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

----- PRICES OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. sank Stock 2064 I India Stnex -- 3 per Cert. le<' . ..... -........9`2M4 ditto Bonds ... . 26 28 pm. 3 per Cent. C0n5........ South Sea Stock - 3% per Cent......... - - Ditto Red.. 5914% New Ditto ..-...... ........ . ...... .. - New 314 per Cent - 3 per Cent. A n nuities, 1751... - New 5 per Cent.- ...... ......... - Exch. Pills, .£1, 0 06.. ...... 4`; 49 cm. Bank Long Annuitiestnexoirp Ditto ...............50e 46 48 pm. Jan. 5, MO 1471 13-13 r. Ditto .:-..ina7l ........ ......... 47 49 pin. Oct. 10, 1859 -' Ditto Commercial ..... .... - - Pin. Jan. 5, 1960 - Ditto Advertised.- ..... - - roe Jan. 5, 1880 .. Bank Stock for Account. 207 S 7 April 5, 185.40..... ....... ...,.... - Indlx Stock for Account. 267 Jan. 5,187 C...--............. i Consols for Acconnt Omaium -- pm. 1 PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS ' Austnan Bonds ....... —1 Belman Bonds .....«.« Ditto Account Brazilian 8end5...............« Ditto Account Buenos Ayres Bonda THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Peruvian Bonds .....„ ......... — Ditto Account ........- PortuguLaCßOlld2........ ..... •-• • Ditto Account ..... -....- Ditto Now Bongs — Ditto Account — DLto, 3 per cent. — • Bnissian Bonds. — Russian Bon( 3 s, I R). Ditto Account — Ditto Account Chillinn Bcnds Ditto Account C ituvribian Ditto Account ..---- — Caltunbian Bnn4:18, Ditto Metallic ...... Spanish linnds MU:, Account ...... ..... Ditto Bonds. 1634 l97i 20 Ditto Account 2O French, 5 per —f. —c. 4 per cent........... —0 Ditto Account Danish Bonds Ditto Account ..... Greek Bonds•..••• ........ ........•• Ditto Bonds, 1825 Ditto Account ..... Mexican Bonds, 5 per ceut — Ditto Account 6 per cont. Ditto Account 8; Ncapolitmn ................ I --- 3 per cent....... .... - - Exchanges Dutch, 2% per cent. 5 4 1 /041,4 Ditto Account 5 4 14 Ditto, 5 rer cent lOl Ditto Account PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Paid. Per Share Real del Monte Mining Co.. Registered 631.105. CA. Ditto Unregistered Birmingham and Derby Railway Company l5 Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Company Eastern Counties Railway Brighton Railway Company . 5 Brighton Railway (Rennie's) London and Birmingham Railway Company 9O Ditto I ,i Shares .. 5 London and Greenwich flajlway Company 2O North Midland Railway Cotupany 4 ,5 South Eastern and Dover ltailway Company 7 London and Westminster :Bank 2O National Bank of Ireland.. I7V, 15 14 o %%ii 1% Vii V 4 2414 , 4, 14y, 15 COURSE OF EXCHANGE YESTERDAY. Amsterdam C. F. 12 4% i Gibraitar 46 Ditto, at sight botterdam ........ -.......5. U l2 4% IGenoa 26 10 Are.werp... Hamburg........ Id.R. 13 135 4 1 Venice eo Altnna..-. ..........»........... 13 IS% I lcaples Si) Paris, 3 days' sight Ditto ....... ............. ..3 Ms. £5 PO Lisbon .f, 3 1, Marscillez. ..... ..-.......- ...... 26 0 Oporto S3N Bourdeaux Frankfort on Maine, Ex. M. 153 I Bahia ... 25 Petcrsbuigh, ruble ..... .3 Us. 10 Buenos Ayres -- Berlin Vienna, effective 11......2 NI. 10 11 Cork ....... .. :.. ..... ....... ...... Teieste ditto ................ 10 12 PRICE OF BC ELION, PER OZ. Madrid 'sl Peitugal Gold, c0in....... E 0 0 0 C.sdiz 95 B Rarceilna 94 ...... 34 Forein Gold;in bars S )7 9 New Doubloons New Dollars Silver. bars, standard 0 4 11 HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE To-MORROW. unrniu , l9 minutes after 5 j Evening 38 minutes after 5. This day was published in fcp. Syo. price Half-a-Crown, neatly done up in eloth, gilt edges, PLAIN DIRECTIONS for making WILLS in conformity with the New Act, comes into operation on the Ist January, 1838, and the strictest conformity with which will be indispensable in every Will made after that date. By J. C. HUDSON, of the Legacy Duty Office, London. London : Longman, Orme, and Co. The COURT and TIMES of QUEEN ANNE. Just ready, in 2 vols. Bvo. with Portraits. T HE DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH'S PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. Illustrative of the Court and Times of Queen Anne; WITH HER SKETCHES and OPINIONS of HER CONTEMPORARIES, &c. Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. The publication of Tun Sum NEWSPAPRR commenced this da at 30 minutes past Three o'clock. tr,`. " " s LONDON : SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 16, 1837. In the HOUSE of Loans yesterday the sitting was short, the business being confined to the presentation of two petitions, each of -.vhich, however, involves objects of considerable im. portance. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from the prin cipal London booksellers, praying for a general reduction in the present rates of postage. Lord BRCUGHAIS presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, ARen - nen, and Cornirons of the City of London, in Common Council assembled, Praying that the provisions of the Muni cipal Officers' Declaration Bill might be extended so as to embrace all classes of her MmesTv's subjects. In the House of Cr W:AGNS petitions for the Ballot were presented from Bridgewater and from Ashtcn-under-Line. Sir F. FRENCH gave notice of a proposition for altering the position of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Sir S. WHALLEY gave notice that on an early day after the recess he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the window tax. Sir M. WOOD gave notice, that he would on Tuesday next move for a Select Committee to inylire into the propriety of certain proposed metropolitan improvements, and that he would also move en the same day for leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of Hackney C:,acbcs and Cabriolet:, similer to that which he had brought in last Session. in answer to a question by Mr. MacRINNoN, Mr. BALING stid that " a plan for a large communication by:steam with the Colonies generally nas at present under the cfmsider,tieu of Government—tht that plan was not confined TO the West Indies alone; but that it had reference to the whole 33 stem of intercolonial communic4ltion." Mr. STANLEY brought up the report on the Houses of Pat liament Bill. In answer to the question whether it ivas intended to give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioners of the Post. office relating to the reduction of postage, and the intro duction of penny stamps, The CITANCF.I.LOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he intended to adopt the principle of stamped covers, and to try it as an experiment by itself. He would not definitively alter the rate of the twopenny-post until he saw the result of the expe riment of the stamped covers, for he could not consent to try the stamped covers as a principle, unless the amount of revenue derived from the twopenny-post were secured to him. The assertion now was that the public would profs the stamped covers to the payment of postage, and that 11(13 the experiment to he tried. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having moved the Order of the Dty for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Civil List Bill, Sir G. SINCLAIR moved, as an amendment, that the nomi nation of the Committee on the Pension List he proceeded with ; but after a short conversation the amendment was ne gatived. Mr. HARVEY then moved " That it be an instruction to the Committee that due provision be made in the Civil List Bill for the protection of the right of Parliament to invire into and to :appropriate the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster respectively." A debate ensued, to our report of which, in connexion with some observations on the subject in one of our leading ar ticles, we refer the reader. It will be seen that that the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER strorigl) re,isted the intro duction of Mr. HARVEY'S clause, and that ultimately the mo tion was withrawn. Mr. BULLER then moved as an amendment, that the Bill be committed on Monday. After art animated discussion, the House divided, when it appeared that there was a majority of 184 to 52 for going into Committee. The House accordingly went into Committee on the Civil List Bill, when, on Clause 3 being read, Mr. HUME moved the reduction of the grant from 385,0001. to 335,0001., with a view to bring the expenditure back to the standard of 1792. But out of a House of 218 Members, 19 only voted with the Hon. Member for Kilkenny; and Mr. BULLER'S subsequent effort to reduce the grant by 10,0001., was also negatived by a majo rity of 132. All the remaining clauses were agreed to, ex cept the sth, the con.ideration of which