The Sun. — London, England, 1825-05-28 00:00:00

integritynne did noiknoev of one mote qualified than Mr. Com missioner Riggs. Mr. 111 7 111 E said, that the Government at home should insist that whenever a-complaint of this nature was made, in which the righti of a British subject had been violated, the Governor should he bound to send home all the papers and documents , connected - with the subject. If that rule were enforced, they would hear of much fewer complaints. Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE bore his testimony to the qua lifications of Mr. Biggs, whose conduct in the impury in New South Wales had given universal satisfaction.--n Hear 1) The Petition was then laid on the table. LONDON UNIVERSITY. Mr. BROUGHAM brought in his Bill for founding an 'University in or near the City of London, which was read a first tilee, and ordered to be read a second time en Monday next. COMBINATION. LAWS. Mr. HUSKISSON presentedni Petition from the Artisans of Bolton-le-Moor, respecting the Combination haws.—Referred to the Committee. Mr. GOULBIJRN presented a similar petition from the Master Builders of the City o lDublin. 31r. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from the Cotton spinners of Belfast, praying that the hours of labour in manu taetories should be diminished.—( Hear. 1) SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND):BILL. Lord A. HAMILTON-moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Small Debts Bill, anti then moved that it be read a third time that day six months. The LORD ADVOCATE moved an Amendment, that it .be now read a third time, which was carried without a division. Mr. HUME proposed an additional clanie ty way of rider, pronibiting attornies and prosecutors to hold theoffice of Justice of the Peace, whilst they continued to practice - in their woks sion.—Agreed to. The Bill was then read a third time anti passed. SLAVE TRADE. Mr. CANNING laid on the Table the communication be. tween the British Commissioners and Foreign Powers, relative to the Slave Trade. Mr. 13ERN.AL asked a question of the Right Hon. Gentle men, but we could not collect it accurately ; it related to the eenture of a foreign ship by a British vessel, which was carried item Port-Royal. Mr. CANNING said.he had received information on the subject, but he could not trust his memory to enter into the particulars of the case. ROYAL FAMILY. On the motion Of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, -on the RoyarMessage relative to a provision for the Princess Alexandria Vittoria, daughter other Royal High nee the Duchess of Kent, and Prince George Frederick Alex.. antler Charles Ernest Augustus, son of the Duke of Cum berland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that -Whenever Ministers had on former occasions brought dotrn Messages from the Crown, recommending allowances to Mem bers of the Royal Family, the House had never shewn any want of respect for those Messages, even on the very few oc casions where the recommendation had not been complied with. As this feeling of respect was ohe of a permanent kind he would not occupy their time by any general remarks, but confine himself to a statement of the nature of his proposi tion: In 1818 the House was informed, by a message from the "King, that a marriage was about to take place between his Royal Highness the Duke or-Kent and her Royal Highness the Princess of Leinengen. • It was . proposed, therefore, to add 6,0001. per annum to their Royal Highnesses income, and in case of her survival an . income of 6,0001. per annum to the Duchess. This provision was considered as a fair and liberal one at the time, because the rospect of children was not taken into consideration. The House, however, would per , ceive that such an allowance was obviously inadequate after the birth of a Princess, to enable her Royal Highness to educate that child with proper care, and to keep up the state and dignity becoming her high station: It might he a liberal provision for any one else, but a member of the Royal Fancily was placed in a situation which prevented 6,0001. from • going so far as in the case of private individuals. They were exposed to calls on their feeling s and their benevolence, from winch others were free. All who held situations in public would recognize the frequent calls made upon them, and they were far more numerous in the case of the Royal Family. He was authorized to say that all the Members of the Royal Family were benevolent and charitable.—{Heat!) —They not only contributed largely to the calls which were made upon them in public, but also they answered other less visible, but scarcely less numerous appeals.—(llear !)--He made these allusions only to chew that the same income would . not go so far with the Itoyal Family as with private persons. Since the marriage of then Royal H ighnesses the Duke and Duchess of Kent, a (laugh , ter had been born, who was now six years of age. To that young Princess a suitable education ought to be given, and though he . would not enter closely into details of the situation of the Poiret Family, yet he might say, that the relation of that young Lady to the British Crown rendered her an object of peculiar interest. He had 'pot the honour of being acquainted either , with the young Princess or her Mother, . but from all he had heard the Princess appeared to have been so far educated in the manners, morals, and piety which became her condition.— . Sne had moreover been taught to entertain a becoming sense of her own dignity and rank. Perhaps such a proposition should have been earlier made, but the necessity was not felt in consequence of the aid furnished by his Royal Highness Prince Leopold to his Royal Sister. The time had at length *aired that the public interest required that she should be educated out of the national purse. He could not antici pate the slightest objection to the proposition, that the sum • of n9OOI. per annum should be granted for the education and support of the Princess Alexandrine Victoria, daughter of the • late Peke of Kent.—( Hear !)