was appropriated to purposes with which he thought the Committee would entirely agree. The appropriation of the balance bad been to the pay ment of the funeral expenses of his late Majesty.—(Hear, hear.) He would offer one word with regard to the observa tions made by the Hon. Member for Surrey. He said there was an excess in the present Civil List over that which was before agreed to, and that there was a surplus of 10,000/. He should wish, in order to satisfy that Hon. Gentleman and the House, to refer to what had passed on a former occasion. On the late Civil List being brought forward, a sum larger than that now contemplated was carried in the House (the sum being, be believed, 11.0000 to meet contingencies. The proposition was made by the Hon. Member for the University of Cam bridge, and it was assented to by Lord Spencer, and actually voted, but by some mistake the sum was not inserted in the Bill. It was not proposed now to vote that sum as unappro priated. but be thought it better to take the small sum of 8,0001. unappropriated, in looking forward to a long reign. But to refer to the cote carried on the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, that substituted an annual grant for new pensions, not exceeding 1,200/. for the maximum sum of 75,0001. which was originally the amount. This was not his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) proposition, and therefore whatever benefit might arise to the public, and which would ap pear on the statement he was about to put forth, was to be at tributed to the labours of the much maligned Committee. He had supported it, but he was happy to attribute it origi nally to the motion of the Honourable Member for Aber deen. He was talking of a saving of 10,000/. and in retie faence to it he had had a calculation made by an officer of Government most experienced in such matters, Mr. Finlayson, and it appeared that the highest value of 1,200/. in twenty years by progressive accumulation, adding the decreased pen sions on the consolidated f und to the increased pensions on the annual grant of 1,2001., would show that a benefit would be derived, and it would be found that the absolute reduction produced by the alteration would far exceed the sum saved by any other menus. The present charge on the Civil List was 72.9701., and by a calculation of lives irr twenty years it would be found that it would be reduced to 20,043/. ; this any in surance-office would at once take as the basis to go upon, and would make an arrangement to pay off the whole. The new Pension List, at 1,204/. per annum, would in twenty years amount to 21,1791. and the total amount would be found to be 41,222/., by which a saving of 33,7781. would be effected under the head of pensions. Therefore, when it was said that the new, Civil List was not a reduction on the old one, he showed that here alone there was a reduction of 33,0001. a-year. He would call the attention of the House, before he sat down, to the fact to which he had first alluded, but that was no ar'urnent against another saving. It was highly expedient, on the commencement of a new reign of a young Sovereign, that there should be some unappropriated sum to meet contingencies. After a few words from Mr. CLAY, Mr. BARING, in explanation, said that the resent ad dirdons to the Cicil List amounted to 8,000/. or 9,000/. ; and if the House should place the Queen in the same situation in which hi- late Nlajesry was, there would have been an advance of 10,00 e I. Mr si LT ME, in reply, said that the House seemed to be satisfied that flee-sum which had been granted for the last s e ven years should be Continued; He wou l d tell them that they were now taxed' to the amount of fifty millions, while before the taxation was sixteen millions, and yet it was pro po red to raise the Civil List, 1 he house then divided— For the amendment l9 Against it 199 Majority The Committee then divided on the Amendment of Mr. Hawes— , - - For the amendment Against it 173 Majority On our rejurn:to the gallery we found Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER addressing the House. He wished to know whetheerfre Government intended to retain the office of the Master dfrthe Horse and that branch of theroyal establish- merit ? He asked this question in consequence of the sale by her Majesty's Ministers of the splendid stud belonging to his late Majesty at Hampton Court, a proceeding which, in hit mind, inflicted the greatest disgrace on the country.—(Cheers from the Ooposition.) The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUERbsgged to inform the Hon. Member that the solo of the RQ.al itud was not the act of her Majesty's Ministem but was do-'e by the executors of the late Sovereign, the Stud being the private property of his Majesty.—(Cheers.) The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 4. On clause 5 (slating to pensions on the Chit List) being put, Mr. GROTE objected to discuss this clause to-night., (Cries of " Hear I" and "Go on !"). lis would move that the Chairman report progress. —(No no!) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said if :he Hon. Gentleman per sisted in his motion he must admit this; it _would not be in his power to proceec' with the discussicn; at the k.sm , time he wished to represent to him that it was very det.irable that they should proceed with the Committee, its order ti , c..t they might take the third reading of the Bill on "Alemdar, and thus be. enabled to settle the Civil List before Chrhaines.—( Hear.) With regard to this clause, be proposed th t it should go through the Committee to-night, and he would give the Hon. Gentleman the opportunity of moving the alteration he wished on the bringing up of the Report on Mo nda y . Mr. G ROTE would withdraw his motion, that the Chair man should report progress, on • the understanding that he should base the opportunity of ra3si.A.g the question he was desirous of bringing on on Monflay -next. He must have a clear understanding, however, that Ye she uld be then ter mitted to discuss the subject quite As fully and freely as he could now.—( Hear. ) The CHANCELLOR of the . b.. - XCTIEQUEIt vteuld bring up the report of the Bill the ft.'s , . thing on Monday ; therefore the lion. Gentleman would!, be able to raise the question he w ished without any other b witless intervening. Mr. KE.ABLE asked , with respect In per.sions of 1,2001. a-year, whether they terminated with th e life of the Crown ? The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER replied certainly. The whole Bill terminated with the demise of the Crown. The clause was then agreed to, as w; iv! clauses 6,7, 8,9, and 10. The retraining clauses and schedules wero then agreed to ; the House resumed, and the report was orc'e red to be received this day. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEUER intimated thAt the third reading would be taken on Mo nday, to vt hich day also the nomination of the Pensions Committee was deferred. In answer to Colonel SIBTHORP, Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Duchess of Kent's An nuity Bill would be taken into consideration this day. - PONTEFRACT ELECTION. Oa the motion of Mr. GOULBURII thn petition of Mr. Gompertz—praying, as we understood, that ti,e description of Mr. Procter, one of the sureties to this election petition, who was described ss " gentleman, of South-bank, Regent's Park," he being also a shoemaker, in Essex-street, Strand, might be amended—was taken into consideration. Mr. Moss, the Parliamentary agent to the petitioner, was called to the bar and examined touching - the description of Mr. Procter and the parties by whom he was employed, but declined giving the name of the party .rho had given him the name of Mr. Procter as one of the eureti ,- -s- After a desultory consultation, the witness was recalled, and stated that the person who gave him the nan te of the surety was Mr. Benhoe, of Mecklenburgh-square. Mr. GOULBRN moved that Mr. Proctc - be allowed to alter his description by stating his business. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, opposed the. proposition, on the ground that it was not warranted by Act oi Parliament, or by the usage o the courts of law. After a few observations from Sir E. SUGDEN, Mr. GOULBURN amended the motion accordingly. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed , thafthis was the original proposition of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General. After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENERAL and others, it was agreed to enlarge the tern , until Tuesday, the 26th instant ; and the House adjourned at half-past Two o'Clock this morning until this day. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The subject of the currency is one or the utmost import ance to the country—infinitely beyond any mere party question. It comes home "to every man's business and bosom ;" it is, in fact, a hand of darkness and p ower push ing one individual from his stool, and putting another upon it, by a mysterious agency, which all can feel and but few understand. Nearly every commercial convulsion . that has taken place in this country, shaking like an car thquak - e the social system to its centre, own s in most cases its origin, and in all its operation to the currency. If over-trading, if unwise speculation, if foreign investment, or whatever other cause, have occasioned some temporary derangement at any particular period, in comes the currency to heighten the evil to a most fearful extent ; to prolong, widen, and deepen the gulf in which all are in danger of being precipitated ; to make the merchant a beggar-- . --the banker a bankrupt ; to ar rest the hand of labour and stop the springs of industry,tiil the cries of millions for bread complete the terrific climax which an unwise currency has chiefly occasioned, if not entirely created. Now, let us look at a few facts. In 1825, a country at one side of a small river had bank. tumbling down by wholesale—property in the market at a most fearful depreciation—workmen thrown out of employment by tens of thousands ; at the other side of that river not a bank failed—property was but slightly affected—labour wet+ nearly as much in demand as at an ordinary