was postponed till Monday, when the third reading of the Bill will be taken. The Court of Sessions (Scotland), and the Sheriffs' Courts (Scotlend) Bills, were read a second time. The House did not adjourn till half-past two o'clock. It is a singular fact, and one which ought to be pressed on the attention of anti-Reformers, that a re formed House of Commons shows more loyalty (taking liberal provision for the dignity and splendour of the Crown as a test), than any the most corrupt House ever acted upon by all the power and influence of the SOVEREIGN. The present Civil List—for it may be regarded as fixed—nominally exceeds that given to WILLIAM THE FOURTH, and far exceeds it virtually, if we take into account the relative circum stances of the two Sovereigns. Not contented with this, however, the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER says, we will go farther : we will enquire into the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall— we will order returns to be laid before Parliament, and adopt a new system of management, by which the reve nues will be greatly increased. Bills for that purpose will be introduced. When ? After the recess—that is, after the Civil List is positively determined, for a period in all probability of half a century 7 . And who gains by this ? Not the country, but the Crown. Whatever may be the increase of these revenues, JOHN BULL is to have his usual share—not a penny goes into his pocket ; and he must continue to pay, to the last day of the reign, the full amount of the Civil List, though NEmtirpmeas of the two Duchies should increase to ,'..--lutit- - Citurfibn a year. Of what use will be the r bRe- ( 4., , -4 :;.,.-,, , 4 _ y Lord BROUGHAM, unless they are Ala :3 to be acted on for the benefit of the people, and for dimi nishing the enormous burdens of the country? Sup posing the revenues of the Duchies are the private hereditary property of the Crown, and not subject to the control of the Legislature—(which the soundest lawyers deny)—is it not preposterous to say that the Civil List must be voted without any reference to their amount ? How they came into the possession of the Crown it would be difficult to discover ; but all admit that they were taken originally, and handed down from Sovereign to Sovereign for the purpose of maintaining the dignity, and supplying the wants of Royalty ; and if they are sufficient for these purposes, why should the people be called on to vote half a million a year in addition ? They may be worth 100,0001. or 200,0001. a year, for they are involved in such mystery that no one can tell their value ; but whether it be small or great, a reformed House of Commons will grossly neglect one of its first duties, if it follow in the track of its corrupt predecessors, and pass a vote involving a sum of some thirty or forty mil lions without inquiry or explanation. A long and animated debate took place last night in the House of Commons on the subject of the reve nues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. Mr. HA RVEY opened the discussion, by moving that due provision be made in the Civil List Bill for the protec tion of the right of Parliament to inquire into, and to appropriate, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and that of Lancaster respectively ; bet finding that this motion, so worded, could not be entertained, he proposed an amendment to the effect that " the debate be adjourned, until Ministers shall have signified to the House, her MAJESTY'S consent that due provision be made in the Civil List Bill, for the protection of the right of Parliament to enquire into and appropriate the revenues of the aforesaid Duchies." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman made a most efficient, business-like speech in support of his proposition, arguing very justly that if ever there was a chance of the present race of Legislators interfering successfully, it was on this occasion. This is an obvious truism, but not the less valuable on that ac count. Now or never is the time to come to some definitive settlement on the complicated question of the Duchies. As for interfering with them at some future period, or remedying their manifold abuses, as occasion may serve—all this is pure moonshine. It may serve the interests of posterity, but questions of this nature should be regarded, rather with a view to consult the known wishes of the present, than the un authenticated ones of the future. Why should we, looking forward as a matter of course to a long reign, legislate for the close of the century, in stead of for the present period, whose interests are quite important enough to engross all our attention ? Such a notion, in a case like that before us, involves an absurdity on the face of it ; Mr. HARVEY, therefore, is quite right when he ob serves that the question of the Duchies should be settled at the present moment. Still more have we a right to expect such definite settlement from those who now hold office, because on all matters, whether bearing directly or indirectly on the Civil List, they have been notorious for their love of searching inquiry. When in Opposition, who so fierce—who so persevering— who so sternly uncompromising with the Tories, on this very point ? The Whigs have ever been perfect Ajaxes as regards their hostility to the abuses of the Civil List ; and turned out the WELLINGTON Ad ministration, on this ticklish question, and no other. Is it for them then to slumber, now that they have suc ceeded in planting themselves on the Treasury bench Is it for them to advocate the little-as-needs-be—the enug, temperate, bit-by-bit, Reform seven years after they ejected the Tories for adopting the same accom modating system ? From Mr. SP RING Rica's speech last night, in reply to the vigorous home-thrusts of the Honourable and Learned Member for South wark, we can gather nothing more satisfactory than that from time to time the abuses in the revenues cf the Duchies will be enquired into with a view to improvement ; but that for the present, nothing definite or decisive will be attempted. We must bide our time for an effectual remedy ; we must be content to see Corruption touched with a tender hand—ap proached with an apologetic and commiserating coun tenance—removed by slow degrees—and with a caution and courtesy clue to its respectability and venerable character. So say the Whigs as regards the abuses of the Civil List, but far different was the doctrine they held, when, having just succeeded in ousting the WELLINGTON Ministry, they called out, in a paroxysm of cestacy and patriotism, " The age of patronage is past. Corruption is at end. Henceforth commences a system of disinterested and enlightened Government r We hazard these remarks more in sorrow than anger ; but the plausible and ambiguous conduct of Ministers last night, with their soft, velvet phrases, and their pretty Tory prattle about the " decent splendour of the Crown," convinces us that on the question of the Civil List at least, we have, at present, nothing to hope for from them in the way of vigorous, searching Reform. We extract from our respectable Contemporary the Morning Advertiser, an able article on the Currency and Joint-Stock Banking, in all of which we heartily concur. There is, however, one slight mistake. It is stated that the London Joint-Stock Bank, the re port of which seems to have elicited our Contempo rary's remarks, is composed of partners holding 30,000 shares of 1001. each. We believe the fact to be that there are 60,000 shares of 501. each, but the amount being the same, the mistake is not material. The application of the sage remark of BACON to the subject might have been still more pertinently made to the Bank of England, had it been stated that on all occasions of mercantile de pression or public fear, vast masses of money and negociable securities are deposited in the Bank of England, which locks them up just at the period they would be the most useful, and only lets them out just when the tide of prosperity is returning, producing as much evil by the expansion as the collapse. This selfish, grasping, and overgrown monopoly is not entitled to the true character of a Joint-stock Bank, as it acts upon opposite principles. We have received the Paris Papers of Thursday ; they bring us no news of any great importance. The apprehension of HUBERT, the man charged with hav ing entered into a conspiracy against the life of Lours PHILIPPE, does not appear to have produced a great sensation, and the funds are not in any degree affected by the event. A Correspondent of the Times says that the inten tion of constructing an infernal machine to destroy Lours PHILIPPE was discovered some months ago. A person with whom our Correspondent was ac quainted received the information from France, and instantly forwarded the letter to Lord PALmEnsToN, who forthwith made a communication to the French Ambassador, and a Courier was, without delay, despatched to Paris. The Courier Francais states that the allegation of the Judge of a provincial town is compromised by the papers seized at Boulogne. Letters from Toulon, of the 9th inst., stated that the Szdfren, ship of the line, had arrived on that day from Cadiz with despatches for the naval Prefect. It was reported in Toulon that serious disturbances had si multaneously broken out on different points of Italy : but the Perle frigate, which had just returned from Leghorn, brought no confirmation of the rumonr. The Moniteur mentions the delivery at the Tuileries of letters from the Emperor of AUSTRIA and King of BAVARIA, in reply to the notification of Princess MARY of Orleans's marriage. The Duke de NEMOURS is stated to be fast reco vering from his late accident. FRENCH FUNDS.