—He would now call the atten • tien of the Committee to the case of the young Prince, son to the Duke of Cumberland. When his Royal Highness married a Message was sent down by his Majesty, proposing an increase . of 60001. per annum to'his Royal Highness's income. To this proposition the House did not think proper to assent. He would not re-open the grounds of the opposition ; but it was generally urged that the marriage was an unsatisfactory one, an& that there were objections against receiving the Princess at Court. He did not deny the constitutionality of the objections, he was only re-stating therm. Ins /821, a similar proposition - sae made, when other marriages of members of the Royal Fa mily were about to take place. Aneadditional income was given to those other branches, but -refused to the Duke of Cumberland.' Still the House was unwilling to act unjustly, . and - they made a provision of 60001. per annum in• case her Royal Highness should survive the Duke. The objections then , urged could not apply to the present proposition. Since 11318 a Prince had been born from that marriage, and he was now six years of age. His relation to the throne was not 'so intimate as that of the young Princess of Kent, but still it was an object of great importance to provide for the careful education of every Prince who might by possibilinnone day till the British throne. Fur 10111 C years past the Duke • of Cumberland had resided abroad—( Hear !)—not out of any distaste to this-country, but because he felt he, could not reside here on the same footing with the other members of the Royal Family. With-regard to the young Prince, however, it was indispensable that his eau - cation should be had in this country—e ( l - fear, hear!)—This was necessary on the score of morality, manners, religion, and sound cons titutional principles.,—(Hear, hear !)That point-was one on the deepest interest. He proposed the addition on the expli cit understanding that the young Prince was to be brought up in Englaed. As he could not perceive anyneason 'for making a difference between the allowances, he should also recommend 6,oool.'per annum for the education and support of the young Prince of Cumberland. lii acceding to this proposition, lie was sure the House would be doing nothing inconsistent with the principle of its former proceedings, or hurtful to the interests of the country. • Mr. BROUGHAnnadmitted that the Chancellor of the Be chequer had in no way deviated from the line of his duty, nor miscalculated the feeling of the House and the country. It was certainly desirable to secure the due maintenance of the dignity anti splendour of the Crown, not only by securing a proper education and adequate support to the wearer of the Crown, but also to the other branches of the Royal Family.— When circumstances of an untoward nature had thrown some branches of the Royal Family into a state of debt and de pendance, Parliament had come forward to their relief; and if any thing like it were the case now, it was the duty of Parliament to do it again. The proposition to the young Princess was extremely liberal, but he did not mean to ob ject to it. With regard to the case of the Duke of Cumber- land it was very different. The opposition in 1818 to thegrant of an additiotiel income was not on account of the marriage merely, because that marriage was contracted under the King's consent, and even if it were an unsuitable marriage, that was no reason why the parties should starve. Besides the marriage was indirectly sanctioned three years afterwards, when - 60001 a-year was settled on the Duchess in case of survivorship. His real • belief was that Parliament opposed the grant on the ground of the rooted dislike entertained by the people of this country, man, woman, and child, against the Duke of Cumberland.—( Hear 1) The Duke of Cumberland had now an income of 4 19,0001. per annum, and yet he lived abroad. He was not in an official sta tion like the Duke of Cambridge, nor did he live at Hanover , or amongst the English, but in another part of Germany. The people of this country had a right to know why he did not live in kengland, like an English Prince. Why did he not follow etkinexample of the Duke of York ?—That Illustrious Prince -wan crippled with debts, even almost to the loss of respec tability, yet he never applied to Parliament for relief.— He knew no reason why the Duke of Cumberland did not dive here. What security had Parliament that lie would send etsis son over. to this country to be educated after the grant was made ? Trustees would be appointed to receive the money when the young Prince should be sent over. It was painful to be obliged—to allude is the circumstanc es of the Royal Family, b u t it could not be avoided. He could not pass over the fact of an illustrious Prince being in such a state of debt, that he could not even e yieit a rece-course without having his carriage seized in tsuch , d-way as 'no private man could en dure. Yet that Illuetrioui Personage had not come to Parlia ment for aid. The Duke of Cumberland might surely contrive to live in this country on 19,0001. per anndrn. Hi-could,•111ot sit down without expressing his sense °Wee great lose sustaihed by the death of the Duke of Kent, and be hoped that his widowed Princess would follow his example in her care and attention to the education - ollfer thi/d.-Hear! - ) Mr. HUME protested against the principle of his Learned Friend, that the country ought to pay the debts of the Royal Family. He was ready to agree to the proposed - allowance to , the young Princess of Kent. Her Mother was a pradente careful woman—(Hear!) —and no one-in any class of society could have done more than she had towards the proper edu cation of her daughter. The allowance ought to have been much earlier made, as the circumstances had not changed for the last few' years. Tardy justice, however, was better than no justice at all, and he should 'cheerfully agree to the proposition. 'With regard to the ()thee vote, he would take the sense of the House on it, although he should stand alorie. lie wondered how any Chancellor of the Exchequer could make , such a monstrous proposition to the House. The case stood now just as it stood in 1818 and 1821. Besides, why waste 6,000/. a year on the education of the young Prince, when just as good an education could be given him for 1001. a year? —(A laugh.)--After the opinion of the • House already expressed towards the Duke of Cumberland, he could :not consent to place him on the same level with the Duke of Kent.. The public would never sanction such a proposition. Thera was no security that the young Prince would be sent over to this country for his education ? And even if he was, his pareep would continue to reside abroad. But the Duke of Cumber land had an income of 19,0001. per annum, and ought to edu cate his own children. His late Majesty had done so, and had' never allowed the Duke of Kent more than 6001: or 1000/. a year, until he was 30. Was the Duke of Cumberland'in'debi If so, let there be a Committee to inquire into the nature and origin of those debts. In the case of the debts on the Civil List, there had been two Committees of Inquiry, which chew ed that the public allowance to his late Majesty was not suffi dent for his expences. He objected to the grant for the young 'Prince of Cumberland, because there was -no precedent, bk cause hie father's allowance was already sufficient, and becanie the opinion of the House had been already expressed on the subject. Sir I. COFFIN hoped that Ministers would comedown with a proposition to pay off the debts of the Duke of York. He knew a tailor to whom his Royal Highness owed 12,0001., and who would never get a shilling of it. Mr: MONCK objected to the grant to the Duk - e of Cumber land. It would not even be tolerated in Russia, Austria, France, or Prussia. 