The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-28 00:00:00

EVENING EDITioN • Made to Prince Leopold.—( Hear, hear.) Within the last three days he had received no less than I t t letter s con p l a i n i ng of the grant b eing cont i nue d Prince Loops d. He thought it wss known that Prince Leopold did not receive a shiding of it ; that on the day he left England he made that grant over to trustees, to pay off certain debts incurred during the life of the Prin cess. He therefore thought, that looking at the manner in which the resolution was worded granting the annuity to Prince Leopold, that there was no analogy between the two. He thought that the greatest odium would be caused by grantinss such an exorbitant sum to Prince Albert.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He believed that the grant, so far from rendering the Queen popu lar, loved, revered, and looked up to by her subjects, would have the contrary effect. Were he (Mr. H ome) to follow his own opinion, he should object to the granting of a single shilling during the life time of her Majesty—( Hear, hear) —hut he found a unanimous opinion among all with whom he had conversed, that some ',rant should be made, and he had y i e ld e d more, therefore,' in the motion he was about to make, to what he believed to be the general wish, than to his own conviction. Now, in the first place he would ask was there any necessity for such a grant? What was to become of all the money? Did the Noble Lord know the danger of placing a young man down in London with so much money in his pocket ? --(Great laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he did not think it a laughing matter.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Igo thought the grant was more likely to inter fere with the peace of her Majesty than any act that had yet been done; he could not see hew the Prince could honestly and properly expend such a sum of money. He would say, again, that he believed that the grant, so far from being produc tive of happiness to her Majesty and her family, would have a contrary effect.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He (Mr. Hume) therefore contended that the Noble Lord had not acted wisely in bringing forward such a large and excessive grant. Tree the Noble Lord said, am I to refuse proposing the grant because circum stances were not sufficiently favourable? but the Noble Lord said he trusted circumstances would be favourable. If such a sum should be voted, he (Mr. Hume) asked haw would it be paid ? There was a deficiency of reve -1 tyse. Their expenditure exceeded their revenue. Was i it a passing cloud ? \Vas the deficiency only for one Session ? No. It had been so for the last three years. There had been a deficiency on an average of at least a million. He asked was there likely to be a less deficien c y ? As far as expenditure abroad went there was no appearance of reduction, and at home he thought there was still less prospect. He then asked, ought not the Noble Lord to have the strongest and most overpowering necessity before he asked for such a vote ? The revenue, cer tainly, for the last five years had been more productive. but there had been a great increase of cat iblishments at home.—(Hear, hear.) They had gone on till there had been an increase of two or three millions in the expenditure of the three last years. Could the Noble Lord tell hint how he intended to raise taxes for the payment of 50,0001? Suppose a tax was placed on Peers, Baronets, and men having privileges. He (Mr. H.) for one had no objection to it.—(A laugh.) He objected to giving so lavish and profuse an expendi ture to any individual connected with Royalty. Lord Castlereagh had stated on one occasion—and stated very properly—that every expenditure on the part of the Royal Family, or of any individual members of it, were viewed with great jealousy by the people ; and when he had brought emotion on a subjectsiniilar to the present he was obliged to show that for the honour and dignity of the Crown it was necessary to pass the grant which he required. He would beg of the House to recollect that the salaries of almost every officer of the Crown bad been of late years reduced, and the only reduction that had not taken place was in the Civil List of her Majesty. She had the same Civil List asWm., and he had the same RS other Princes had before the depreciation in the cur rency. He objected to the grant because it was an addi tion to the already overpaid Civil List—and every one wno considered the question would allow that this was a time for reducing rather than for extending its amount. When they saw in every part of the country the distress which existed, and the thousands and tens of thousands who were unable to obtain the means of living, he should say that the Noble Lord had acted most unadvisedly in bringing forward his present mo tion. He begged to say that his strongest reason for objecting to the grant was that it would place Prince Albert before the Royal Dukes, who were the uncles of the Queen ; and why Prince Albert, who was to be her husband, should be placed so much above them in point of allowance was a thing which he (Mr. Hume) found it impossible to conceive. He saw no reason why such an enormous provision should be made for Prince Albert at the time of such great depression, when money was so scarce, and so many human beings without the means of a livelihood. George 111. had settled 10,0001. upon his son ; 60,000/. was voted by that House to be divided among the six sons, leaving each not more than 10,0001. Lord H. Petty, in 1806, moved to vote the six Dukes, viz., the Duke of Rent, the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of Cumberland, the Duke of Clarence, and the Duke of York, 12,000/. each ; but Lord Sidmouth, in consequence of the times, came forward to vote 6,000/. He thought it was rather curious to see the only objection that was nude in that House, was that offered by the Member for Brecon. Lord H. Petty said his reason for moving the grant was, in consequence of certain allowances having been withheld, which were equal to the difference between the two propositions. He (Mr. Hume), therefore, saw no reason, in times like these, of much more serious depression, that so enormous a sum as that of fifty thousand pounds should be voted away. (Hear.) He (Mr. Hume) had on various occasions proposed reduc tions in the incomes of the Royal Dukes—in the times of economy and retrenchment, now unhappily gone by— (Cheers from the Conservative Benches)—when Hon. Gentlemen opposite were compelled to yield.---( Hear, hear.) He had moved, for instance, that the income of the Duke of Sussex should be reduced to 18,0001 , yet there was no man who more admired and respected that Royal Duke's private and political character than him self. But he considered that examples of extravagance and profusion on the part of those who occupied high stations were very pernicious.—( Hear, hear.) And under the present difficulties of the country, he considered that Prince Albert should not have more than the Royal Dukes, particularly as he would have nothing to supply for himself. The Queen's Civil List was 10,000/. more than King William's. Her Majesty had a Privy Purse of 60,0001., the salaries of the Household were 13,000/. There was one feature in the character of William the Fourth which he would mention to the House (and that was a feature, by-the-bye, which none of his predecessors could boast), that the Civil List voted for him was throughout the whole of the reign and that at his decease, 14,0001. remained unappropriated, with out a particle of debt during the whole of that period.— ( Hear and loud cheers from both sides of the House.) He trusted sincerely that the Civil List of her present Ma jesty would be similarly administered, and that could be only by her Ministers taking care what they were about, and not allowing her Majesty's character to be involved, as it would, if extravagant expenditure were permitted in her household.—( Hear, hear.) He was not one of those who had any fears on that point—( Hear, hear)---and having heard rumours about a debt, he had made inquiries, and heard that all the bills had been i aid up to the last quay ter.--( Hear, hear.) It had been said that the Prince would require separate attendants. Now, even allowing 1 the necessity for this (whiels it was not quite clear would arise), surely out of the extensive establishments of her Majesty, enough could be spared for the purpose, without incurring new expenses.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Nlern be rthen went into some details, to show that this might be effected. He was sorry that her Majesty had been ad vised, in her speech from the Throne, to lay more stress upon the support which she expected from the laws 1 in putting down the disturbances which had arisen, than on satisfying the minds of the people. To what a number of highly beneficial measures might not thirty thousand pounds be applied I Would not the country draw parallels between 30,000/. for national education, and 30,000/. for unnecessary expenditure on the part of the Queen's consort ?—( Hear, hear ) To allay the discontent in the public mind, oiled's not all possible savings to be effected in the public expenditure ? And should not the example be set at the head, to which the country naturally looked; and should not a beginning, at least, be made as soon as it could ?—( Hear, hear.) Such a measure would tend very much to raise her Majesty in the affections of her people. Her Majesty could not know what was passing in the country. Her Majesty must act upon the advice of her Ministers, and they should be careful not to betray the trust.—( Cheers.) He at first had thought that the Prince should have no allowance during her Majesty's lifetime, but what he derived from her Majesty. Still in deference to the feeling of many, he was willing to waive this objection, and many of his Honour able Friends he could state, would not object to the sum he proposed, or to 25,0001. or 30,0001. Ile thought the Government ought to endeavour to relieve the embarrassments of the country instead of proposing a grant which would increase the difficulty. He hoped, however, the Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, would state what taxes were to be laid on, al though he did not think this was a time to talk of taxation. On these grounds he begged to move that the grant to Prince Albert be 21,000/. instead of 50,0001. Mr. WILLIAMS ( Coventry) seconded the amendment. He considered the grant of 50,000/. was not only uncalled for, but would be an extravagant waste of the public money ; 1 and when he looked at the embarrassed state of the finances of the country be could not for one moment think the House would sanction such an extravagant grant. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to borrow the money ? If he meant to raise the money by plunging the country deeper in debt, the House ought to be informed of that; and if he meant to raise the taxation they ought to know on what articles he meant to levy taxes. He had no objection to the money being raised by a tax on property.--( Hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had understated the amount of the sums voted to the Crown. The expen diture on the parks and forests amounted to 85,000/. each year. The Hon. Gentleman had also omitted to mention the pensions, and a sum of 32,0001. voted last year for the re pairs and decoration s of palaces and castles. It had been asked the other night what was the amount of the present income of Prin ce A lbert. That question ought to b e I. answered, because if the Prince's income was so scanty •.' as had been represented, he ought to be a person of very strong intellect indeed, otherwise when he came to share in the expenditure of 38,500/. besides the revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lan caster, had 50,000/. for his own pocket money, with parks to spurt in, and palaces and castles to walk about in, and those decorated in the most gorgeous manner at the pub lic expense, his understanding would be affected.