- PARIS, Do 14 Five per Cents., ICE 90c. 10Sf. Three per Cents., 79f. SOc. 35c. Bank Act lons, 2,51 , 10 f. !,577f. 5Ce. Bente de Naples, 9Sf. 15e. 10c. ISc. Roman I Ire per Cents., 100%. Spanish _Actives, 20N % Ti • Belgian .3ank, 1,530 f. Portugu , f.so Three per Cents., 19% Haytian Loan, 37uf. 365 f. lIXCIIANONI OX LONDON. One m•nth., paper, —f. —a. ; money, 25f. 42%c. Three months, paper, —f. —c.; money, 25f. 27%c —CouP* Authentigue. LAST PRICES. - Five per Cents. 109 f. 20e. Three per Cents., 7Sf. 45c. Bank Actions, 2,577 f. 50c. Romans, 100 3 . Belgian Bank, 1,51:f. Portuguese Three per Cents., 19. Spanish Actives, 20 7 4. Haytian Loan, 365 f. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS DAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. There being forty Members present at five minutes past twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER took the Chair at that hour. ELECTION PETITIONS. Mr. PRYAIE gave notice that he would on Monday bring before the consideration of the House the petition of William Mereivether Turner respecting the election for the borough of Dudley. The SPEAKER then informed the House that John Kelly and others, who had petitioned against the late return for the borough of Portarlington had not entered into the re quired recognizances, and the petition was accordingly dis charged. CITY OF LONDON ELECTION. The SPEAKER also informed the House that the peti tioners against the return for the city of London had not en tered into the required recognizance!, and their petition was accordingly discharged. CAPTAIN MITCHELL'S MISSION INTO THE PENINSULA. Mr. HUME moved for a return of the expense of Captain Mitchell's mission into the Peninsula, with all the contingent expences ; and also how many plans and maps have been pre pared by him, for what places and districts, and where depo sited. A question had before been raised as to the possession of those documents, and, as they were collected at the public expense, it was right that the public should know that they were carefully preserved.—Ordered. The SPEAKER observed that the Hon. Member was pro bably aware that these plans did not belong to any of the de partments of the Secretaries of State. Mr. HUME replied that Captain Mitchell, being an engi neer and an officer in the British service, must of course be paid from some public department. COLONIAL ANDAUSTRALIAN BANKS. On the motion of Mr. FINCH, a Return was ordered of Copies of the Charters which had been granted to the Colo nial and Australian Banks. SLAVE COMPENSATION. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Slave Compensation Bill. The SPiAKER haying left the Chair, and Mr. BErtNaLt. having taken it, on the second clause being put, Mr. HUME wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what was the purport of that clause. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Slave Compensation Fund was provided for partly in money, and partly in stock. Before the Bill passed certain claims were paid in money ; but there was now a surplus •f stock, and a deficiency of money, and the object of this clause was to allow stock to be sold out to replace the money. Mr. HUME said that the same statement should have been laid before the House with respect to the amount of the money paid. Th• CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that under the provisions of the Slave Compensation Act, no ac counts could be laid before the House without an order for the Committee, countersigned by the Secretary of State. Mr. HUME said, that as the lion. Member for Dublin had moved for an account of the payments made, he should think those details would be laid before the House. Mr. BAINES wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the money voted for the liberation of the slaves had been already distri buted; and secondly, whether any inquiry had been instituted AS to the conduct of the masters towards their apprentices, and if it should be found that they ha‘e been treated with cruelty, whether it W3S the intention of Gm:run:cut to withhold the remainder of that sum. Mr. AG LIONBY only rose for the purpose of stating that'' the greatest interest was felt in his part of the country on this subject. He had received many letters, urging that the at tention of the House ought to be called to it, and he hoped, 'ere long, the House really would take the matter up, and see that justice was done. Sir G. GREY could only say that the Government had alwa3s tendered, aed were sill r ady to tender, every infor mation as to the working of the measure ; and not the slightest opposition would be made to the re-appointment of a Corn mittee, before which every document, if required, that could throw any light on the subject, would be laid. Mr. BAINES did not know whether he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say there bad been a compact made, and that if the slave-owners violated that compact, they would not be entitled to receive any part of the money ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the question which the lion. Gentleman had put to him was, whether they could withhold, or had withheld, any part of the money ? His rnswer was—They had no power of withhold- Mg it ; by law it belonged to the parties to whom it was ad judicated ; and no less authority than an Act of Parliament could take it away from those individuals. —( Hear.) Mr. BRINE S - begged to confirm what his Hon. Friend the Member for Cocke:mouth (Mr. Aglionby) had stated, as to the strong impression that existed in the country on this sub ject. It been represented there had been cruel injustice committed towards the negro apprentices, and it would become a matter of serious consideration how far the subject should be brought before Parliament. Though he could not entirely concur in all the proceedings the Government had taken, (who undoubtedly were entitled to the credit of having removed the stigir a of negro slavery), and doubted the propriety of coming to the decision of asking for a termination of the negro apprentice ship on the Ist of August next, yet he did think they were entitled to the best consideration of Parliament, and that no information ought to be withheld from them that would satisfy their minds. After the enormous sum that had been taken for the liberatisn of the le grecs, they ought to see that that part of the contract which belonged to the planters had been t'airly and conscientiously fulfilled ; and if it had not, there would be an impression in the country generally that groat in justice had been done towards the people of this country and the negro population. He hoped the Government would in some way or ether take care that the planters fulfilled their part of the contract, and that the money was not paid to those who violated their contract, as had been stated, contrary to every principle of justice and humanity. Mr. HUME thought, after the statement that had been made, his Hon. Friend was bound in justice to the public, who had paid so large a sum as compensation to the slave owners, to bring forward these charges in a specific manner. He had undoubtedly seen it stated that gross abuses existed, and he therefore considered it necessary that those who made the charges should bring them forward in an open manner, and let them be enquired into. He (Mr. Hume) for one would go to the extremest letter of the law to compel the slave proprietors to fulfil the bargain made with them. He was not one of those, however, who would raise an outcry, as had been done against the Poor-law-Bill, with out good authority. He had seen a report of a meeting on the subject, which had been attended by nine Members of Parliament; and let those Hon. Members bring forward their charges in the House, and let it not be stated that these cru elties existed, when no foundation was laid for the charge. It was a gross calumny on the parties, to make such assertions without some proof.