'Some inquiry was necessary. With re spect to the other grant to the Princess Vittoria, 6,0001. was too much, hut as the mother had too little, 12,0001. for both would be about right. He had been surprised at the niggardly grant of 6,0001. to the Duchess of Kent. With respect to the Duke of Cumberland, the case was very different ; he had 19,0001. a year, and lived abroad. He should object to the pro posed allowance. Sir C. FORBES heartily concurred in both grants. Prince Leopold ought never to have been allowed to pay for the edu cation of his niece. The Duke of Cumberland had lived abroad because he could not afford to live in England on the allowance of 19,0001. a year. He hoped Ministers would pro pose to increase his income 6,000/. a year, and to pay tip the arrears from the time of his marriage until now. The charges against the Duke were astonishing and . disgraceful. if guilty, he was a subject and amenable to the laws. The Committee was about to condemn him and to punish him unheard. Sir J. WROTTESLEY (as we understood) concurred in the liberal provision made' for the young Princess of Kent, and hoped that something would be done to relieve the Duke of York (who deserved so much from the country) from his embarrassments. Mr. T. WILSON supported the first proposition most wil lingly. He had some doubts-as to the second. He was fully of opinion, that if any proposition were made to assist the Duke of York, the House and the country would assent to it with the utmost readiness. - Mr. BERNAL thought the allowance to the young Prince of Cumberland too large:. The opinion of Parliament had already been expresaed on that point. Hit Royal Highness continued to reside in Germany with 19,000!. a-year, which was equal to 28,0001. a-year in England.. On thut point be should take his ground. It' any insinuations were made on the Duke of Cumberland, they had originated with the_Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who had said that the grant was to be made On the express condition that the young Prince was to be taken from the care of his parents, and brought over to England for his education. This wits certainly an indirect insinuation against the Duke. Under the present circumstances he would notlote for a single shilling for the education of the son of the Duke of Cumberland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that he had made any insinuations direct or indirect against the Duke of Cumberland, He had only said that it was desirable .in every' point of view that the young Prince should be educated in brigland. Any insinuations against his Royal Highness would be unjustifiable and uncalled for. lie also denied that the House had refused the additional allowance of 6,0001. a year on the ground of dislike to the Duke of Cumberland. No such reason was alleged at the time. He had been asked whe ther he knew in what state the Duke's pecuniary affairs now were. Of this he knew nothing. He knew that he was once in a state of some embarrassment on this score, a circumstance which must often happen to Members of the Royal Family from the teuretations to which they were exposed. He was sure no one who judged candidly of men's actions would ex pect the same measure of prudence in their affairs as was found in persons differently • circumstanced. He did not, however, know what was the condition of his Royal Highness's finances at present. 'With regard to the residence of the Duke abroad, the had state of hie Duchess's health, she being advised to .reside at some of the foreign baths, accounted naturally enough . for that. It was most unusual in making a grant of this kind, to annex to it a condition as to the residence of the individual. It was not for him to say that the Duke would never come to this country. Ile thought it probable that if he was enabled to live here, he would come.—( Hear !) At present, with an income of 6000/. a-year less than his Royal brothers, it could not be supposed that he could live here, or if he could, that he should like to do so. The Duchess had two chil dren by a former marriage, which might be supposed to make a difference in thet Royal Duke's expences. if his Royal High ness wished to come here-and educate his son, it was not likely they would hasten the execution of that wish by saying to him " we refused you formerly 6,0001. a-year, because we did not likeyou, and now we refuse it to you, because you did not come and lire among us." The Duke of Sussex, it bad been said, was itt the same situation in this respect as the Duke of Cum. berland. The children of the Duke of Sussex, it should be remembered, were not Princes of the Blood Royal, the mar riage of the Duke nothaving been according to the Royal Mar riage Act. The Duke lived separate from. the. Duchess, but she had an allowance of her own to live upon. There was therefore no analogy between the cases. He had heard nothing in the course of the discussion to place the case of the Duke of Cumberland upon a different footing from that upon which it had been introduced to the House by hint. The prinCiples upon which the present application was founded, were directly the reverse of those by 'which the former application was guided. He hoped, therefore, no opposition would be offered to t. the grant. - Mr. JOHN MARTIN said, it was with pain he felt him self obliged to object to this grant of money. He had opposed many motions for the reduction of taxation, and he knew not with what face he could meet his constituents, were he now to vote for any additional expenditure of public money. _Mr. SecretarY PEEL observed, that there was no ground for the expressions of surprise which had been uttered in the course of the discussion at the late period of the Session at -which this proposition had been brought forward. The ab .sence of so great a number of Members front the House, who might have attended, shewed. that no great objection existed to the proposed grants of money. Great latitude of observation and argument had been indulged in by many Hon. Members, but he thought it would be far more becoming to keep the strict-matter of debate before_ die House. The proposition was, that the child of the Duchees of Kent, and the son of the Duke of Cumberland, should have a pecuniary provision made for them respectively, with s view more especially to their receiving an adequate education—an education suitable at once to their exalted station, and those high destinies with reference to the Crown of this country, which they might one day be .called upon to fulfil. To the whole of this proposition, he (Mr. Secretary Peel) gave ,his most cordial assent. 