—( A laugh) The Noble Lord had said that the distresses of the country were of a temporary nature. He wished the Nook Lord had stated on what grounds he had formed that o,nnioe, because if that opiniot. was formed on true grounds, it would gladden the hearts of millions in this country, merchants, manufacturers, traders, and others, who were now in deep distress, and saw no prospect of re lief. Was that famous Reform Bill, which the Noble Lord had introduced, to have any effect in that House? Why did the people support 'aim to do away with the old Par liament? Expressly because they were promised by those who introduced the Bill, that it would be the means of a cheaper and better Government.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord quoted the extravagant acts of unreformed Parliaments as precedents for a reformed Parlia ment.—( Hear, hear.) What was the cause of the great disaffection that at present exists in the country. The people were over taxed, and bad burdens imposed upon them that they could not bear, those taxes taking from them snore than one halfof their labour and industry, so that they were reduced to the deepest distress. He believed the people had a deep-rooted feeling in favour of the monarchical system of Government, but if acts of ex travagance like these were to be perpetrated, that feeling might be soon destroyed, because nothing was more likely to alienate their good feelings towards monarchicalin stitutions, than th e i mmense co st o f Royal establish ments. He hoped the House would pay some regard to the distress before they voted so extravagant a sum as that which had been proposed by the Noble Lord. Lord ELIOT said that the House had assured her Majesty in the Address they had sent up to her, that they would make a suitable provision for her consort, and the House must be desirous to fulfil that engagement. The only question was, whether the sum proposed by the Noble Lord was, or was not a suitable provision. It would be for the Noble Lord oppo site to combat the arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. He would therefore con tent himself with saying he was not prepared to support the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman opposite. It was clear that if the House granted 50,0001. for Prince Albert, a larger sum would be granted to her Majesty and her consort, than the Civil List of the late King and Queen amounted to.--(Hear, hear.) The simple view he took of the subject was this—was it required for the purpose for which it was intended. He did not wish to take advantage of the state of the finals( as of the country, but there was a circumstance that must be considered, and in discussing marriage settlements, all contingencies must be looked at, and he must say, without any indelicacy, that if it should no the will of God, to deprive this country of a Sovereign, and the Prince of his Queen, and it should please God not to grant any offspring, that the tic which bound the Prince to this country—all his feelings and associations. would be only those of pain and sorrow, lie would be naturally inclined to return to the land of his birth, and the sum voted would not be expended in this country. These considerations led him very strongly to accede to the propositions of the Noble Lord. Look ing to the difference between the states of the Prince and that of the Queen Consort, he could not but come to the conclusion, that a sum somewhat smaller than that pro posed by the Noble Lord would be sufficient. The amend. ment of which the Hon. Gentleman below him (Colonel Sibthorp) had given notice, for the sum of 30,0001., met his views, and under these circumstances, he should vote against the amendment of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and support that of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob served that her Majesty was placed in a different posi. tion from any of her predecessors. Her Majesty having given up all the hereditary revenues of the Crown, at the commencement of her reign, now came to Perlis nt for their liberal consideration, with the view of mak ing provi:ion for that object, who of all others must have her greatest regard. As this had bren called en extra vagant proposition, he would direct the attention of the House to the precedents which related to the present case, and to what grants had been made under circum stances either similar or nearly so. In the case of Prince George, there was an annuity of 50,0001. during the life of her Majesty, and afterwards, by an Act passed by the House of Commons of that day, there was a power granting a further pension of 100,000/., together with two palaces, and certain property, if he survived her Majesty. In the case of Queen Caroline, the Queen of George 11., the same course was pursued. There was a grant of 50,0001. during the life of George 11., and a reversion of 100,0001. a year after his death. In the case of Queen Charlotte, the Queen of George 111., there was first, a grant of 40,000/. ; the next year there was a n additional 10,000/., making it 50,000/., and subse quently 8,000/ a year more was voted, making in all, 58,0001. a year. In the case of Queen Adelaide there was an allowance of 50,000/. a year, with the reversion of 100,000/. in case her husband died. The proposition now made was less than any proposal ever made either to the consort of a Queen or to a Queen Consort. The Noble Lord opposite and his Hon. Friends the mover and seconder of the amendment, had given the House to understand that the Civil List of her present Majesty was 10,000/. more than the Civil List of William IV., There was no doubt that a sum of 10,000/., which was chargeable to the Civil List of William IV., was trans ferred to the Consolidated Fund ; but, on the other hand, by an arrangement upon the Pension List, a considerable reduction had been made in the charge against the public. The • House would recollect there were great restrictions placed by Parliament on the revenues of the Crown, and which restrictions formed the foundation of many new 1 claims on the part of her Majesty to the com passion of that flouse.—( Hear, hear.) The peculiar provisions which bad formerly been appropriated to, but afterwards abandoned by the Crown, and the new checks now imposed by that House, gave to the Crown not only a large but a considerably increased claim on their liberality. He would admit there were revenues still in the possession , of the Crown, but in the event of an heir being born to the Crown those revenues left it and fell into the hands of trustees. He admitted that nothing could be more painful than the circumstance of the Crown being placed in a state of debt—( Hear, hear)--and that was with him an addi tional reason for impressing upon the House the necessity of placing her Majesty in such a position as would enable her to keep out of debt, and thus would they be saved the painful necessity of being constantly obliged to vote fresh supplies to liquidate the debts of the Crown. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hoped that on this occasion the House would grant liberally, and that Prince Albert would keep within the limits of the income assigned him. —( Hear, hear.) With reference to those Hon. Members who thought that 30,000/. would be an adequate provi sion he would observe that it was now impossible to say what might be the future expenses of Prince Albert, nor could the proposed sum be deemed extravagant, when it was remembered that 50,000/. was the suns voted for Prince George of Denmark, the consort of Queen Anne, and that at the time vas not considered too much. It was not then possible to go into a matter of account as to what might be the probable expenses of Prince Albert, yet he hoped the House would on the present occasion act liberally with reference to the demands made upon it, and that it would not be prevented from doing so by the mere circumstance of that demani being made for a Prince consort. Lord ELIOT said he was desirous of adding a few words in reference to what he had before stated. He had referred to the possibility of circumstances aris ing which might put an end to the connection of Prince Albert with this country. But he would go farther, and admit, that, if after any length of time those circumstances did not happen, it might be advisable to in crease the provision now about to be settled to a much larger amount.—t Hear, hear. ) Mr. LIDDELL said that as far as the proposition of Government was concerned, he had heard no argument to convince him that it was not extravagant. But he had constituents whose feelings he must consult, and as a representative of the people, he could not consent to vote so large a sum away, unless a proper case were made out. He a,,reed it was time some fit and proper allowance was made, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to show that the proposed amount was not extravagant— indeed the cases quoted by hi,n, and referred to as analo gous, were in his opinion quite against the position they were intended to support ; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a wish to keep Prince Albert Out of debt, he could have been reminded that there were other Princes of the Royal Family for whom Parliament thought 20,0001. an adequate allowance. He was not pre pared to go as far as the lion. Member for Kilkenny, although he could not agree to the proposition of 50,0001. Great wealth, he always thought, brought great temptation. " Satan now is wiser than of yore. And tempts by making rich, not more poor." Let the sum now proposed by Government be granted, and hereafter the people would look more narrowly into all grants made for the Crown. He hoped that whatever might be the decision of the House, the young Prince would look well to our political and ecclesiastical institu tions, and that from the precincts of the Palace he might sometimes think of the poor and industrious. If he did these things, then would his name be received with wel come, and that union, which he understood had commenced in affection would terminate in happiness and peace.— (Cheers:). Mr. WARD said he never had voted with greater pain than he should on the present occasion. Since it was evident that a stropg feeling prevailed in the House, he thought it was incumbent on every Member of that House to state the reasons upon which his vote was given.—( Laughter and cheers.) He had listened with great attention to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in his opinion the Right lion. Gentleman had failed to make out a case in favour of the grant of 50,0001. ; and with re ference to the cases to which be had called the attention of the House he ought to have recollected that circumstances had greatly altered since the periods of their oate— and as to the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman about making such a provision for Prince Albert as would keep him out of debt, that argument would apply equally well if the proposed sum were double the amount.— ( Hear.) The precedent of Prince George of Denmark was against the Right Hon. Gentleman, for in that case there was no distinct settlement, but there was a provision in case of survivorship. The case the House had to consi der was, what sum was necessary and right, having a due reference to the circumstances of the country, and the state of the times.