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. BAINES did not exactly understand what his Hon. Friend meant. Mr. HUME—It had been stated that gross abuses existed on the part of the owners of slaves, and that they had not fulfilled the bargain for which that country had paid twenty millions of money on condition that the period of apprentice ship should expire in August 1838. Now if his lion. Friend was cognizant of any individual act of cruelty, he (Mr. Hume) would say, that he was bound to bring it forward. It was his duty to the planters generally to do so, because if any individual acts of cruelty existed, the whole body should not be charged with them. That was the only way to do justice to both sides.—( Hear.) Mr. BAINES—His lion. Friend had stated that it was his (Mr. Baines') duty to bring the matter under the consi deration of Parliament. To that he could only say that be had waited to see if the matter would be undertaken by some person of more weight and influence in the House than himself.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But if no other Hon. Member did, he (Mr. B.) would take up the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that justice should be done as well to the planter as to the negro—he did not wish to traduce the one without establishing the charges he had brought against him, nor did ho wish that the other should be oppressed with out showing him that Parliament was disposed to support and maintain his rights.—( Hear, hear.) The clause as amended was then- agreed to. The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House resumed. CIVIL LIST. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then brought up the Report of the Committee on the Civil List Bill. 'The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday. Mr. CHALMERS gave notice that he would on Monday next move the omission of the 15th clause, which fixed on the Consolidated Fund a charge of 10,000/. for secret service, which was to be removed from the Civil List. Mr. GROTE did not intend to oppose the bringing up of the Report, but he begged to give notice that it was his in tention on the third reading to move the omission of the clause relating to pensions ; and it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon the subject. He should have done so last night, but for the late hour to which the debate extended. The Report was then brought up. On the question that the Report should be engrossed, Mr. HUME wished to take that opportunity of making some observations relative to those made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting a statement he had made last night. Though he differed with almost every Member of the House, in opinion, they ought not to differ in facts. He observed that in the report of what took place last night, it was alleged in answer to what he stated, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so and so, while what he (Mr Hume) did state, was kept out of view altogether. Now, what he did state was, that his object was not to continue in the amount of the Civil List, the expenses of the two Departments of the Lord Chamberlain of the House hold, and the Lord Steward, at the same time observing that he did wish to affect the amount for the Privy Purse of 60,000/. What he wished to say was, that as they had been reiucing every establishment in the country to the proximity of fall of prices for 1792, he thought they were not acting fairly to the public, when they had the opportunity, in not applying the same rule to the establishment of the Civil List in all public departments. In order to show that such was not the case, he had referred to the amount of the salaries of the Lord Chamberlain up to 1792, which was 47,9421. At the present moment it was 66,4991. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to that statement, had told him that great reductions had been made in other departments—that the salaries, which had been 1,2001., had been reduced to 7001. He had stated again that be was not aware of the amount of fees that had been removed, and that he had no doubt that ho (Mr. H.) must hare been cognizant of that, as he had always been an advocate for the removal of fees.— (Hear.) He (Mr. IL) admitted that his object always had been to remove fees that were levied upon business trans actions. He thought that nothing was more preposterous than the fees which were exacted in the Lord Steward and Lord Chamberlain's offices from the tradesmen of the Crown. If those fees were reduced, what would be the consequence ? Why, that the tradesmen who now made an extra charge of five per cent. for the purpose of enabling them to pay those fees, would be enabled to furnish the articles in which they dealt at so much less price.—( Hear, hear, hear.) So that, so far from being an argument against him (Mr. Hume), the statement of that Hon. Gentleman was in his favour, and Ministers were not giving the public the benefit of the reductions. In the Lord Steward's department the ex penditure had been increased from 29,1531. to 36,3811. ; in the department of the Master of the Horse (we understood), the increase had been from 12,7911. to 27,650/. He ( Mr. H.) had examined the accounts of all the (our departments—that of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord High Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Master of the Robes—and it appeared that the whole charge of those departments, for the six years from 1786 to 1792, was 90,9661., and it was now proposed to raise it to 131,2601. for the year 183 g. There was, on the whole, an excess in this Civil List of 40,294/. above the List of 1786 to 1792.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the House ought to pause before it granted so disproportionate an aug mentation in a Civil List which was to last (as he hoped) at least 10 years. He appealed to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether he ought to continue in the present day the antiquated and useless sinecures which were charged upon the Civil List—and whether these ought not to be abolished so as to bring back the expenditure to the scale of 1792. But the Chancellor of Exchequer ac tually was raising the charge forty per cent., when the country had a right to expect a reduction of forty per cent. The amount of the tradesmen's bills in the departments of the Lord Chamberlain, Lord High Steward, Master of the Horse, and Master of the Robes, were in 1786 up to 1792, 118,200/. The amount proposed for 1838 was 172,5001., being a❑ excess of 54,3001. in the tradesmen's bills, besides the in crease of 40,294/., which he had already shown to be the increase for salaries in those departments.—( Hear, hear.) He had taken pains to compare the prices of the former period to which he referred with those of the present day, and he found that the difference was by no means such as to justify the ex travagant increase which had taken place in the bills of the tradesmen. In most articles the increase of price, if any, was very small, and in many articles there Lad been a considerable reduction. He was anxious to reduce the burdens of the coun try, when he saw thousands of the people living upon three or four shillings a week, and when he knew, as every Hon. Gen tleman there very well knew, that in some parts of the country, for instance, in Devonshire and Wiltshire, a labouring man could not earn more than eight shillings a-week, he must say that it was not dealing equal justice to make such extravagant allowances out of the burthens of the people. Parliament had made reductions in all other departments of the public expenditure, except the Civil List, and when the country saw, that out of 400 Members, only 22 voted for his motion last night, the people would be' convinced that a majority of that House was not dis posed to lighten the public burthens.--(Hear, hear.) The Monarch should attend to the wants and wishes of her people, and endeavour to live in their affections, instead of wringing from them the utmost extent of money which the aristocrrcy in that House might be disposed to grant. One half the officers of the Royal Household were not at all neces sary for the comfort or dignity of the Soverrign; but were a p a rt of that empty parade which, during the reign of George the IV. was introduced into the Court. In 1792, 16.000,0001. was the whole amount of annual revenue de rived from the people; 50,000,0001. now was wrung from their hard earnings. 