'it was impossible for any one to have noticed the conduct of the Duchess of Kent, not to approve of it.— ( Hear, hear!)—No one had shewn a stronger inclination to observe the dictates of economy, at the same time that she in no way lessened the dignity of her station. As a mother, and especially in titer care and solicitude for the education of the young Princess, her conduct had been most exem plary.—(Hear.!)—There could therefore, he thought, be no real objection to the vote of money for that Illustrious Person. With regard to the vote for,the son of the Duke of Cumberland, he well understood the ground of the Hon. Member for Aber deen's opposition. The son of the Royal Duke had arrived at that period of life which required that some consideration should be paid to hie education. This was in fact thefoundation of the vote, and the Hon. Member's opposition to it was that the vote was 60001. a year, whereas 1001. a year would be amply sufli. dent for the. education of the Prince.—(Laughter, and " No, no," from Mr. Hume.)—The Hon. Member had said that he could provide as good an eduCation for one hundred pounds a year as any Prince of the House of, Hanover need hare. The fact was, that a college was about to be instituted in London, which he understood was chiefly for the instruction of the don mechanics, and here it was that she young Prince, accord ing to the Hon. Member's notions, could pick up a good 'etle- • cation at a cheap rate.—(Continuedilaughter, with expressions , of dissent for Mr. Hume.)—Was he misrepresenting the Hon. Gentleman ? He kept saying " Hear, hear !" to his propo sitions, but he believed they were fully warranted by the Hon. Gentleman's own argument and opinions. His Hon. and Learned Friend below him (Mr. Brougham) had recommend ed this College. Mr. BROUGHAM—" I do not know a better." Mr.- Secretary PEEL--" As I said, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman does not know a better—not even that College of which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is Rector."—(A laugh.)—Treating the subject, however, without levity, he would ask whether the grant ought not to be acceeded to upon. the ground of educating the son of the Duke of Cumberland ? (Mr. Secretary Peel) had been present upon the last discussion of a vote to the Duke of Cumberland ; and the opposition to that vote he understood to proceed upon the fact that the Royal Duke's marriage had not met with the approbation of those whose approbation in such a case was thought necessary. It was now seven years since that discussion, and during that time the duke had a son, who might hereafter ascend the Throne of this kingdom. In the first place, then, what objection could therehe to the Duke being placed upon the same footing as the rest of his brothers ? An objection was felt to the young Prince receiving his education abroad. The answer to that objection was, then give him money that he may be educated here. That this should be done concerned the country nearly. He thought that the Objection of the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last was not valid. This proposition was to be tried upon its own me rits ; and if found to be reasonable, the Hon. Gentleman need not fear to face his constituents after voting for it, although he had voted against the reduction of taxes. The considerations were public, not personaL The question was neither more nor less than this—whether individuals who might be called to fill high destinies in this country, should have an education suitable to their expectations ; and whether one of them should be abstracted from the, influence •of foreign impressions, his exposure to which seemed to create a general dislike. His Right Hon. Friend had been most groundlessly charged with a desire to separate the son from the father. His proposal had no such view, or tendency. It merely went to secure the pre sence in this country of the son, without +going the length of binding the father to accompany him. To do so, he thought would be going too-far, and not to do the other, would be ne glectinf their duty. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL said he should *support the vote for the Duchess of Kent. He felt the highest respect for the conduct and character of that illustrious Lady. With re spect to the Duke of Cumberland he could not come forward so readily about that unless his residence in this country were made a condition of the grent. -1-le saw no reasonable hope that the residence of the young Prince would be in this coun try, and every ground for a contrary expectation. The habits and tastes of the. Duke, his father, were entirely foreign--his friends were foreign, anti he was likely to continue to reside amongst them. At an Englishman, he certainly wished that the young Prince should not continue to reside in the midst of foreign connexions. He did not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could guarantee to them the object which the pro posed grant had in view. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if he could come down to the Muse with a proposition for money for a certain purpose, with an intention to deceive the House by not realizing that purpose, he should he totally unworthy of their confidence, and of the place lie held. The education in Eng land of the son or the Duke of Cumberland Was the principle of the vote, and he distinctly declared that that was the ground upon which he asked for the money.' He would not ask for it upon any other ground. Ile did not, however, pretend to pledge himself to the residence of the Duke of Cumberland here. Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished to know what remedy the Right Hon.' Gentleman could have, if the Duke and his son continued to reside abroad. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—" If that were to happen, I have no hesitation in saying that I should be guilty of having deceived the House, and the object of the grant would not be answered." Mr. DENMAN thought that a stand ought to be made against the frequency of I;Tanta of the-public money. There was something so amiable in making grants of money to Princes and persons in high station, that it appeared to be quite irresistible with some Honourable Membere. If the taxes-continued to be as productive as they were at present, Ministers would find plenty of excuses for taking money from the pockets of the people, and it was necessary to give them a timely check. No sooner was the name ti Cumberland men tioned, titan trp started another of the guardians of the public purse, and proposed • that all the arrears since the rejection of the last vote should be added to the present. No sooner had this proposition been made,. than another Hon. Baronet near him got up, and telling them what sn 'excellent man was the Duke of York, proposed that they should pay off all his debts ; and upon this rose a Gallant Admiral to assure them that his Royal Highness of York owed to his tailor no less a sum than 12,0001. Therefore, he supposed they were to pay all his debts at once, without any further inquiry. Ought not his Royal Highness, knowing his income, to have kept his expen diture within it ?—(Hear, hear !)—And was he, for the mitres hensible conduct of getting so largely into debt with his tailor, to he rewarded, and .the public plundered? The ,case was diftrent with the Duchess of Kent: Six thousand a-year was a mere pittance for the Piincess Royal of England. The Duke of Cumberland had 19,000/. a-year, and yet not enough.— lie would not refer to the circumstances connected with his Royal Highness. These had been once under discussion, and the consequence was, that his Royal' Highness had withdrawn from this country to live abroad. Perhaps this was the best thing he could do. He was there removed from the obset , vatiou of England, and he saw no reason why they should ask him to come back again. Then this proposal would have the effect of separating the son from the father, for no one had been found to say that the Duke of Cumberland had signified his assent to any proposition to come and live here. He hoped a vigorous resistance would be made to any such grant without the condition that the. young Prince should reside in this country. He had no doubt the benches would thicken, and that the sentiment would be echoed front the other side of the House. Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he thought it extremely hard that an individual who had not asked a grant of money from the House should have his individual merits, and his right to the grant, supposing it were to be asked, brought into discussion. The Illustrious Individual to whom he alluded had refrained for many months past from bringing his private affairs under the discussion of Parliament, and it was most unkind to reward him, when a vote was asked for another in dividual, by debating the question, whether, if be did apply, he would be a fit object for the bounty of the House of Corn mons.—(Hear, hear !)—The Hon. and Learned Member for Nottingham had entirely mistaken the source whence flowed that vein of liberality upon which he had animadverted as endeavouring to bring in others to share in". the bounty of the House. It formed no patt of the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend ; but had actually proceeded from the mouth of an Hon. and Learned Gentleman who sat in the 'very place where the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Denman) then sat himself. That Honourable Member in opposing the grant to the Duke of Cumberland, said that of the two he had rather pay the Duke of York's debts than agree to this motion. This was the way in which the Duke. of York's name had been introduced, and immediately his whole character had been brought into discussion, as though he had come before the House infertile paupcdit!--( Hear, hear !)—To come, however, to the actual business of the night. First, with regard to the Duchess of Kent, it would be a waste of words to argue her title to . the grant now proposed.to the House. He would, how. ever, make one observation upon it. If his Majesty's Go vernment were chargeable ;with any thing on account of it, it was that they had not sooner come forward with the pro position.—(Hear !)—Greater praise he could not give to that illustrious Lady than the demeanour which she observed in the situation in which she stood. :Quiet, retired, and unobtrusive; never putting herself forward in the public scenes of life; known to few, she yet sustained the dignity of her high station, and devoted the whole energies of her mind to the education of that child whom the House were now called upon to adopt, and to whom . they might hereafter be required to pay their _al. legiance.—(Hear !)--The vote of the Duke of Cumberland he wished the House rather to consider as a vote to the child who stood next in importance to the young Princess. To this rote it appeared there was a double objection—first, the parents re sided abroad, than which nothing was more 'obnoxious to the habits and feelings of a British Prince; and next, the Duke was odious in England, and therefore it was contended, they ought not to assent to this proposition. He wished the House to understand that this grant was proposed to the son of the Duke of Cumberland, not as his son, but because he might as cend to the throne'of this kingdom. As to the actual employ ment of the money *hen granted, he considered that it would be the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to take care that not one shilling should be issued without the security of the child being in the kingdom...—(lear, hear !)—His Royal Highness , after all that had pas s ed might certainly without blame prefer 'a residence abroad. From his recollection, and be spoke without the aid of reference, the allowance formerly asked for the Duke • wag refused, expressly upon the disap probation expressed at his marriage by the Court. The seeond • refusal was grounded on the former refusal. Waa it then at all unnatural that the Duke of Cumberland, who be, sides found a: secret lurking dislike against him.in.the country,' as expressed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who opened the opposition—was it at all extraordinary that he should take up his residence abroad? Driven from this country, what was more natural then that he should resort to the country of his wife ? Since the former refusal of the House, however, they now found that hiS Royal Highness had a child six years old. the Royal Duke would not,. for feelings of shame at his re. duced allowance, - reside in thks country, let them at least rescue the child from - the contagion of foreign principles, and give him an education worthy of the future King of this -Empire. With respect to the iecurity for the due execution of the provisions of Parliament, he repeated that his Ma jesty's Ministers would be answerable; that the - Act of. the House was executed as - it - was explained by them to the Hoase. —(Hear, hear !) Mr. CRIPPS said, he certainly thought a separate condition for the presence of the child in this country, ought to be made with refetence to their vote for the son of the Duke of Cumber land, and he should move to that effect - . - " Sir C. FORBES said a few words in explanation. - Mr. WILLIAMS thought the:two propositions Might to be separated. The Duchess of Kent's allowance he belie'Ved was 6,000!. a year; that of the Duke of Cumberland three times that amount. He thought, therefore, that considering this dif ference, and the retiring amiable qualities of the Duchess, and the obnoxious fact of-the Duke of Cumberland being abroad, ought to make them more scrupulous about the grant to the Duke. If the Hon. Member (Mr. Cripps) would make a pro- Position that the child should be upon British groUnd before money was taken from the pockets of the people for him, he would support it. The Resolution for a grant of money to the Princess Victo rina was then put from the Chair, and passed neon. con. Upon . the second Resolution being proposed, - Mr. CRIPPS moved as an amendment the insertion of the words " in Great Britain." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said; that after he had stated that the money was bona fide for the educa tion of the young Prince, he could not Consent to the amend ment proposed ; unless the - House believed that it was his inten tion to deceive them, they would not take a course which cer tainly implied a doubt of the iniegrity - of Government. It could scarcely be supposed that the Duke of Cumberland, knowing the pledge that. had been given, would, be so ill advised as to do that which would inevitably cause every shilling tb be taken away from him. This was no patent right that he was pro posing, but. something which it would always be in the power of the House to withhold. ' 111 r. J. P. GRANT protested against his supporting the Amendment being construed into any doubt of the integrity of his Majesty's Ministers. lie believed his Majesty's Ministers were as likely to continue in place as any Ministers he had ever heard of; but if the contrary should happen, how would the Ministry in place be bound by the pledge now offered ? It was said that the House had it in their own power to enforCe the redemption of the pledge.' But what ground would there be for any future House of Commons to interfere with this grant ? He thought that for the security of the great • object' they had all in -view; the words of the Amendment ought to make part of the Resolution. Mr. K. MARTIN said he should support the grant without any amendment; because he considered the Royal Duke ought to be placed upon the same fciating an his Royal Brothers. He also thought he was entitled to the arrears which had been ad_ verted to. Lord BINNING supported the original resolution. He thought the amendment totally uncalled for and unusual. The only nieaning of it was, that there was reason to ettspect* either the King's Ministers, or the Royal Duke himself, of some un fair play. He did not think there was any ground for such fears, and above all he considered the House would have the remedy in their own hands. He also thought the intention of the grant, with such an amendment, might be defeated in the event of the young Prince going abroad for a few months, on' the score of his health. Sir J. NEWPORT begged to disclaim most distinctly any imputation upon the integrity of his Majesty's Ministers.— (Hear !)—He considered that when a grant was made, the re solution by which it was made should bear upon its face tbe ground and intention of that grant. If this were not done how could reference be made upon any future dispute upon the subject? Memory was a bad Monitor upon such occasions. Mr. HUSKISSON observed, that the great point to be I looked to in making this grant was, that it was intended for the education of a Prince who might hereafter succeed to the throne of this kingdom. Now he did net think it all usual in an act of this kind to question die conduct of the Crown, in a matter so nearly touching the sovereign interest as the education of a young Prince so situated. If this amendment were to be -embodied in the Resolution, it would become part of the law of the land, and then the Exchequer would not be warranted in issuing the money even if the individual were absent from the island upon any occasion for a few weeks. He saw no ob jection to its being inserted in the Preamble of the Dill, which met necessarily follow the adoption of the Resolution before' the House, that the money was given for the purpose of enabl ing the young Prince to be educated in this country.—(Hear, hear!}—This was quite a different thing, and by no means so imperative in its nature as the Amendment now proposed. The' spirit of that Amendment he thought wee grate contrary to the practice generally observed in the conduct of public business.. Dr. WS INGTON said he was a little surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman state reasons why the Committee should p:412 the Resolution, and at the same time not insert one word to record the ground upon which the Grant was to be I made. Without this there could be no security that the sum voted by the House would be applied to its legitimate object. There might be no danger that the understanding to which the Ministers pledged themselves would be departed from by the present holder of the Crown, but what was to assure them that it would be acted upon by future Sovereigns? The pre sent Administration might abide by it, but who was to answer for their successors ? The present Parliament might act upon it, but how could they be secure that the Parliament to come would consider it desirable teehave this young. Prince educated in his native land? His objection was to making this grant to the Duke of Cumberland. fie would cheerfully vote it to his Majesty for the education of the child in this country, which he considered to be a great national object. • Bat he felt no confi donee in the Duke of Cumberland, and would not consent to place the money at his disposal, to be doled out as he should think fit. He did not wish to revert to former recollections, but he would say that the Duke of Cumberland stood in the same situation now as he did in 1815, when Parliament refused to grant an addition to his income. it was very natural for the Duke of Cumberland to wish to remain abroad, and he' would not vote one shilling that was likely to bring him back again.— If the resolution were not worded so as to prevent the result which he apprehended, he should vote for the amendment. - Mr. T. WILSON said that the difficulty which lie felt in voting upon the question, was not surprising, when so much difference of opinion existed on 'allhatuls. 