—( Hear.) He wished unity had been possible on this question, and he still hoped that by con cession on both sides of the House, the maximum amount of 30,0001. might be agreed upon. He could not see what could justify that House in agreeing to the sum of 50,000/. Why were they to provide Prince Albert with a larger provision than a Queen consort of former days, for whom 18,0001. was considered sufficient. The House had been told that it would be deemed niggardly, and that it would be unbecoming the national character if they did not agree to the proposition of 50,0001. But the question that would be asked by the people was what benefits have we derived from the expenditure of so large a sum, and arc not such benefits too dearly paid for, and thus comparisons might arise of a most unpleasant nature. He believed that the Hon. Mem ber for Kilkenny had rested his proposition on very fair grounds ; he should therefore vote for him, and if that pro position were defeated , he should th en voto,oefooroihe pr o p o _ sition of the Hon. Member for L inc o l n of 3 Mr. ROBERT PALM - ER said that a large majority of that House seemed to consider the proposed grant of 50,0001. extravagant. He (Mr. Palmer) was not in the House on Friday night when the Noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) made his state vent, but he presumed he had seen it stated correctly elsewhere. The Noble Lard had al luded to the cese of Prince Albert in connee , ion with that of the Queen consort. There was no analogy between the two cases, for she hrid great expenses to meet, while it was presumed that Prince Albert was al ready provided for. From all he hadaheard on this sub ject, there appeared b it one opinion to prevail,—that was, that the proposed grant of 50,0001. was too large. ' Sir ROBERT INGLIS said he did not agree with the Hon. Member for Kilkenny as to the argument that he had pursued. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not enter into all the details of Royal ex penditure, for had he been able, he ( Sir IL Inglis) thought it would have been contrary to the monarchical spirit of their institutions. The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated that the expenditure exceeded the income, and that 0,000/. could not be raised. The Hon. Gentleman proposed, in his usual good manner, a tax upon Peers and Baroneteies ; now perhaps be (Sir R. Inglis) might be allowed to sug gest that the sum should be raised by the majority who voted for the new postage.—( A laugh.) Thequestion, from that Hon. Gentleman's statement, was that those who sup ported the Hon, Member for Kilkenny must be prepared to vote a new tax, for a new tx was to be raised for every farthing of the 50,000/., therefore it must be the same for the 21,000/. The Crown, in his opinion, had had been obliged to make improvident bargains in every case. The sale of the hereditary revenues amounted to one hundred and sixteen millions. Now it was admitted that the amount granted by the nation, including all the sum granted for the liquidation of the debt did not exceed sixty-five millions, and fifty-one millions were therefore saved to the nation by the Civil List Act. He then came to the more immediate question. Certainly, for the present case the case of Prince George of Den mark was a precedent. There they found that the Crown made over 50,0001. to the Prince consort. Now if the Crown had made away with its possessions did anybody doubt but the Crown would have exercised the same dis cretion? That being the case, he (Sir R. Inglis) thought that though they were not . bound legally, still, in their gene rosity, they could not take advantage of a bargain that had been made in good faith. In conclusion, therefo e, lie begged to state that as he differed with the argument of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and with the conclusion of the Hon. and Gallant Colonel the Member for Lincoln, who had placed the shape of his amendment on the votes, he had no alternative—in fact not an alternative, for he voted cheerfully, for the proposition of the Noble Lord. Mr. GO UL BURN then rose and said that having reserved his opposition, as lie had formed no opinion, till he had heard the statement of the Noble Lord opposite, he thought himself bound to state the effect that had been produced by the speech of the Noble Lord. He virtually concurred with the Noble Lord, that on a question like the present theywere not to beigoverned by the temporary circumstances of the country, because they were now rather labour. ing under difficulties, no more than in a period of great prosperity they were justified in making inordinate grants for the splendour of royalty. The grant, in his (Mr. Goulburn's) opinion, must be measured by generally taking the dignity of the Crown into consideration, and not so much consulting any period of prosperity or adver sity. So far he agroed in the principles laid down by the Noble Lord opposite. He also concurred in another prin. ciple laid down by the Noble Lord. It was, that they could form no better opinion of the amount to be given to a consort, than by looking at the precedent in the preced ing reign of William and Adelaide. He agreed with the Noble Lord, that the best principle on which they could proceed to enter upon the present discussion, was the pie eluding all unpleasant details, by reference to the different expenses of the several members of the Royal family. —( Hear, hear.) With regard to precedents that had been used on former occasions, the cases seemed to coin cide. For, when Arnie united herself to Prince George of Denmark, the Parliament of that day took the amount of the Civil List granted to William and Mary, and what ever arrangement Queen Anne might have made, it was an arrangement within the precincts of the palace, and had not the least connexion with the Parliament. Pro ceeding on that ground, then, what did they find were the state of circumstances. If they examined the expenditure of the preceding reign they would find that the grants were abundantly sufficient for the Royal dignity, splen dour, and Royal hospitality. He found that not only were there no debts, but on the contrary, the grants of the Civil List were so sufficient for all necessary demands that a surplus was amassed of 1.,0001. He said then, if, looking to the present circumstances, and so the circumstances of the last reign, they made such an addition to the Civil List as would make a double Civii List equal to what was the double Civil List of the last reign—he said that then they would be doing all that justice and all that the nec?ssary maintenance of the Royal authority arid dignity could require. The Civil List of William the Fourth was fixed at 510,000/. ; from that they would first take 75,000/. and 10,0001. for secret service, then they could transfer the Consolidated Civil List, and 425,0004 would be the sum available for the Civil List of King William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide. The House, in the Right Hon. Gentleman's opinion, would be in error if they supposed the Civil List of Victoria would ex cced the Civil List of William the Fourth only by 10,0001. He would show that the double Civil List of Queen Victoria would exceed thst of William the Fourth by 10,0001. above whalhe had stated. An advantage given to Queen Victoria was—first, a positive excess of 10,0001. in money ; secondly, a positive diminution of the expenses of the Civil List by 10,000/. ; for it might be in the recol lections of many Hon. Members who served on the Committee in IS3I, that it was thought fit to reduce, not what was essential to comfort or dignity, or what contributed to the splendour necessary to be maintained, but it was a reduc tion of the salaries of the great officers of state. Believing as he did in those statements, he could not say it was pos sible, with consistency, refuse his sanction to the proposition about to be made by his Hon. and Gallant Friend near him. With regard to pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the savings under that head were liable by the authority of the Treasury to be transferred.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. G.) had never heard of any such thing ; if such had been the case there would have been some statement referring to it in the Committee of 1838. But no statement was made, no general power was given, that the surplus should be transferred. Hav ing said thus much, he would say that nothing could be more painful than discussing contingent events, still great difficulty would be added to the discussion, unless the Government, at the time of making a future provision, would take upon themselves to guide the judgment of the House. He felt himself bound by the course he had pursued on a former occasion—by that course which had been deemed liberal and just—to contribute all that was necessary for the dignity, comfort, and popularity of the Sovereign, but lie found it his duty at the same time to oppose, for the reasons lie had given, the amount of the grant preposed by the Noble Lord. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided on the amendment of Mr. Hume, when the num bers were as follow : For the amendment Against the amendment 305 Majority .. —267 Colonel SIBTHO RP c ons id ere d t h at i n defending the amendment he was about to propose on that occasion, he had a most ungracious task to discharge. It might be said that by the course he was going to pursue, he was standing forward as the personal enemy of her most gracious Majesty.—(Laughter.) He felt, however, for his part, that he was engaged in serving the country and in defending the rights of the Crown. During the many years he had spent within the walls of that House he hoped he had always clearly and fairly examined every question merely on its own merits. He appealed to the House whether he had ever forgotten his duty to his Sovereign, and whether he had ever been guilty of a want of respect to the Crown, or whether he had on any occasion been backward in a desire to maintain its dignity or comfort.--( Laughter.) He had, how ever, a duty to perform, which, as a representative of the peo ple, he could not neglect ; and by discharging it he believed he would best consult the dignity and honour of the Crown. He would proceed t o f u lfil that duty; and he was glad to find that he had been relieved from the necessity of trespassing so long on the attention of the House as he should otherwise have done by the speech of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, as well as by that of the Right Hon. Member for Cambridge, and the statements which that Right Hon. Gentleman had,made with regard to the subject then under their consideration. With re gard to the speech of the Noble Lord, which he (Col. Sibthorp) had carefully followed, he should say that so far as the prece dents of the Noble Lord were concerned they had entirely failed —particularly in his allusions to the proceedings adopted in the lifetime of Queen Anne. He was surprised in looking over those proceedings to find an ancestar of his own—( Laughter).— voting in the year 1714 as he was about to vote on the present occasion. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had heard an old and tried adage that "hold fast was a good dog ;" and he advised the House of Commons to beware how it proceeded too tashlv on the matter now before them.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hen. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that great consideration might be given to the numerous charities which her most Gracious Majesty will be called upon to contri bute to ; he (Colonel Sibtherp) could not see wny she should be more liable to such applications when married, than she was heretofore. He thought it most absurd for that House to sup pose that it would require the enormous sum of 50,0001. to support the personal comforts of the Sovereign. He shouki conclude by moving as an amendment, that a sum not exceed ing 30,0001. per annum be granted by that House as a pension foi Prince Albert. Lord J. RUSSELL—In the observations which hare dropt from the Hon. Gentleman who has last addressed the House, or any other Hon. Gentleman who has spoken against the ori ginal proposition, I have heard nothing that could change my opinions, but, on the contrary, I am more and more convinced that it is my duty, as one of her Majesty's Ministers, to bring down my prosposition, and if necessary to take the sense of the House upon the motion which I have the honour of submitting to your consideration. I of course am fully aware that it is the privilege of this House to give full consideration to any of those votes, and to decide upon them according as they think proper, with a view to all reasonable economy, and calculated to advance the general interests of the country. I beg to say that I have not changed my mind from the commencement of this debate, but have formed a strong opinion upon this sub ject, which opinion I consider the most consistent as regal ds the great object we have in view. ( Hear.) The Hon. Mem. ber for the University of Cambridge had taken the trouble of ex. plaining the motives which actuated him in his vote. I would be inclined to agree in the description given of him in an earlier part of the evening by my Right lion. Friend the Attorney- General, when he said that his speech was but a specimen of special pleading, which was unworthy of the cause that now en gaged their attention.—( Hear.) That Hoo. Gentleman en deavoured to explain away those precedents which had been brought forward in support of the vote. The grant made by Queen Anne of 50,0001. to her consort, Prince George of Denmark, was a precedent which the Hon. Gent. found uo other way of getting rid of than by saying that that was a grant not paid by Parliament, but was made by a grant of the Crown, by Queen Anne herself; but it was the policy l e n, but al s o d evo t e d Queen, e l e ) n a , rli a a r nen id i u t ie a y t t , the publi c t axes, n t h o a t t o t n i m l y e g t r o an l t e e a d n h g i r s e e t s o t; h a e 9 s , i e d e e i.fi t e i of the Queen was andto li t is h e ser .e v c i e c i e p t t s h o e f r t h e v e e E n uxecsi outse, t he coofu which the enabled to grant the sum of 50,000/. to her consort.—( Hear, hear.) Whether it was the Parliament who voted such a sum or not, it forbid any grants of money without instituting an inquiry how the same should be ap plied. The effect with regard to this grant was, how ever, the same ; as in the time of Queen Anne greater mi-111 ,1 UN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 28. 1 power was given to the Crown, and greater anxiety to consult the pleasure of the Sovereign, than it appears to me to be the feelings of the Parliament at this moment towards their Sove reign, so the effect of explaining away this precedent, is, in my opinion, a failure. Those other precedents which the Right lion. Gentleman has brought forward. does not, I think, bear the slightest analogy to the question before us. There was a grant of 50,000/. voted for Queen Caroline, and 100.0001. in case she survived her husband. There was 50,0001. voted to the mother of George the Third. There was also 50,000/, voted to " Leopold." The prece dents used by the other side were such as would not fairly bear upon the question, having t a ken place when a great many diffe ren t p ar ti es p reva il e d an d many different societies had been formed throughout the country. It was always the unif orm o pi n i on i n suc h cases as this, that a simi lar sum as had been proposed should be granted. I now come to the grant passed in the time of William Iv. In the begin ning of the Civil List it was proposed that 50,060/., should be voted for Queen Adelaide, and on the death of the King 100,000/. I cannot conceive how the House, or any Honourable Gentlemen can consider that the grant now proposed is too great. Those other questions which the Honourable Gentleman seises hold of lie mistakes. That of the reduction with rea-ard to the officers of the Court, which, it is alleged, would make a difference in the expense of her Majesty's establishment to the amount of 10,0001. has been made. There were objections on principle to some of those salaries which are not now paid, and had the surplus gone to the Royal Fund s , as was originally proposed, I think there would be at least a sum of 10,000/. now to be applied from the different branches connected with the Household. I really don't know anything more to say than that the proposal ought to be adopted, when it is considered that the Queen succeeded to the Throne at the very early age of eighteen, a privy purse was voted to her, and her alone, and I now think it necessary to vote what may be consi dered necessary for the Prince, who is about to be allied to her.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive how Parliament can do anything better than adopt the proposal that has been made. As to the objection of such a sum being too large, when it is considered that the country is subject to the expense of 100,000/. per annum for Queen Adelaide, the young nobleman, Prince Albert is at least entitled to 50,000/. as consort to the Sove reign. Ido not wish to rest the claim upon a stronger ground than what i s usua ll y d one i n suc h cases , and what is the general opini on o f th e H ouse o f C om mons. lam con vince that this same course would have been pursued by the Hon. Gentle men , t h e l ate M em b er f or t h e U n i vers ity of Cam bridge, if he h a d returne d to hi s f ormer o ffi ce ; he would have proposed the same sum for Prince Albert as ss e did. I cannot believe but that the proposition will be received with due regard to the comforts of the Sovereign and the dig nity of this House. The Noble Lord who addressed the House .upon the question, stated that he possessed a strong feeling of loyalty towards her Majesty, and in support ing the amendment of the Gallant officer, made a great I display of his regard t owar d s h er M a j es ty. must give every credit to the Noble Lord, but I would wish that he did not confine his regard to the commencement of the Session, but but that he would maintain it throughout.—(Cries of " Hear, hear." The Noble Lord in making this declaration of respect for her Majesty, appears to me very inconsistent with the vote of 30,000/. he is going to support. I rather think if he sup ported the larger grant of 50,000/. as a provision for the Queen's consort, ho would have really evinced by his action that great respect for her Majesty, and render no longer doubtful the truth of those professions of extraordinary respect which he had made.—Cries of " Hear, hear, for some minutes.) I cannot forget that the Sovereign of this country has been insulted in the manner I have already mentioned, and I do not consider those extraordinary professions of loyalty and respect are made with that sincerity that they ought.—( Hear, hear. )—This is no question with regard to respect or disrespect, and I am wil ling to believe that the Hon. Gentlemen who voted for the smaller sum have done so with the sincerest notions of economy, for they have acted with perfect consistency, all through.— ( Hear.) I must, however, adhere to the original proposition. Lord ELIOT said, after the very personal observations which had been made by the Noble Lord, he appealed to that House whether any of the expressions which he had made use of had justified the attack which had been mule upon him. He therefore called upon the Noble Lord to disclaim that he (Lord E.) had been actuated by any feeling inconsistent with that of a loyal man. _ _ _ Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had always contended for the privileges of that House with the Noble Lord, hut he could not but feel the greatest indignation on th a t oc c asion, when he saw a Mi n i s t er of the Crown insinuating, but not daring to charge directly, a want of reward and loyalty towards her Majesty, by the vote which an Hon. Gentleman thought proper to give upon the question before the House.-- ( Hear, hear, hear.) If those expressions be measured, he appealed to every Member of the Committee whether those inEinuations were not calculated to excite even something more than indignation. The Noble Lord had said a vote given for the smaller sum was inconsistent with the respect which ought to be paid to the Crown. He for one re pudipted any such insinuation. He felt that respect for his Sovereign which was consistent with the utmost loyalty, but while entertaining that fe2ling of respect towards her Majesty, he should recollect that he was the representative of the people and one of the guardians of the peoples' rights—(Hear, hear, hear)—but that attachment for his Sovereign should _ . never induce him to grant one farthing more than the necessity of the case demanded, although the Noble Lord, in his capacity of adviser to the Crown, should demand it.— ( Hear, hear.) He must take the liberty of reminding him that the safety and honour of the Crown depended in a great degree upon the Ministers of the country avoiding any demand s whch the absolute necessity of the case did not warrant. The Noble Lord was pleased to rely upon the precedent of Prince George of Denmark having get a grant of 50,0001. in the life time of the Sovereign, Queen Anne ; anti in case of his surviving her 100,000/. If this be found so excellent a precedent why did not the Noble Lord follow it exactly?— (hear, hear. ) Why did he not propose a grant of 50,000/. fur Prince Albert, with a provision of 100,0001. in case of his surviving her Majesty?—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord did not find it convenient to go so far. The case of Queen's Consort is recognised as an independent situation and indepen dent of her Majesty, and that a lar , ' e family establishment should be retained. Queen Adelaide had to support a heavy estab lishment.-10,0001. per annum was recognised to support stables. The Noble Lord had given them all the arguments that he thought necessary on the present occasion. lie ( Sir J. Graham) thought the proposal of the Hon. Member for Lin coln was far more just than that of the Noble Lord. The privy purse of Queen Adelaide did not amount to 25,000/. in dependent of the stabling establishment, an establishment similar to that kept up by the Prince of Wales. They would give for the privy purse of Prince Albert 21,0001. a year, and for the establishment they proposed to assimilate it with that of the Prince of Wales by allowing 9,000/. per annum. The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had alluded to the case of the Duke of Sussex, which was brought under the consideration of that House last Session, when 21,000/. per annum was con sidered sufficient for him. What was the Duke of Cambridge's pension ? He supports a very large, expensive establi s h ment, and has a son, who is nearly of age, with 21,0001. per a nnum . It was true there was 6,0007• granted to Prince G eorge . T he Noble Lord told us that the Princess of Wales had a pension of 20,000/. ; but what had the mother of the pre sent Sovereign?-30,0001. lie thought that the question of George, Prince of Denmark, decided the question, the grant to him was an ac t of favour front Queen Anne herself, and assigned for life. In that case her Majesty merely recommended to her Parliament his succession, in ease of survivorship. She made provision for him out of her own means. It is true that in case of surviorship, whatever provision was made for Prince George of Denmark was made out of the Civil List by Queen Anne herself, who was at the time in full and entire possession of a fixed income for his life, ar.d during that life she made the assignment to Prince George. Should the dignity of high station and large emolument, viewing the subject most dispassionately, induce that House to vote away an unreasonable sum ? 