season. Why was this? People over-traded in that country—people engaged in unwise speculations in that country—people made foreign investments from that country ; what, there fore, was the cause that England should experience the shock of an earthquake, and Scotland only feel the pat tering of distant rain ? The answer is obvious—Scotland had a sound currency, England had not. In Scotland the banks were formed upon the jointeetock principle; in England, except in one vast monopoly, that system was not allowed to exist. ranks were unsafe by Act of Parliament, and the currency unsound by the wisdom of the Legisla ture. One immense joint-stock bank, the Bank of Eng land, determined that " none but itself should be its parallel"—there should be no more of the breed. It had all the successive corrupt Governments in its power, be cause they owed it money which they could not pay, and required more, which it, a'one could give them. Hence —for the sake of pandering to this monopoly—no bank of issue was allowed to have more than six partners within a certain distance of London. None were to be so safe as to draw from it the best, or any large portion, of its customers. None should be so strong as ever to be able to protect themselves against its giant power, when it choose to crush them. No marvel they fell, though sol vent, when the property which ccnstitutcd their solvency was compelled to be thrust upon the market at any price that could be got for it. The public knew the legal and necessary weakness of those private banks, and had little faith during any ctisis ;—hence the " runs," hence the "stoppages," hence the bankruptcies, hence the ruin, and hence the wretchedness, of millions of human beings. Nnt so in Scotland—there was no law there to prevent banks being safe—no huge monster there affecting to have the eyes of Argus, and the hands of Briareus, to be able to see and to relieve the wants of the community in all parts of the country at once. No, no ; the sterile soil of Scot land was covered with riches, and its cautious and even suspicious inha bitants had faith, and did trust their b:nks. But why ? Simply because they knew the difference between banks of six partners and b.,ilks of 600—banks which, like the banana tree of the East, round routs in their own branches, iastead of being merely a single trunk, liable to fall back before every adverse blast of popular opinion. Notwith stand'ng the Egyptian darkness in which subject connected with the currency were involved, people could not forbear seeing the superiority of the Scotch sound system over the English unsound system, and hence a demencl for joint-stock banks. It was believed, and with truth, that fie Bank of Englend could not, if it would, and would not, if it could, supply a sound and sufficient currency from its own resources, and it was but too palpable tlaat the private hank system was dangerous, and not to be relied upon. The late Lord .Liverpool fat', this, an .I wrote one of the best letters on the subject, thoueli couched in very cautious terms, that we have seen. Ire saw the evil, but his was not the arm that could gr. pp'e w:th it. We wanted a premier with the nerve of a Napoleon and the d. termination of a . W olii.)gton . to put down the odious, mischievous, and ruinous monopoly of the Bank of Eng land, and open the currency to all the voluntary resources of the country. The joint-stock system. however, was attempted in the teeth and under all the disadvantages of the law, and in spite of these disadvantages it has suc ceeded to an extent which has surpa - zsed the hop. s of its friends; and carried conviction to the minde; of its enemies. We have only now to point to the cheering Report of the London Joint Stock Bank, which we gave on Thursslay. It appears that 6i per cent. on the paid-up capital has been realised under all Les° disadvantages, and under the special and critical circumstances which have recently talon place, besid s allowing 2 per cent. on ba lances, and issuing .no notes of its own. It appears that , instead of six, there are in this Company 657 partners, holding more than 30,000 shares of 100/. each. This is. the system which ought to be adopted, and ought to spread. Should it be permitted to 'do so, we confidently predict that a sound currency having public faith will soon exist— that crises will become more rare and less ruinous—that employment will be more certain, and labour better paid— and that the gre.tt object of Bacon the immortal will be at tained when he said—" Money is like muck (manure) good for nothin2 uilless.it be spread."-1110:.ning Advertiser. Yesterday the death of Thomas Hawe, the unfor tunate young man W h o was stabbed in the ab2omen by George Clutterbuck, while the letter was excited by joalousy, was re ported to Mr. Iltudwiek, at -Lambeth-street police of on. his taking his seat on the bench. It appeared that the poor fellow, after writhing in the utmost torture and agony, and to be relieved from which be kept continually praying, died at a q uarter to ten o'clock on Wednesday night, and an inquest will be held on his remains this evening.