'From the best con sideration which - be could give the question, it appeared to him that unless the object of the vote were more clearly defined in, the resolution, they should be declaring the House of Cemnions of 1615 to have been wrong without being certain that they were themselves right.' For this reason; if no alteration were made, he should vote for the amendment. Mr. C. WY NN said there would be no inconsistency be tween the proposed vote and the former conduct of Parliament in relation to the Duke of Cumberland: On the contrary, when the increase of allowance was refused, one ground for the re fusal was, that if any children resulted from the marriage they must be provided for by the State. That case had arisen, and they were 'now called upon to act upon it.. The resolution would therefore be perfectly consistent with the former conduct of Parliament, and he should- cheerfully vote for it. Mr. WARRE said that he had hard nothing in the course of the debate which relieved his mind from the apprehension that, unless Parliament . explicitly declared its resolution, this child would be educated out of England. thought it was the wish of every one that the child should be educated in England, and he could not therefore see why it should not be so declared in the Resolution. After a few words from Mr. TRANT, which were Inaudible in the gallery, Mr. PEEL suggested, that the Abject of securing the educa tion of the child in England could be as well secured by insert ing a declaratory sentence on the preamble of the Bill, as by adopting the proposed amendment of the resolution, which would not be a respectful course to the Crown, as that resolu tion was an echo of the Royal Message. Mr. CALCRA FT contended for the necessity of a clear un derstanding that the child should be educated in England, for there, from the existing relationship to the Crown of a child of the state, such education ought to be provided; and not in fo e reign countries, where the father hid for some years taken up' his residence. - After a few words from Sir JOHN NxwponT, suggesting an amendment to the resolution confiding the education of the child to the King, and not to the Duke of Cumberland, the Committee divided on the first amendment, when the numbers were— For it , - ' „. 64 Against it - - 79 Majority against the first amendment —l5 The Committee then divided on the original resolution, when the numbers were— For it Against it - Majority for the' original resolation - JUDGES SALLARIES BILL. . ]O5 h 5 -..50 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested' that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) should defer his objections to this bill until some subsequent stage of the proceedings, and not in the Committee. 31r. SCARL ' ETT said he had some objections to the details of the measare, which must of necessity be discussed in the Committee. Mr. BROUGHAM was willing to postpone his opposition to any future stage of the bill, but this could not affect the ob jections of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. scarlett.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER coincided with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, that the Hon. Member for Peterborough's proposition must be debated in the Committee; he only suggested that the discussions in the Com mittee should be confined to this. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Judges Salaries. The Report was ordered to be re-committed in a Committee of the whole House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that an instruction be given to the Committee to make provision for the. retired allowances to Judges—Ordered. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House.. . . The CHAIRMAN' having put the Resolution, that 10,0001. be granted to the Chief Justice in lieu of the salaries arising from certain offices— Mr. SCARLETT.rose. He said that in his opinion the pro. position contained in the resolution before the Committee ought not to be acceded to. He disapproved of the abolition of cer. tain salaries enjoyed by the Chief Justice, because these sa. larks were connected with the office. The Chief Justice had been in possession of these offices from very ancient times, and they had grown out of his situation. It was true that abuses had been practised. A system had sprung up of granting those offices to be held after the death of the Chief Justice, and also of selling the offices. These practices could not be too much reprobated. But there was a legitimate source of profit connected with these offices, which arose from one of two ways. The Chief Justice received the fees of the office. or he sold the fees. Now it was propoaed to take away all fees from the Chief Justice. He (Mr. Scarlett) did not deny that Parliament had the power to diminish or abolish those fees; but he contended that Parliament, if they diminished or abolish ed the fees, ought to make a fair compensation. Now lie con tended that the proposition before the House did no such thing. It did not afford an adequate compensation. What was the Committee about to do ? They had agreed to.raise the salaries of the puisne judges 1,5001. per annorn, Instead of 4,0001. to make their salaries 5,500. The average salary of the Chief Justice, as well as he could learn, was about 15,000/. Now the present Chief Justice would be incapable of bartering the rights of his office for temporary gain, and was it reasonable that a part of the emoluments of his office should be taken away, in order to found a fund for the increase of the puisne judges' salaries? This system wax most unfair, and was derogatory to the pie fession. On this principle he (Mr. Scarlett) opposed the resolu non. He felt that the elevation of the chief personagea in the Courts of Common Lavr shed a lustre on the whole profession. The bar was in some degree like the Lottery. There were a few great prizes, but there were numberless blanks. The total expences of the profession exceeded infinitely the total profits. The desire of attaining toi . the highest situations in the profession was an honourable ambition. One reason stated for raising the puisne judges' salaries was, that it would induce eminent lawers to accept the situations. Now this argument applied still more strongly to the Chief' Justice, who was the head of the common law courts. Instead of 10,0001. per an num, he (Mr. S.) should propose, as, a permanent arrangement, that 12,0001. be granted in lieu of other emoluments. Another subject on which he desired to observe was, the appointment of the Chief Justice by the Lord Chancellor. This was a most improper practice, An Administration,,as durable as he hoped the present was. would find it desirable to have as many compe titors for the office of Chancellor as possible. Now, it might be the interest of the Lord Chancellor to have no competitors in high stations, and