5,000,0001. then paid the whole ex pences of the Civil List, of the army, the navy, the ord nance, and other public establishments ; now nearly 20,000,000/. was applied for those objects. lie (Mr. Huine) as he did not believe this enormous amount of in come was necessary for the comfort or dignity of the Crown, so, he did not think that it %yrs desired by her Majesty, but that it was only demanded by her Ministers. And he, theren re, complained on the part of her Majesty—whom he wished to stand high in the respect and affections of her subjects—of the immense load of sinecures and abuses which her Ministers were endeavouring to hang upon her. Mr. FIE LD EN said, that although he did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of a suitable provision far the Crown, he yet felt himself called on to oppose this grant. The lion. Member, who spoke in so low a tone of voice that he was scarcely audible in the gallery, was understood to say, that when he found by the Report of the Commissioners of Poor Inquiry that there were nearly two millions of starving poor in Ireland, when he found that in Scot land flare were such a number of hand-loom weavers out of employ ment, and in a state of such misery and destitu tion as had been represented to that House, be did think with his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, that the people had a right to complain of an Administration which had advised the Queen to accept this grant, without informing her of the suffering condition of vast masscs of her people. He wa4; con vinced that if her Majesty was at all aware of these facts, she would not consent to accept a grant which could be so much better applied to their relief. '1 he clause was then put and agreed to. DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill. Mr. GO UL BURN rcse for the purpose of making a few observations on the Bill then before the House. Whatever objection he might have to the Bill in its present form it did not arise from the provision made to her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Kent; but the point he had in view, and which he was anxious to impress on the House was, that in all money bills especially they should Le extremely careful not to depart from the line of precedent on this subject, which guarded the public against improper conduct, either on the part of individual Members, or on the part of the Government of the country. It was not merely matter of form, but was also matter of substance. The principle on which the House acted with respect to money grants was well known to be this—that no money grant could be made to the Crown until that grant had been considered in a Committee of the whole House. That was the first principle of all money grants, and it stood on a just ground, that there might be an ample opportunity of previous discussion, so that on a question of money there might be the fullest possible discussion in the first instance. The second principle, which was one immediately arising out of the other, was that when. ever Bills should be brought in that there should be no power in that Bill of augmenting the provision that had been pre viously made in the Resolution ' - otherwise they would have the power of defeating the original rule, which was to have the amplest discussion on the whole grant in a Committee of that House. If the House bore that in mind, and looked at the printed Bill, they would see that the Bill was a direct violation of the rules and orders of the House. The resolu tian the House passed on a previous evening was, that her Ma jesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum, not exceed ing 8,0001., out of the Consolidated Fund, for a more ade quate provision for her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. On looking at the Bill to see how this resolution had been carried into effect, he found it was stated that " her Majesty should be empowered to grant by letters patent to her Royal Highness, for the term of her natural life, a certain annual payment or annuity of 30,000/. of lawful money of Great Britain." Now it was obvious to any one, that upon the face of the Bill there could be no possible discovery of any con nection between the grant of 30,0001. in the body of the Bill, and the vote in Committee of Supply of 8,000/. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The words are—" additional yearly sum." Mr. G 0 UL BURN—Yes, that was stated ; but those were not the terms in which the vote ought to have been made. The House would bear in mind the second principle he had laid down--namely, that there was to be no augmentation in the payment, that was not stated in the previous vote. He w as prepared to show, that even admitting the whole force of the word " additional," on which it appeared the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to insist that there was in this 30,000/. an additional grant, for which no provision had ever been made by Parliament. The next sum to which her Royal Highness was entitled was a sum of 6,0001., given to her Royal Highness by an Act passed in 1825, and as his argu ment with respect to the discrepancy between the Bill and the resolution rested upon that and the subsequent Act, it would ba sufficient for him to deal with it as applicable to that Act, and not trouble himself or the House with the other. The Act which gave her Royal Highness 6,000/. was an Act to enable his Majesty to grant that sum annually to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, for the purpose of enabling her to provide for the support and education of the Princess Alexandrina Victoria. The preamble stated that it was expe dient to make an additional provision for her Royal Highness I the Princess Victoria ; and it was granted in such a way, that in the body of the Bill no person could suppose that it was extended beyond the support and education of her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, nor was there one word to imply that it was granted for her Royal Highness's life. There was not one word to intimate that it had been given for the life of the Princess Victoria ; but it was expressly stated that it was given for her support and education. Let, them co nstrue the Act, therefore as they would, it could n o t be ex tended beyond the life of the Princess Victoria. He ( Mr. G. ) looked, and believed that when her Royal Highness became Queen, that sum necessarily ceased, because her relation to the Throne necessarily superseded any provision for education, which was the object of the Act—and therefore his own opinion was that the Act referred only to her support and education, and that when these causes ceased to operate the grant necessarily dropped. He confessed, therefore, that it was with some surprise he heard that that principle was con tested; but he would take it in a more extended sense, and he would say what no one could deny, that the money which had been granted for the support and education of the Princess Victoria, could not endure after she had expired, and that if it was contended that the grant bad been given during the life of the Princess Victoria, whenever she died they were •bound - necessarily to put an end to it. Even if the former principal which he had laid down had been denied, no one could• deny that the death of the Queen would put an end altogether to the grant. He thought his Right Hon. Friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would admit that fact. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, no; and I will state why I say so. Mr. G 0 UL B U RN —He would be surprised to hear by what argument the Right Hon. Gentleman could maintain that her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was entitled to that grant after the death of the Queen ; but if they had a right on the death of the Queen, as he would take for argument sake, to put an end to that grant, it came only to this, that the Duchess of Kent had an annuity granted to her during .the life of the Princess Victoria. He begged the House would follow him in his argument upon that point, for he feared he had not made himself very intelligible. What did the Bill do ? It gave 30,000/. to the Duchess of Kent for life ;he had been told that 8,0001. additional was all that the resolution au thorised, and as they stated it was so, the Bill ought to have been drawn to grant 8,0001. in addition to the provision previously made for her Royal Highness by Act of Parliament. That would be conformable to the manner in which votes had been made in Commitee of Supply in that House : but here it was said that they gave her Royal Highness the grant for the whole of her life. He had shown them, by reference to the' statute of 1825, that the graat of 6,0001. was for the life of the Pincess Victoria. Taking it in the most extended sense 6,0001. which had been granted for the life of the Queen could not be extended into an annuity for the Duchess of Kent ; and although the probability wes, that the Queen, being in younger life, might survive her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and that the pro.. bability further was, that her Majesty might survive her; yet an annuity granted for the life of an individual herself, was far more valuable than an annuity granted for the life of another : and although it was probable that an annuity for the life of the Duchess of Kent would not be continued so long as one for the life of the Princess Victoria, yet it was more valuable to the individeal to have it granted for her own life time. That was, therefore, in the Bill a more valuable grant than the one stated in the resolution, and it was therefore a violation of the rules of that House. But if he was right on the other point, and that the grant had been given for the educational support of the Princess Victoria, then he said that he had made out a case to show that the 6,0001. now granted ought to have been granted in Committee of Supply before it had been introduced into the Bill.—( Hear, bear.) He would not apply the argument which he had thus stated, te another 6,000/. granted under the same circumstances, to which that argument equally applied, though, perhaps, to a less extent. If the tenure upon which an annuity was granted, was rendered more valuable than it at first was, the grant was in fact, actually larger than had at first been voted by the Committee. He had felt it his duty to bring this question be fore the House, for if the Bill had passed in its present shape a precedent would have been created for all succeeding Govern ments to vary the grants of public money from the sum voted in Committee.—( Hear, hear.) This practice bad not been followed in preceding reigns :—for when the tenure upon which annuities were granted to Royal Princes was changed, the resolutions of the Committee had distinctly stated the real nature of the grant to be conferred.—( Hear, hear.) All that he (Mr. G.) now asked was, either that:the Bill should, like former Bills of the same kind, follow the terms of the resolution of the Committee of Supply, or that a resolution should be come to in Committee, expressly grant.. ing to her Royal. Highness, the Duchess of Kent, 30,000/. per annum for life, in lieu of the allowance now given by Act of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought the proper course would be to move a Committee of the whole House to make a grant to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his Right Hon. Fliend, in bringing the subject before the House, had done what was precisely his duty, and he per sonally thanked him for calling it to the attention of the House. Whether the Right Hon. Gentleman was correct in his reason ing, or the inferences which he drew from the Act, undoubtedly the Bill on the table of the House was not conformable to its resolutions, and for these reasons it was the duty of the House to see that the Bill introduced was precisely co-incident with those resolutions. He wished to call to the recollection of the House, that even if the arguments of the flight Hon. Gen tleman were correct, there had been no mystification on his part.—( Hear, -hear, and Cheers.) It was desirous that he had assumed that her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent had an income of 22,000/., and that he proposed to make it 30,0001.: there, .therefore, could be no charge of bad faith on his part, nor did he understand that any imputation had been cast on the Government by the Right Hon. Gentle man by the course he had taken.—( Cheers.) He knew that there was a difficulty in procuring tke attention of the House to a subject like the present, but he thought it was one worthy of its consideration, and he therefore felt bound to bring it be fore the House. He thought, consielering the facts lay in a minute compass, that he should not feel it necessary to occupy its attention for any length of time. His Right Honourable Friend had stated rightly that the Duchess of Kent held her income under three Acts of Parliament, as the Jointure Act was not now in question he would pass that by. The Act of 1825, in the recital and preamble de. clared that it was to provide for the more honourable summit and education of the Princess Victoria, but then came the enactment which granted to the Duchess of Kent an annuity of 6,0001.: in the enacting part no reference was made to the Princess Victoria—it was a grant to the Duchess of Kent of 6,0001., and it was true that there were no words on the Act giving it to the Duchess of Kent for her life. He would now come to the second Act of 1831, which was to provide for the better support of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and for the better support and educa tion of the Princess Victoria. That Act granted an annuity to the Duchess of Kent of I 0,000/. , but it states that 4,000/. is for the life of the Duchess of Kent, and 6,000/. is for the life of the present Queen, then the Princess Victoria. Now he contended that, with respect to the grant of 4,000/. a year to the Duchess of Kent as her jointure, there could be no question. The only question that could arise regarded the annuity of 6,0001 a year, which bad been granted in 1831 for the life of the Queen, and the grant that had been made in 1825. He believed that if he stated the feet:, the House would agree with him that no difficulties could arise with re spect to these annuities either. He would first ad dress himself to the grant of 6,0001. which was made in 1831—and he held that with respect to this grant, there could not be a possibility of doubt that it endured far the lifetime of the Queen. Here was a beginning and an end as clear and as distinct as anything could be, for the Act declares, without a possibility of doubt, that the annuity shall subsist from the time of the grant, and during the life of the Queen. Now, if it was a principle of law, that in doubtful enactments the intention of the Legislature waste be arrived at by the preamble or recital of the Bill. It would be clearly shown by the preamble of that Act that such was the intention.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But there was nothing at all doubtful in the wording of the Ast itself, for it declared that the annuity was to commence from the time of the grant, and to endure during the life-time of her Majesty, and that it was payable to the Duchess of Kent. Now, it could not be contended either that the Queen was still living, or that the annuity was not payable to the Duchess of:Kent. Any other construction would be in direct centradiction to the word o f the Statute itself. Here again he wished to impress on the House that the grant was made for the life-time of the Queen. The question then resolved itself into this,—was the Queen still living, or was she not ? and if she was still living, whether the annuity granted to the Duchess of Kent was to endure or not. Now he held that on every principle that annuity so granted still subsisted. He would take the liberty of referring the House to a precedent which he considered a most important one, as bearing on this question ; namely, the annuity granted by statute to the Duke and Duchess of Clarence for their lives. The Duke and Duchess of Clarence ceased to exist when they became King and Queen of England, but did the annuity cease ?—( Hear, hear.) Certarnly not, for it subsisted during the life-time of the parties. If a new construction were to be put upon the Act of 1831, to the effect that the annuity of the Queen Dowager, under that Act, was terminable upon the death of his late Majesty, the allowance to the Duke and Duchess of Clarence ought, by a parity of reasoning, to have ceased upon the alternate status of those personages, when the Duke of Clarence was raised to the Throne. There was a difference between the statute of 1825 and that of 1831. The former did not specifically declare that the grant to the Duchess of Kent was to be for life. If there had been a clause to that effect, the Act would be the same as the statute of 1831, which expressly authorised a grant to the Queen for her life, and letters patent were made out also in those terms. But what else did the statute imply than that the grant was te her for life ? (_Hear.) Would it be that the grant was to be enjoyed only during the pleasure of the Crown ?