'Surely 9,0001. for his establishment,and 21,000/. for his privy purse was generous and large enough. He voted against the Member for Kilkenny, but had not the slightest hesitation in supporting the motion of the Gallant Colonel. In conclusion he begged to say that he hoped it would be seen that he would not want loyalty when a critical time should arrive.—( Hear, hear.) And should his loyalty be brought to the test Hear, and cheers) something better than words might then be necessary, and that would be the time for the Noble Lord to see whether loyalty and attachment to the Sovereign did not exist on his (Sir J. Graham's) as well as on the other side of the House.—( Cheers. ) Mr. LEADER thought it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the vote he was about to give. He had voted for the 21,000/. proposed by his lion. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, not because he approved of the latter, but because he thought it better to give it than the larger sum proposed by the Government. He entirely agreed with the lion. Mem ber for Kilkenny, that. nothing at all should be demanded as a provision for Prince Albert. fie did not think that any of the precedents quoted by the Noble Lord were strictly applicable; but, even if they were so, was that House to be for ever go verned by precedent ?—( Hear, hear.) Were they not to re member that the people were in a very different state in the time of Queen Anne to what they were now—that for one man who could read and write then, there were hundreds of thousands who could do so now that for one man who considered political matters then, there were hundreds of thousands who did so now that for one man who discussed extravagant grants of the public money, there were hundreds of thousands, nay millions, who now discussed and understood them, and would condemn the vote which the House would probably come to that evening? One Noble Lord on the opposite side of the House had talked of the misery of the people as a mere ad eaptandunt argument, but he could not think that any better argument could be brought forward to those who were the guardians of the public purse, and whose duty it was to consider whether their finances were flourishing, whether their trade and commerce was in a thriving state, or whether or not there existed much misery and distress in the country.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that was the first thing they had to consider. The mere amount did not so much signify. It was not the rais ing of 50,0001. front the whole revenues of the country, but it was the moral effect that would be produced upon the people out of doors. People would say that they were econo mical for the cottage but extravagant for the palace—that they were economical for the union poor-houses, but extravagant in Honourable r ( ab .f ie 1 e their provision for Royal personages. t In that opinion he most entirely agreed, and he regretted extremely that so large a should have been proposed by the present Government. sum hear,. hear.) That could not pass by. late Chancellor Gentlemen te and particularly the . of the Excite- oppost you were in office you would have quer, by proposed 50.000/. a y lost upon There was one remark of remark would not be ° l t f ad th t e au N nt o e b d le iT l the country ; it whether Whigs or Tories were • only proved that in was lavished with power, the public money Whigs talked a greatequal extrava ganee, and although the deal of economy in opposition that it was only when they were they practised Wi sa:ing " If ear."—(llear, cheers.) ten they. got upon the Trea suryit.—(Laughter, and former benches, they forgot their professions of economy, d t h em , in or d er to and they only rememberedtaunt Honourable Gentlemen opposite, with having beco me economical themselves. Mr. O'CONNELL said it was very clear that the Hon. Gentlemen, w h o voted for the smaller grant, w ere not very consistent in themselves, and he was sorry that the reasons put forward by the Honourable Member f or W estminster, were not those which Anima ted Hon. Members on th e ot h er s id e. o . He should not have trespassed on the Howe, but that the pre sent,, tim e in which he had vo t e d for the larger instead was the only instead of the smaller sum —(Cries of " Oh," from the Opposi tion benches) —and he wished to give a reason on the present occasion for voting with the lion. Baronet, the Member for the niversity of Ox • ford —( A laugh.) He did not think there was any great weight in precedents, except as an argument that from time to time 50,000/. was considered necessary to sup port the dignity of the persons siboss-ere marri e d t o t h e Sove reign. He did not think that the Hon. Baronet opposite had at all weakened the precedent of Queen Anne, because the re venues of the State were at that time p r i nc t., all , in the ma ' nagement of the Crown. When one recollected that at that • period the entire revenues of the country did not amount to 3,000,000/., and that 1 00,000/., or more than a thirtieth of the entire sum paid by the people of Eng land was granted, they would see how strong the feeling was in favour of a large sum, and how great was the proportion it bore to the entire revenue of the country. Suppose at the time of the decease of the late Monarch that the present Queen was of that age that she had been married when th e Ci vil List came to be settled o n th e death of the Sovereign, was there a man in that House who would refuse to give the same sum, viz. 60,0001. for the King and 50,000/. for the Queen, as had been granted during the late reign ? He was not to be told that the Queen Consort had a regular establishment of her own ; and why had t not been so? because the Monarch of that country had usually been a King; and in all the instances, except in the case in which the consort of the Monarch was a female, no regular establishment was provided. There was but one in stance—that was,the case of the unfortunate Mary and Philip, who was sent to the throne, and had regal power. For these reasons he should most certainly support. the grant, and for one additional reason, that he had been instructed by his con stituents to do so.—( Cries of " Oh.") Let them talk as they pleased about their loyalty, but give him the people who were ready to support the Monarch in every respect. Under cir cumstances the most unfavourable, they had instructed him to support the grant, because the people telt that if Toryism reigned at Court there would be no opposition to the present grant.—(Loud cheers. ) Mr. HAMILTON briefly supported the amendment. After a few words from Mr. J. JoslFs, strangers were or dered to withdraw, but no division took place. On our return to the Gallery, we found Sir R. PEEL on his legs. 'He said he should never shrink from vindicating a vote which might be considered unjustly a subject of popularity. He would not have risen to address the House, if it had not been for the insinuation—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear") —introduced so unnecessarily, so unjustly, and so contrary to all Parliamentary rule and precedent—( Cheers) —an insinuation so unworthy, as he thought it, of the station which the Noble Lord held as a Minister of the Crown, and a leader of the House of Commons.—( Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord distinctly stated, that if it had not been for the events of last May, the present vote would never have been opposed. What right had the Noble Lord iito make such an assertion ?—(Cheers.) Supposing he ( Sir R. Peel) had said that the vote of 50,t001. was a base subserviency to the Sovereign—( Vehement Tory cheering)— would not that have been thought to have been perfectly irre gular, and perfectly unjust? Would he not have been told by the Speaker, that he had no right to assume or impute motives to any one ?—( Cheers.) This he would say, that he would be unworthy, indeed, if he permitted himself to be influenced at all by the events of last ;flay; but he would say, also, that it would be equally unworthy and cowardly, if he shrunk from the performance of his duty from the fear of such an imputation. —( Hear, hear.) It would be a false and effeminate delicacy, if he acquiesced in a vote which he thought to be wrong, be cause he feared that some Gentleman, on the opposite side, would get up and say,' You were acting from spiteful motives, you were acting from a recollection of the events of May last." He did not vote for a smaller sum on the ground taken by some Honourable Gentlemen. He did not take that course which some Honourable Gentlemen constantly resorted to, viz., of estimating how many families could be supported by it. He did not vote for it on account of any temporary distress in the country, or on account of its financial difficulties, for he believed that that great country was power ful and rich enough to make that which would be a proper allowance to the consort of the Sovereign.—(Hear.) He would introduce none of these invidious topics, but he would say, that so far from acting from any feeling of hostility or opposition to the Crown, and however he night incur temporary displeasure, he believed he would be only consulting the real and perma nent interests of the Crown, if he took care that the vote he gave was at the same time consistent with liberality to the Crown and justice to the people. He contended that the vote which he was about to give was one which every true friend of the Crown would justify, and he was a much greater friend to the Crown if he protected it from the unpopularity which must follow an extravagant vote, which could nut be defended. So much with regard to the Crown, and now with respect to the position of the House of Commons, and the position is which parties stood; and he sincerely hoped that no unworthy contest would take place between the two great political parties, as to who should show the greatest liberality. It might promote the temporary interests of one party to do so, but that sort of unworthy contest—that shrinking from the fear of incurring the displeasure of the Sovereign, would do more to ruin the character of the House of Commons than almost anything else. He would not be provoked by the example of the Noble Lord to introduce asperities. His Hon. Friend had given notice of his motion, without any communisation with him.—( Hear from Col. Sibthorp. ) He had heard the speech of the Noble Lord and he had heard the explanation of the expenses to which Prince Al bert would be subject, before he intimated or formed any opinion as to what might be sufficient. He did not then exactly under stand what was the motion of his Hon. Friend, but he would say at once, to the best of his judgment, what would be a just and liberal allowance. He thought that 30,000/. daring the life of her Majesty, by way of privy purse would be a just and liberal allowance.—(Cheers.) He thought 30,000/. in case of Prince Albert surviving her Ma jesty, and not having issue, would be a just and liberal allow ance. He thought that in case Prince Albert survived her Majesty, and that there should be an heir to the Crown, 30,0001. would be a sufficient provision.—( Hear, hear. ) But if there was a numerous progeny, and that expenses which he did not foresee arose, he for one should vote for an increase beyond 50,0001., which was becoming the dignity of the father of the Royal Family.