to appoint men whom the Ministry could not fix upon to fill his office, in case of a vacant': This, to besure, had never happened, hut it may so happen, and be attended with great public inconvenience and intory. The import. mice of the office of Chief Justice could not be overrated. QK long as law exists, and is respected in this country, that situa tion must be looked up to with veneration and respect. In ct n elusion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed as an amendment to the Resolution, that 12,0001. be substituted for 10,0001. in lieu of the salaries now paid to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had paid great attention to the arguments of the Learned Gentleman, and was compelled to declare his opinion of their fallacy. The question for the House to consider was, whether or not the sum of 10,0001. perannum was an adequatecompensation for the office of Chief Justice. With regard to the distinguished individual who at present held the office, if it were made out that the House was doing something todeprive him of an adequate compensation,thcn there would be reasons for increasing the allowance ; but no such objection applied to him. The average gross amount ofhis ealary for many years past was 9,2001. per annum ; but the Chief Justice had to pay charges in his profession to the amount of 7 otits, u t therefore, e the r efor Exchequer)e were, LO; annum.per annum.Nvhat o p r er tMi. :ge r ' j i lt e net Chan cellor pr proposed was, to add to that sum 1,500/. and thus to make tha total salary 10,000/. l ' The Learned Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett . thought this sum was not sufficient, and that it ought to be such as to make persons of the highest rank and talent accept the: office. In this he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) perfectly agreed ; but he thought there was a more powerful inducement to accept the office than 2,0001. a-year would be, and that in ducement was the greatness and importance of that office. On the whole, he thought a sum- of 10,0001. a-year sufficient. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said a few words, but was not. audible in the gallery. Mr. MONCK thought the salary of the Chief Justice ought to he raised in proportion to the salaries of the Puisne Judges, and would therefore vote for the amendment of the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett.) Mr. SCARLETT, in explanation, said that in his opinion the dignity of the office of . Chief Justice could not be made too high. On this principle he differed from those who objected to raise a Chief Justice to the Peerage. It should be remembered that a man who made 5,0001. a-year by his private practice, was richer than a Chief Justice who received 10,0001., becauaa the latter had to maintain an expence proportionate to his ranit. Ile did not, therefore, think that 10,0001. a-year was sufficient. He would, indeed, rather leave the salary as it was, than con sent to such an alteration. Mr. PEEL said it was clear that the Lord Chief Justice ought to have some fixed salary from the country, and ought not to depend for his profits on the sale of offices. If he thought it a degradation to the judicial character, he would be the last to propose any measure of the kind ; but the direct contrary was his opinion. He thought that that Judge's salary ought to be fixed, and in estimating its amount it ought to be compared with other high judicial offices, that of Lord Chancellor of Ire land for instance, which was of the same amount then proposed to be given. He was quite decided in the opinion that the dignity of the judicial character should be sustained by liberal remuneration. ' After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the amendment granting 12,0001. to the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench was put and negatived, and the original proposition of 10,0001. was carried. The other resolutions respecting the Judges' salaries were then put and carried, by which 8000 1 , were granted to the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 70001. to the Muter of the Rolls, and 6000/. to the Vice-Chancellor. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to a question from Mr. Hume, stated that his intention was to re gulate the fees of the law officers according to the reesnunenda tion of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into that subject. Mr. HUME observed, that nothing could be more unjuat than to tax litigants in that form, and that the time had arrivo when the abominable fees of the Lord Chancellor ought to be put an end to, so asap deprive him of the inducement to pose.. pone the business of his Court. He received many fees whiala he ought not, and it was most unjust that he should be tit liberty to fix what fees he pleased for himself to receive. The :CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had ex. plalned before why he could not deal in the mannir expected with the Court of Chancery. He could do nir thin with it until the Cornrailsioners had reported. The motion which the Honourable Gentleman opposite and °theta entertained of the -profits' of the' Lord Chancellor were exaggerated to a degree of which the House could have no con ception. The salary which the Lord Chancellor received; ex. - elusive of his emoluments as Speaker, of the House of Lords amounted only to .5,0001. His fees might be about 7, 0001 :: making altogether 12,0001. This was very far short of the suns of 20,0001. and upwards, so generally supposed to be received by his Lordship. The, whole of what lie received was much less, and was liable to the land-tax, besides a deduction of 3,5001. for the payment of the Vice-Chancellor, which sum, at the express suggestion of the Load Chancellor himself, was taken from the emoluments of his office. That reduced, his salary to 8,500/. His salary, then, upon the whole, did not amount to 10,000/.4 scarcely to more than 9,0001. What he had tis Speaker of the House of Lords was perfectly distinct from v 7 hfit he ilerived from the Court of Chancery, and it-amounted to only 3,0001. or 4,000/. making the 'total of his income amount to only 13,0001. or 14,000/. a year. If the Chief justice of. the King's Bench, and the Chancellor, were each to have 10,0001. a year, it was not too much to give - the Lord Chancellor of England 13,000/. or 14,000/. a year. In the d evot i on of -mind and body, no one could exceed the exertion of the Lord Chancellor. - Mr. HUME then said that he would rather give 15,0001. is year to the Lord Chancellor, than not have his salary fixed. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reference to the oheett ration which ikir. , HUITIe had made respecting the iridneensents--