—( Hear.) He was glad to see tke Right lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Sugden) taking notes, as he (Mr. Rice) should have th e a d van t age, of his legal knowledge upon the question. He (Mr. Rice) could net see any ground for doubti ng th a t it was a gran t f or lif e .— (Hear.) But if it were regarded as a grant during pleasure that construction would defeat the intention of the Statute. Or was it, on the other hald, to be taken as a grant for the education of an individual, and to cease when the education of that indivi dual was completed. Nothing was more common between subject and subject, th an t o mttke a settlement upon a wife for the educa tion of the children ; and though one of them should actually die, the grant would continue to the mother. He knew that a grant from the Crown was to be considered on different grounds from a settlement between subject and subject. Amongst private individuals a grant was to be construed in favour of the " grantee ;" but, on the contrary, when the Crown was concerned, the grant must be construed in favour of the " granter." Well, if it were contended that the grant in the case of the Duchess of Kent, that (contrary to the law that prevailed in similar cases between subject and sub ject) the grant should cease on the completion of the education for which it was granted.—(Hear, hear, hear) --he begged them to look at the Statute, and see what its terms were. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that though he hoped that he had satisfied the House, that (as he had acted cer tainly on the best advice) the proceedings upon this subject had been perfectly regular, he should be happy to hear the Right lion. Gentleman opposite, for if a mistake had been fallen into, he would most willingly correct it.—( Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL-Will tke House allow me to say a few words before the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite addresses himself to the question. I would_remark that there are two dif ferent parts of this question ; one is what belongs to the Duchess by law—and what is allowed to her by this Bill. And the other which has been raised by the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo site, is, as to the forms of this House and the mode of proceeding which should be adopted in order to make this Bill conformable to precedents. As to the first questi on , I t hi n k my Right Honourable Friends' argument—confirmed as it is by the authorities which he stated—is fully sufficient to dis pose of it. But with regard to the other question,—of the Bill being conformable to the resolutions of the Committee—l think there may be considerable doubt upon it.—( Hear, hear.) And I shall be happy to hear the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite address himself to both parts of the question, for I agree, that in our present proceedings it would be well to leave no doubt upon the subject, and that what we do should be in exact conformity to for mer precedents. —(Hear, hear.) House, that when the Right Honourable Gentle man Sir E. SUGDEN said, it be in the recollectthieon Chan cellor cellor of the Exchequer ;proposed the resolution the objections (Sir E. Sugden) being perfectly aware of so as that might arise, but not wishing to state them to throw in an impediment in the way of what was for 8,000/. he than that he g hadng on, better got thatm fferor tuapkeantdhesurgesgoelsutteidontofotrhe3Ro,ioooghtl.H, oinne.iGutheungtlewinrosett_ the Duchess was already entitled to. He did not blam e e d the not having adopted his suggestion, but he only mention that his object was not to raise an impediment, but p ine at the purpose of putting himself right with the House, and to to re s v h e o: t an obstruction. With these observations, he would co ver "T ate that once to the real question at issue. Now, he must the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right I: 3 i' . , egal to disqualify himself upon the gronnd of wan i t ed knowledge, because he had discussed it with a know subject which no gentleman could dispute. The two questions law arose on the two Acts, and the third question was that which forms the Noble Lord had called to his attention—the question upe w t.n t 7 geofthoef forms of the House. As redarded the two Acts, he agreed e co lt" . the Right Hon. Gentleman they should be put out of the question. I n and 6,000/. for the honourable support and education of Her Royal 'Highness had, under the Act of 1825, 4,000/. forher selfofthe Princess ; and she was now, subject to the approbation tens: House, entitled to B,oool.—that made 18,000/., and the q ad u di _ tion now was, whether the resolution should he for the first tienal 12,0001., added to the Bill. As regarded question relating to the Act of 1825, the Right Hon. Gthenetlemtahne the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the case of Duchess of Kent was similar to the case of an annuity grantedi., a married woman for the support of herself and children, mitt if they died the annuity vested in herself. Generally speaking was so, for this reason, that the intention was so clear nobt could doubt it—he who ran might read. " I give to nil %if 5,000/. a-year for her own support and the bringing 'P I her children"—what did that imply? but that she was to Dr e n_i up her children while they required to be brought 11P• therefore no such question could arise there. As retiar"va; the particular construction of the Act of 1825, it depended particular grounds, and he would state to the Housegenerattiy. what be he considered to be the grounds. He begged again to say n would state his opinion as if friend, lie was talking to any .private and not as an individual sitting on the Opposition benche ( Hear, hear.) The rule of law was that the title of an Ist e.. should agree with the preamble ; but, generally speaking, the p ale amble did not contract or govern the rue enacting part. Taking Act statute of 1825, by th a t re they would find the title of th e I v , agreed with the p ream bl e , an d th e pream bl e was to find an an:n the-1 for the Duchess and th e P r i ncess . Thi s was a n annuity .t Duchess for the honourable suppdrt and maintenance of thePrineei... s 5• It might be that it was i n t en d e d f or lif e , but there been' an an ambiguity, they were e n titl e d t o l oo k a t th e preamble to up that ambiguity-, and to gather from th e preamble wha t the t intention was. Taking the preamble and the enacting part tog ther, and giving it a fair and honest construction according to meaning, he should hold the meaning of it was to provide of uual sum to the Duchess for the annual support and educati on the Prince:s—durng what time ? Why, necessarily tint' s :: ng the time the Princess needed it. His own opinion not giving it as from the Opposition side of the II 4. `" in d that that grant of 6,000/. had vi r t ua lly, if n ot lesaliy, according to the true intent of the Act, ceased, and was no long in existence. Now the question as regarded the annuity of 10, under the Act of 1831, was of a different nature, and he believed that presented a dilemma in the way of the Right Hon. as regarded the third point, to which the Noble Lord had ee .„ the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with refe rence rence to the construction of the Act of 1825.--( Hear, The annuity might have been wanted beyond the minority_ of the Princess to pay for her education ; and the Act, he had 3 r doubt, was drawn in the most general and ambiguous terms order to let in any case that might occur. As to the Aet,_ ° . . Gentleded 1831, that admitted of no question or dispute about the purpose ": 0 ` which the 6,000/. a year was to be given. The preamble was '' ss make a condition " for the better support of her Royal Iligl ine c t the Duchess of Kent, and the honourable support and educati on the Princess." The way in which that A c t empowered the Cr own, to grant the annuity of 10,0001. was 4,000/. a year for the life the Duchess, and 6,0001. a year for the lif e o f the Princess. 'l n .. 4,0001. a year was given to the Dechess of Kknt for her own support, and therefore for her own life ; the 6,000/. beinges for the education of the Princess, w as con fined to t" life of the' Princess, and was not given to the Duchess in her ova, right. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the a nnuity !); 6,000/. endured for the life of the Princes s . If it did, it ' , sul be necessary to go into Committee of the whole H o use. The Rig h t Hen. Gentleman had stated very positively his opinion that In' was the case, but he (Sir E. Sugden) was decidedly of a contra i l opinion. Hei had no more doubt than he had of his own existence that the annuity would not endure to the personal representati ve of the Duchess beyond her life. The rule of law is, if it was in tended to make a personal gift, it could not go to the personal re" presentative. The grant here said nothing about the executors or for administrators of the Duchess ; it only sa id th a t 6,0001. was . the life of the Princess Victoria, and th e 4,000/. was for the life . of the Duchess. Now he held it to be as clear as any point could b ° that if a personal grant was made to the Duchess for the life o f the Princess, and another to the Duchess, that if the latter died, ther4 would be an end to the payment. Then it would be true that a case had taken place that was not provided for by the Act, b 4 if that was so, then they must come again to the Hous e ' Another point arose upon the Act of 1831 which had bees argued by his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Excheque r ' v , whether the Duchess during her lifetime would be entitled to al 6,1001. in the event that had happened. In his opinion, she won t certainly not, according to the equity o f th e case or t h e s pirit 0 1 the Act. The 6,000/. had been given for the education of the Princess, and when that object was rendered unnecessary , t h e l grant would cease. He considered; therefore, that the gTantlfer. 6,000/. had ceased, with the necessity for which it was voted. , au . did not consider the case of the late D u k e o f Cl arence to be, at in point. Had the grant to his Royal Hi g h ness b een f or his na tural life, no change of station could - have terminated it ; but, in fact, it was surrendered on his Royal Highness's accession to the • Throne.—( Hear.) There was another point on which he wishe to make an observation as to th e e ff ec t o f th e reso l u ti on s of the Committee. Assumi ng even th a t, as t h e Ch ance ll or o f the Fa" chequer had stated, the secon d A ct gave t h e a ddi t i ona l annu ity to her Royal Highness the D uc h ess o f K ent for her l i fe, i t was clear that the House must go into Com m i t t ee to ma k e a new gran t; for i the life on which the annuity was gran t e d cou ld not b e change"' without a resolution of that House. It w as no t a quest i on as t° which life was most valuable. Supposing th a t one was worth a year's, and the other torty year's purchase, the former could I ,ot be changed for the latter, without a resolution of that House. 1 1 d point of law, he submitted, most undoubtedly in point 0 , equity, and according to a fair construction of the words the Act of Parliament, the 12,0001. a year did not exist for the purposes of expenditure. B u t it was th e genera l feeling of the House that her Royal Highness should enjoy the whole 30,0001. per annum, zs some mark of the nation's gratitude for her careful education of her illustrious daughter—(Cheers) --- without offering the least objection therefore to that grants he merely suggested that a Committee of the whole H ouse s hould tak e the question into consideration, for the purpose of making the Pr °- ceedings conformable to precedent.—(Hear, hear.) The CHAN CEL LOR of the EXCHEQUER was extremely gls 4 of the proposal made by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, i and without going further h e wou ld say th e cour se lei ° down by him would relieve the House from the dangr of any misapp re h ens i on i n a ma tt er o f such importance. He WO' therefore, adopt th e course sugges t e d b y th e Right Hon. Gent ,„ '', man, and move that the House r e so l ve it se lf i n t o a C om mittee °` the whole House, in order to pass a resolution which would be conformity with its rules. If the Right Hon. Gentleman saw no objection, he would, in o rd er t o g i ve e ff ec t t o hi s sugges tion, PI the Committee en the Bill for a future day. into The motion on the Order o f th e D ay f or th e H ouse go ing' Committee on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill, was then leave withdrawn. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the albe it ' House—Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then tnose el Resolution to the effect, that it was expedie n t th a t th e allot" ,;, granted to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent should ee and determine, and that a sum of 22,000/. in addition to the 5 of 8,000/., already voted, making in all 30,000/. per annunl , granted to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. Colonel SIBTHORP had a motion to bring forward of w_ j b le he had given notice, but at th e suggest i on o f his Rightlion• r" e he near him, he would not now d eta i n t h e H ouse, hoping t h a t ant , ' opportunity would be afforded him for the purpose. an d Sir G. SINCLAIR would follow the example of his Hon' Gallant Friend ; a t th e same t i me h e must observe that the discus sion that had taken place would be productive of great advantage'e, The resolution was then put an d agree d t o , an d t h e House advantage susned. Mr. BERNAL reported the resolution to the House. THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. p. The House went int o C omm i ttee upon the New H ouse s of ar liament Bill, in which , of Mr. E. J. STANLEY move d t h e i nsert i on o f a elaus' which we did not collect the purport. The Bill went through Committee, and the report was broug ht up immediately. PRISONERS' BILL.--(IRELAND.) rasa On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL this Bill was a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. SESSIONS COURT BILL.—(IREL AND. ) s gee On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, this Bill svn read a second time. and ordered to be committed on Monclaf• _ LAW OF TENANCIES. Mr. AGLIONBY, not seeing the Attorney-General in place, postponed the motion of which he had given notice roe'. g the present state of the law of landlord and tenant to Meedal. m CASE OF GOMPERTZ. b ee Mr. AGLIONBY rose to present a petition which hadjust jot• put into his hands respecting a case which was decided last Vt." Ho had shown the petition to the gentleman who had brouf A.) matter on, on the part of Mr. Gompertz ; and as he O s ' e r : o ded , meant to move on Monday that the order be re nt i i ,erner i lie should now move that the petition be printed. The g en e fittest who appeared at the bar on the part of Mr. Gompertz was the rti . person to claim the indulgence of the House for Mr. 06ra P e de- The petition stated that the petitioner, since lie had see" bate of last night, had ascertained that the witness, Mr. 1 1 ° ss ' er tz, represented himself as the parliamentary agent of Mr. Gem, .P be neither was nor ever had been so. He moved that the petttft the printed with the votes, and he would move on Mon da y t " vote of last night might be rescinded. that Mr. FRESIIFIELD said it ought to be borne i n re.'" •th Parliamentary agent in conj unction 191 Mr. Moss stated he w a s g Mr. Florence. The House then adjourned. SILVER TEA AND COFFEE SERVICES.- T. COX SAVORY, 47, Cornhill, London, offers for selection an elegant and most extensive assortment of Silver Tea Services, var.l - in p r i ce f rom 151. to $O/. the service of Teapot, Sugar 13381"9 and Milk Ewer. The groundloor, and first, second, and third floors, are fitted up expressly for the display of Plate and Plated Giro° and a P am phlet is given gratis, with Drawings, and a list o f pri;e• T. COX SAVORY, Goldsmith , Watchmaker, and Silversrn 47, Cornhill, London. BIRTH S. On the Bth inst., in Hereford-street, the lady of John C. White man, Esq., of a daughter. At Brookfield, near Ryde , Isle of Wight, on t h e 6th inst ., the lady of the Rev. A. Hewitt, of a _ D lED. At Lausanne, in Switzerland, of inflammation of the liver, Car taro William Clarke Jervoise, R.N. aged 48. On the 10th inst., at Goudhurst, Kent, Airs. Dorothy Bathurst* aged 94. On the 11th inst., in W a rwickshire, W. L. L. wad, Eicl•P ° f Guilsborough Hall, North am p tonshire. evonsh Treby ire, On the 6th inst., at Delamore, D g a le Esq., Lieut.-Colonel of the East. D,,voti Militia, sc'oi London: Printed and Published by MURDO and,ijin 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, StrY24t72;:"l" of Middlesex. --Saturday , December, 16, 1&37' THE SUN, LON DON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1837. C