—( Hear, he ar .) Th e Noble Lord insin ua t e d th a t the r e would be some kind of dis respect to the Crown unless he (Sir R. Peel) and others ac quiesced in his proposal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " No, no.") Suppose the Noble Lord said that he acted upon prece dent, and that he considered the precedent of a Queen consort to be strictly in point. Why had he not proposed 50,0001. during the life of the Queen and 100,0001. a year afterwards ? —( Hear, hear.) Supposing he had adopted the same course as in the case of Queen Adelaide, would he not just have as much right to say that they would be guilty of gross disrespect to the Crown if they opposed it?--( Cheers. ) He would have prece dent in his favour. The Noble Lord must therefore abandon that ground, and saythat the considerations were epee, and that they must apply as well as they could reasonable analogy to the case. The first case was that of Prince George of Den mark, and the Noble Lord could not deny that so far as the public funds were concerned no provision had been made for the Prince of Denmark. Parliament had assibaed, or the Queen possessed, certain hereditary revenues, the same in amount as those possessed by William and Mary. Parliament did not contemplate the marriage which had taken place, and made no increase, but the increase was made out of those reve nues by the Queen herself. Parliament did provide for Prince George of Denmark, and granted one hundred thousand pounds a year in case that he survived her.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House bear in mind that the 30,000/. granted now to Prince Albert to be paid to him, not only during the life of the Queen, but after her decease if he out-lived her, was more than equivalent to the 100,0001. to Prince George after Queen Anne's death. It was worth at least 200,000/, or 300,0001. Now he would take the case of Prince Leopold and the Princess Charlotte ; then the House granted 60,000/. to main tain their whole establishment, and 50,000/. was to be appro priated to Prince Leopold if he should survive the Princess ; but no one could deny that on that grant being made the gene ral voice of the people was, that in case Prince Leopold went abroad, the 50,0001. was too much. And accordingly that Prince, since he had been King of Belgium, had returned the greater part of that money back to this country. Looking, therefore, at these things, he ( Sir R. Peel) could not think the Noble Lord could call upon the House to be bound by the analogy of what had taken place in former times. Then, again, the case of 21,000/. being allowed to each of the mem brs of the Royal Family, was a proof that 30,0001. for Prince Albert was a liberal allowance. But to come to the point of King William and Queen Adelaide, his Right Hon. Friend maintained that by giving 30,0001. a-year to Prince Albert, they would substantially give the same allowance as had been given to King William and Queen Adelaide, and he (Si r Robert Peel) must confess that he considered his Right Honourable Friend's arguments undeniable. It was to be remembered that the provision for a Queen Regnant was much more applicable for her consort than the provision of a King could be for his consort.—(Hear, hear.) On all these grounds, therefore, he had come to the conclusion that 30,0001. was a perfectly sufficient allowance, and having come to that conclusion he was perfectly resolved to abide by it, notwithstanding the unjust imputations the Noble Lord oppo site had thrown out. He should disregard such considerations, and he could assure the House that he was not one who would enter into unseemly contests, and make endeavours to vie with others in liberality.—( Hear, hear.) He entertained as high a respect for the Crown as any man, but as a representative of the people he would be found to be the last man who would counsel the House to an extravagant vote.—( Cheers.) lie had no compunctions of conscience on the ground of disloyalty.— ( Hear, hear.) He had never made the concurrence of political sentiments on the part of the Sovereign the condi tion of his loyalty.—( Cheers.) He had never been otherwise than loyal and respectful towards the Queen ; he had never said one word of disrespect towards the Crown or any memberof the Royal Family—( Hear)—but when he was performing that which lie believed to be his duty both to the House and to the Crown, he should think himself unworthy of the position he held as a Member of that House if he did not pursue a straight.. forward course for the fear of being attacked as disloyal, and having accusations made against him which were utterly un founded.—( Hear. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to make a few observations in explanation. In answer to what had been stated with respect to the privy purse of her Majesty and Prince Albert being the same as that allowed to the late King and Queen, if Prince Albert was allowed 30,000/. he begged the House to recollect that it was one time in contemplation to take away the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and, in case of that deduction being made, it was intended to have added 10,0001. to the privy purse as an equivalent ; but that deduction not being made, the amendment was abandoned. But her present Majesty was in a very different position ; she had given up her hereditary possessions, and the result was, that her Majesty, as respected her Civil List, was in a very different situation toiler predecessors, King William and Queen Adelaide. Mr. VILLIERS had listened with great attention to the arguments in favour of the vote now proposed, and he must confess, after such attention, that he could see no reason what ever for the vote. He had voted for the motion that had been proposed by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, but between the vote proposed by the Government and that proposed by the Gallant Colonel opposite, he must confess he could see co distinction.—( Great laughter.) There was no distinction be tween them in principle, as they were both arbitrary.—( Hear, hear.) As he understood the Gallant Colonel, he proposed 30,000/. a year now, 50,000/. a year in case the Prince sur vived the Queen, and so on, and the vote of the Government was for the 50,000/. now, without any increase. Now, both these he held to be excessive, and he therefore could see no distinction between them.—( Hear, hear.) They all knew, as it affected the country at large, there could be no difference which of the sums was carried, but he could not conceive that either of them were necessary. He had voted for the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, because he believed that some amount was necessary, and that that was the smallest suns they could well grant.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Committee then divided, and the numbers were— For the original motion ~.. 158 Against Majority against it - 104 PRIVILEGE. file SPEAKER then, addressing the House, said—The Sergeant-at Arms is desirous of making a communication to the House. The SP-MEANT-AT ARMS, at the bar, then said—l have to ac quaint the House, that in conformity with the orders of this House, 1 attended this day in the Court of Queen's Bench, to make a re turn to the writ of habeas corpus, for bringing up the bodies of William Evans and John Wheelton, Esers., and that the Court came to the decision that they were not to be taken from my custody ; and I accordingly returned them to their confinement. I hold in my hand the return that I made to the Court. Is it the pleasure of the House that I bring it up ?. The SPEAKER—PIease to bring the return to the table. The return was then read by the Clerk. It simply set forth the warrant of the Speaker, which merely specified that the Sheriffs had been committed for having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and that he (the Ser geant-at-Arms) held their bodies by virtue of that warrant. Mr. DARBY said he thought the present the proper time to give notice that he should move, on Wednesday next, that the Sheriff of London, and the Sheriff of Middlesex, s h ou ld be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. CORN IMPORTATION ACT. The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Corn Importation Act, Mr. Bernal in the chair. Mr. LABOUCHERE rose, but from the noise occasioned by Members leaving the House, was inaudible in the Gal lery. We understood him to say that he asked leave to bring in a Bill to place the impart ation of flour into Ireland i g n on laws, the same footing as it was now intr oduced, u nder Vie exist into England. Mr. HUTTON said the great variatio n b etween the laws of England and Irelandwas m ade the g round of complaint i n Ireland, and that several persons , favourable to a repeal of thetttiieo isiaJ ion,made v and use of it as an argument f or that mea sure. The le enact ments with respect to the two counties w as different, I while American flour could be imported into England, the same advantage vias withbolden from Ireland. He should, therefore, second the tootion Colonel CONOLLY said it was the first time he had heard the Repeal of the Union made use of to deprive the agri cultural interest of Ireland of the protection it was entitled to. The President of the Board of Trade had stated the mea sure was loudly called for, but the harvest, though injured in some places, was, in many districts, abundant, though the agri cultural districts in Ireland were much agitated. That class had just as much right to be protected as any other. He was taken quite by surprise. The House should look whether the measure would not injure that interest, and if it would they were bound to resist it. Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Hon. Gentleman did not ap pear to u• derstand the nature of the Bill. Its sole object was to put Ireland on the same footing in this respect as England, and the Irish agriculturist would have that protection which had always been considered sufficient to the English agricultu rist. He had reason to believe from a communication made to him there was a strong feeling pervading various parts of the community in Ireland of the injustice and inexpediency of the difference in the law of the two countries, and it was in itself so absurd, that if the particular circumstances of the ease did not press attention to it, it ought on general ;rounds to be adopted. Col. CONOLLY observed—The Right Hon. Gentleman had received his information from one quarter only, namely, the millers.—( Laughter. ) Mr. E. TENNENT said the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade was in error. The Bill giving protection was not for the protection of mills, but for the purpose of extend ing the number of mills, as there were very few in existence at the time it was granted. They never would have been built to such an extent, unless those engaged in them had fully ex pected to enjoy the right of grinding all Irish grown produce. Were they prepared to grant compensation ? lie could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman that the Bill would meet with the opposition of the agricultural interest of Ireland. It would meet with opposition in that House, and:certainly in another.— (" Oh, oh.") Mr. O'CONNELL said, it was certainly a miller's question, and no other. The only object of the Bill was to put the Corn-laws in Ireland upon the same footing as they stood in England. He could assure the Hon. Member for Belfast that the number of flour mills were not increasing; on the contrary, the oat meal mills were. The flour of the last year was nearly useless, and totally unwholesome.---( Hear, hear.) All they wanted was, to be allowed to get some good flour to mix with it. —k Hear, hear, hear.) There was no meddling with the Corn-laws in the Bill, as the flour imported was to be subjected to the same duty as it was subject to in England. _ Col. ICERCEVAL said the Bill appeared to be supported wholly by the Hon. Members for Dublin, which would not tend to gain it support from the agriculturists of Ire land. Why did not the Hon. and Learned Member, the Vice- President of the Board of Trade, who was a county Member, and in the secrets of the Board of Trade, state his opinion upon the subject. Mr. J. O'BRIEN was an agriculturist, and in favour of protection to that class, but he was much in favour of assimi lating the laws of the two countries, and he thought the pro position a good one. The resolution was then agreed to, and ordered to be re ported to-morrow. METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT. Sir M. WOOD rose to move for the appointment of a Com mittee to consider the reports of Committees of 1837, 1838, and 1839 respecting the improvement of the metropolis, and any other plans that might be offered : To consider the pro priety of purchasing the interest of the proprietors of Waterloo and Southwark bridges for the purpose of throwing them open to the public : And to consider the expediency of surveying the Thames from Staines-bridge to Gravesend for the purpose of embanking it. Sir R. INGLIS said the motion as it stood upon the paper was a very harmless one, viz. the appointment of a Committee, but the motion made by the Hon. Baronet was so very exten sive that it could not pass as a matter of course. Improvements had been ordered by former Committees, but the question was whether there was money enough to carry out even one of them ; yet the Hon. Baronet wanted to go into a survey of ns less than 60 miles of embankment at an enormous cost. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had been as much taken by surprise as the Right Honourable Baronet. He thought he was going to move for the renewal of the Improve ment Committee, in which he would have had his sup port. He would suggest that the Hon. Baronet withdraw his present motion, and confine himself to the noti ce on the Paper. • Mr. HERRIES hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow such a motion to pass with his consent, without providing the money. Sic R. PEEL said the Hon. Baronet was proposing an im mense undertaking that required deep consideration. At the same time he was perfectly aware that the erection of the new Houses of Parliament had very greatly impeded the navigation of the River, and it was a subject well worthy of the considera tion of the Government. The Worthy and Hon. Alderman did not advance the cause he had so much at heart by advo cating such a large proposition. Mr. BELL had had some experience in these Committees, and as his constituents were rather interested in the matter, he wished to ask the Hon. Baronet whether he intended to pro pose any new taz upon coals.---(A laugh.) Sir M. WOOD said the proposition he had made need not prove so startling to Hon. Gentlemen if they remembered that when they went into the Committee for the Improvement of St. Giles and other places they did not know that he could provide a shilling, yet he provided a sum of 300,0001. He (Sir M. Wood) considered the throwing open of those two bridges of great importance. Some few years ago the Corporation set an inquiry on foot to ascertain what expense it had been at in promoting the public improvements of the Metropolis, and the report stated that those improvements had been effected without the cost of one penny to them. If a Committee were now granted him (Sir M. Wood) he could carry on all those improvements. If the House wished for his motion to be printed and stand over for a few days he had no objection. Major WOOD said that in order that the question be left open and not prejudiced, he should move an alteration of the motion, to the effect that instead of Southwark and Water loo Bridges the words " certain Bridges on the River Thames" be inserted. Mr. H OWES said he thought the Improvement Committee had acted with extreme partiality. All their improvements had been devoted to the north side of the River ; and although his constituents on the south side were required to pay their quota of expenses, they received none of the beneht, which they considered a great hardship. The Parliamentary returns would show the s• ate of disease in his district, which, from its confined and crowded state, was deplorable. He hoped, there fore, that they would consider the justice of a more equal application of the funds.—The motion was then ordered to be printed. RAILWAYS. Mr. LABOIJCHERE then moved the following resolution —" That it is the opinion of the House that the following clause be inserted in all the Railroad Bills that may pass through Par liament during the present Session :—' And ho it further en acted, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or con strued to exempt the Railway by this Act, or the said herein before recited Acts, authorized to be made, from the provisions of any general Act !elating to Railways which may pass during the present or any future Session of Parliament.' And that the Committee on the Bill do report specially to the House that this order has been complied with." MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). Lord MORPETFI, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Regulation of Municipal Corporationa in Ireland, said that the question, after all, was now agi eed on both sides to be one not of principle, but of detail. At the close of the last Session the Bill had been sent back to them from the Lords with certain amendments, and those amendments seemed to be the same that had in previous years occasioned its rejection. It being the general wish of the supporters of the Government and of the majority of the people of Ireland, that such a Bill should be introduced, and thus bring the question at last to an amicable adjustment, the Go vernment had determined as early as possible to bring forward a measure that would secure the acquiescence of Parliament. For that purpose they had endeavoured to frame a Bill with all fair dealing and justice, which would be similar to that sent down by the Peers. He would then detail the permanent features of the Bill. The schedules of the Bill with regard to the different corporate powers of Ireland would be the same as those that had been agreed to for the last two years. The first schedule contained the towns to which they proposed to extend corporate institutions immediately. The franchise they proposed to adopt for immediate use was the same as that contained in the Bill last sent down from the Lords—the rated franchise of 101. They did not deny that it was higher than they thought ought to be imposed on the Irish, but they thought that, unless they were prepared to con cede, it would be a mere mockery, as the Bill would only be strangled and choked, as its five forerunners. They proposed with those opinions, that in three vears after the establishment of a rate for the relief of the poor, the municipal franchise should be similar to that of England.—( Hear.) With respect to cor porate towns, and those on which it was proposed to confer the municipal franchise, they proposed that those bodies which enjoyed property to the amount of 100/. were to remain as con constituted by the Act 9 Geo. IV. ; of those bodies whose pro perty did not amount to 100;., it was proposed to transfer the management of them to the Poor-law Guardians. They did not propose to incorporate the Grand Jury clauses into the Bill. but to reserve them for a second consideration. With respect to the compensation of the present corporate officers, the Government proposed to deal w;th them as had been done in the case of the English Municipal Bill. There was some amendment founded on that subject by the House of Lords, which they could not sanction. That was all he felt it incumbent on hint to state with respect to the particular provisions of the present Bill. He should express a hope that the Bill would now pass, after the discussions which had taken place with regard to it in both Houses. The Bill he purposed to introduce would effect a great improvement, he believed, in the present corporations, and would correct their worst abuses. He should be sorry that a single word should fall from him which could excite any discord, or which could prolong the chance of bringing the matter to a friendly issue. The contest of parties on the subject had been carried on long enough. He hoped they would now agree in abandoning their former grounds of quarrel, and that they would join their efforts to promote some measure of prac tical improvement, and to carry into effect an indisputable ob ject of national welfare, Sergeant JACKSON did net rise to oppose the motion of the Noble Lord, but to express his satisfaction at his having abandoned what was most objectionable in the Bill which Go vernment had introduced last Session. He was glad to find that Government had received some amendments proposed by th- House of Lords, to which they had formerly objected; he was also happy to find that the Noble Lord had re linquished for the present the new qualifications con tained in the Bill of last year. He should say, how ever, that, for his part, he would have wished that an end should have been put altogether to Municipal Corporations in Ireland ; and lie believed that the people of that country felt no anxiety for such institutions. There was a petition re spectably signed to that effect, from a large portion of the in ' habitants of Galway ; and he would ask what reason there could be for forcing corporations on people who d i d not w i s h for them ? The Hon. Member f or Belfast had presented a pe tition of a similar nature, f :om certain inhabitants of that in fluential Ile had hi mse l f received a communication fromm hadihtbae ne b e en si gned town. n ssi t g le ns m iee( a ie n ti , n h t o tolN:e. stated nt_o"N., t n, h h oicatfh aHon. petition to the same e ff ec t Gentlemen opp os it e Clonmel, and signed by men of all religious and political opinions. It appeared that the strongest feeling existed that no corporate institutions should be introduced there. He (Sergeant Jackson) had reason to think that many parts of England would be glad to get rid of their municipal institutions ; and it was felt that they produced a good deal of ill-blood. He had not, however, risen for the purpose of opposing the motion of the Noble Lord, and he should not wish to offer a factious opposition to any measure whatever. Mr. REDDINGTON wished to set the Learned sergeant right on one point. When the inhabitants of Galway yeti filmed against Municipal Corporations, they had merely done so as regarded the imperfect measure which it was proposed to pass at the time ' which they felt they had reason to complain of. Mr. LITTON had always wished for justice and a fair reform of the corporations of Ireland, because he thought such a measure would add to the stability and permanence of order in that country. He wished, however, for corporations based on principles of general utility. If it was intended to make these bodies exclusively Roman Catholic, he would tell the Noble Lord that the Bill should have his most strenuous opposition. lf, on the other hand, the measure was brought forward and carried out on fair and impartial principles, it should have his support. Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL supported the principle of EVENING HOITIOS• s t 7N AT , I the Bill. He tru s t e d that the Noble Lord, having offered a fair compromise to the Honou ra bl e M em bers opposite ! would ; l succeed in carrying out that principle of popular election ands popular control, which was so much required in the naunicipi A • rz corporations of Ireland. , , 7 , After a few words from Mr. E. TENNENT, Sir R. INGLIS trusted that the Corporations of Ireland would always be found the stronghold of the Church. Mr. D. ROCHE believed the Bill would be for the benefit of all classes. Sir R. PEEL hoped that the present question might be now' brought to an amicable and satisfactory conclusion. He thought where towns were unwilling to receive Corporations that Go vernment should not press them upon them. He thought the amplest time ought to be given for the consideration of the Bill. He would give no pledge as to the course he should pur sue, except that he should strictly abide by the declaration be had already made. After a few observations from Mr. PIGOT, leave was given to bring in the Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the better regulation of Municipal Corpora tions in Royal Burghs in Scotland. Sir G. CLERK thought these Corporations might better be done away with in the smaller and poorer Burghs, as had been suggested by a Royal Commission. The LORD ADVOCATE would attend to the suggestion. Sir J. GRA HAAI wished to know if it was the intention of the Learned Lord to deal with the boundaries, or affect the qualifications, of the Municipal Corporations of Edinburgh and Glasgow. The LORD ADVOCATE said a Bill was to be brought in upon that subject.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill. PRINCE LEOPOLD. Captain POLHILL moved for a return of all monies re ceived by Prince Leopold from this country since 1818. The House Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S—YESTERDA Y . For nearly the whole of the afternoon Th eon was a d ea d letter in the market, nor would it hare been easy to make a quotation against him even at the close, had not an o ff er to l ay 15 to 1 against him, and the same against the Angelica colt, in one bet, relieved us from the difficulty; this bet was taken eagerly.twice, and thus we are constrained to put them down as even favourites ; it shouldbe added,however, that 15 to 1 had pre viously been taken about Angelica colt, and several attempts made on the part of the takers to go on at the same price, and to back him against Theon. Launcelot rose to 16 to 1 with plenty of friends; ditto Confederate, who was backed at the opening at 18 to 1 in hundreds ; these odds were laid to the same amount against Bokhara, and a point above his former quotation offered against Muley Ishmael. Ottoman was backed rather freely at 24 to 1 ; and Wardan, first at 26 to 1 (taken in good quarters), and subsequently at 28 to 1 ; the same odds were accepted three •r four times about Gambia. Monops was backed freely at a fraction above 40 to 1, and notwithstanding the blemish indicated by hie name, has a strongish party. The Oaks was confined to Japonica, and did not possess the slightest interest. DERBY. 15 to I agst Duke of Cleveland's Theon—taken 15 to 1 agst Lord Orford's Angelica colt—taken 16 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Launcelot 16 to 1 agst Mr. Houldsworth's Confederate 18 to 1 agst Sir G. Heathcote's Bokhara—taken 19 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Muley Ishmael 24 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's Ottoman—taken 25 to 1 agst Mr. Robinson's St. Andrew 28 to 1 agst Mr. Wreford's Wardan—taken 28 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Gambia—taken 30 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's Grey Aliken—taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. Trenn's Fitzroy—taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. Ford's Chameau -2000 to 45 agst Capt. Gardnor's Monops—taken 1000 to 20 agst Lord Lichfield's Defendant--taken 8 to 1 agst Muley Ishmael and Angelica colt—taken 1000 to 800 on Angelica c agst Confederate—taken 600 to 500 on Wardan agst Grey Mi!ton—taken 500 to 400 on Angelica c agst Muley Ishmael—taken 500 even Monops agst Chameau—taken 350 to 200 on Theon agst Wardan THE OAKS. 4 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's Crucifix 7 to 1 agst Mr. Fowler's Lalla Rookh 25 to 1 Fnst Mr. Westenra's Welfare 30 to 1 agst Mr. A. Smith's Japonica—taken MANCHESTER RACES, 1840. FIRST DAY.—A Free Handicap of 10 sovs. each, with 30 added, for 4-yr-olds ; one mile and a quarter. Acceptances. to be declared on or before the 24 of march. %~ = ~i ~~ 1V..1.1% 1 , -; %l Charles the Twelfth, 9st elb—Hetman Platoff. Ost 31b— Deception, Bst 121b—Commodore, Bst 101b—The Provost, Bst 81b—Kremlin, Bst 71b—The Lord Mayor, Bst 61b—The Dey of Algiers, Bst 31b—Sleight of Hand, Bst 31b—Epidaurus, Bst 31b-111alvolio, Bst 21b—Tubalcain, Bst 21b—Lightfoot, Bst Profligate, ist 121 h Quid, ist 121 b Tamburini, 7st 101b—Mickleton Maid, 7st 101 b—La Sage Femme, 7st 101b—Fitz Ambo, 7st 101b—Antigua, 7st 91b—Dolphin, 7st 91b—Bolus, 7st 91b—The Dean, 7st 91b—Shadow, 7st 91b The Quack. 7st 81b—Sampson, 7st 71b—Cripple, 7st 71b— Fame, 7st 71b—Apothecary, 7st 61b—Imogene, 7st 61b—Velo city, 7st 61b—Margaret, 7st 51b—The Recorder, 7st 41b— Petty Larceny, 7st 41b—Springfield, 7st 41b—Charley, 7st 31b —Darioletta filly, 7st 31b—Eassingwold, 7st 31b—Fair Louisa, 7st 31b—Roscius, 7st 21b—Muckle Fun, 7st 21b —Medea,7st, Zb —Lady Abbess, 7st 21b—Doctor Grainger, Ist 21b— Sir Mark, 7st 2 lb—Mr. Shaftoe's colt, Ist 2 1b--Memento, ist 21b—Uriab, 7st—Lillie, ist--Lepreuchaun, 7st--Zoroaster, 7st—Blue Pill, 7st—Messmate, 7st—Tivy, 7st--Cleanthes, 7st—Juvenile 7st—Fisher Lass colt, 7st— Viola, 7st--The Peet, 7st— Charlatan, 7st—Clem-o'-the-Cleugh, 7st—Neptune, 7st,-Lady Fractious colt, est 121b—Preamides, est 121b—Chantilly, Est 121 b—colt by Priam (h b), Est 121b—Abraham Cowley, Est 121b—Orelia, 6st 121b—Wings, 6st 121b—Speed, est 101 b— , Alexandrina, est 101b—Arrarat, est 101b—Fitzwilliarn, Est 101 b —Eliza, est 101b—Ferneley, Est 101b--Flaranthe filly, 6st 91b —Elegance, est 91b—Prescriptien, Est 91b—Peter Parley, 6st 91b—Frantic, Est 91b—Gambolet, Est 91b—Anna Maria, 6st • 81b—Bumblekite, Est 81b—The Nile, Get Sib — Auckland, est 81b—Colchicum, 6st 81b—Concordia,Gst Sib—Susan, 6st 71b— Miss Foote, Gst 71b—Tintoretta filly, fist 61b—Marmaduke, Est 61b—Armelle, 6st 41b—and Maid of Wigan, 6st 41b. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,—For the very handsome manner in which you have noticed my school in this day's Sun, accept my heartfelt, thanks. My obligation to you is le deeper, as your: kindness comes perfectly unexpected ; and is the hand somer, as it was unasked for, either directly or indirectly. I endeavour to do my duty conscientiously, but fear that I am unworthy of your high commendations. You are, Sir, at liberty to insert or not this letter of thanks. I only wish the public to have a right impression as to your spontaneous liberality. I am, Sir, Your obliged and grateful Servant, Cleveland House, E. H. DAY. Brixton Hill, Jan. 27, 1840. [We readily insert the above; but we have only spolien the truth of Mr. Day's excellent and vbry healthy school.] —ED. Sun COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen held a Court yesterday afternoon at Buckingham Palace. _ _ The Rev. James Bowstead, D.D. (late Bishop of Soder and Man), ("vas presented to her Majesty, and did homage on beiag appointed Bishop of Lichfield. The Marquis of Normanby, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Hume De partment, and the Rev. J. Vane, Deputy Clerk of the Closet in Waiting, assisted at the ceremony. The Earl of Lauderdale hail an audience of the Queen, and delivered to her 'Majesty the Ensigns of the most ancient Order of the Thistle, worn by the late Earl of Lauderdale. Her Majesty was attendedby Lord Lilford, Lord in Waiting, Sir Frederick Stovin, Groom in Waiting, and Colonel Buck ley, Equerry in Waiting. The Marquis of Normanby and Viscount Melbourne had au diences yesterday of the Queen. Her Majesty, attended by the lion. Miss Cocks, Hon. Miss Cavendish, Baroness Lehzen, Lord Lilford, Colonel Buckley, and Sir F. Stovin, took equestrian exercise yesterday, in the Riding School, near Buckingham Palace. The Princess Aug usta.-the Duke of Cambridge, and Prinee George of Cambridge visited her Majesty the Queen Dowager yesterday, at Marlborough House. The Duchess and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge visited the Duchess of Kent yesterday, at Buckingham Palace. The Princess Augusta and the Duke of Cambridge visited the Duchess of Gloocester yesterday, at Gloucester House. Sir Martyn Chapman, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Mr. M'Tag gart, had interviews yesterday with Viscount. Melbourne, at his official residence in Downing-street. Mr. O'Connell and a Deputation from the Grand Canal Company of Ireland, had an intervie a with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, in Downing-street. The Commander of the Forces, the Master-General of the Ordnance, and Lord Fitzroy Somerset had an interview will' Lord John Russell yesterday. Sir 11. Macleod had also an in terview with his Lordship at the Colonial Office. The Earl of Burlington, Mr. Leader, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Dundas had interviews with the Marquis of Norrnanby yesterday at the Home Office. Despatches from Sir Charles Metcalf, Governor of Jamaica and from the Governor of Malta, were received yesterday at the Colonial Office. Mr. C. P. Villiers did Lot vote for the 50,0007.' as asserted in the Tory Papers. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cussex's birth day was celebrated last evening by the tradesmen of the Royal Duke dining together at the King's Arms Tavern, Kensington. Mr. Brameld, of the Rockingham china warehouse, Piccadilly. in the chair. Many loyal and patriotic toasts were given aid responded to in the course of the evening. Earl Poulett has taken a mansion, in Clarges street, for the season. The Hon. Ralph Abercromby, who has for some time past been the British Mi n i s t er a t F ran kf or t, i s t o siteeetql the Hon. E. Fox at the Sardinian Court. The Hon. Gentle man will not leave for Turin until March. A sumptuous entertainment was given on Satur day last to the Hon. Spencer Cowper, who is on the eve of departure to enter upon his duties of Secretary of Legation at Florence, by the undermentioned friends and admirers of the worth diplomatist, at the Clarendon Hotel :—Lords Tavistock Shelburne, Leveson, and Fred. Gordon : Hon. C. Gore, J. Ponsonisy, J. Howard, and Byng ; Ch. Standish, Esq., M.P.. and Major Stanley, of Hooton. The Duke of Buckingham has rejoined the Duchess at Stowe, where a select party assemble to-day to meet their Royal Highnesses the Duke of Cambridge and Prince George, who honour the Noble Duke and Duchess with their company for a few days. Lord and Lady Francis Egerton, with Lady Charlotte Greville, Viscount Emlyn, and their family, were still at Rome, when the last letters were received, all in good health. No time is fixed for the return to this country of his Lordship. The Countess Cadogan and the Ladies Augusta and Honoria Cadogan, who have been passing the :autumn at Paris, intend to leave that capital to-morrow for London. Earl Cadogan will continue at Bath some time longer. Viscount Maidstone, Sir John Mordaunt, Bart., M.P., Sir Charles Douglas, Bart., M.P., Mr. Hamilton, M.P., Colonel Hugh Blithe, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Hon. A'Court Holmes, and several other Conservative Members. who went eut of town in the middle of the past week, were to have returned last evening and to-day, to be at the division •n Sir John Yarde Buller's motion. The Earl and Countess of Cawdor have a din ner party, an Thursday evening, in South Audley-street. Lord Dinorhen is expected at Bute House on the sth of February, from Kinmel Park, for the season. The Marquis and Marchioness of Tweeddale , and the Ladies Hay, have arrived in Belgrave•square, f rom Yester House, Haddingtonshire, for the season. Loid George Lennox, M.P., has returned tt town from Bognor. ,;,~. z