The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-04 00:00:00

' that whenever the "Merilbers of- that notlae were
hosen by the people, such a proposition as that made by
'he Chancellor of the Exchequer would never again be
heard of. The Hon. Member concluded by proposing as
in amendment, that 5,000!. per annum in place of
10,0001. per annum, should be voted.
Sir F. BURDETT thought the proposition neither ion_
moderate nor extravagant, and considered that a penny-.
%vise, unbecoming conduct unpalatable to the public,
which did not make independent and honourable provision
for the heir presumptive to the throne,with due regard to the
rank of her Royal Highness.
Sir R. PEEL concurred with the Hon. Barunet in all he
'tad stated. The principle of making an independent
urovision for the Princess Victoria was perfectly just, and
the provision proposed by the Noble Lord was liberal and
inst. Many individuals were little aware of the claims
'nude on the liberality of those placed in high situations, and
in voting this money he considered it would be directing
it into a channel which, he did not speak unadvisedly when
''e said it, would benefit the public at large. The hospitality
which she exercised, which was not more than that de-
cent hospitality which persons much inferior in rank
were enabled io exercise, was not a mere dead-weight, hut
great stimulus to society. He would support the propo-
s:tion of the Noble Lord, rather than the amendment of
Mr. Hunt.
Col. DAVIES concurred most heartily in the motion.
Mr. H. HUGHES trusted that the Hon. Member for
Preston would withdraw his motion.
Sir M W. RIDLEY suggested the propriety of
.nuking some alteration in the name of her _Royal
Highness. He could see no difficulty in having that
name altered from Victoria to Elizabeth.
Mr. 0 CONNELL approved of the grant.
Sir R. INGLIS also supported it.
Lord ALTHORP observed, in answer to the com-
plaints of the Hon. Member for Preston, of his having
brought on this subject so early in the evening, that lie h td
made the proposition as nearly at the time be said he
would do as possible. After the manner in which the
proposition kid • been receive' by every quarter of
the House, with the exception of the Hon. Member
for Preston, lie felt no doubt of its being acceded to.
With respect to the proposition for altering the name of
the Princess, he thought it mattered very little what
was the name of the sovereign of this country,
and he had no doubt that the name of Victoria would go
down to posterity with similar honours to those which
surrounded the name which the Hon. Member had re-
ferred to.

Mr. HUNT did not think that if his Majesty's Minis-
ters had proposed double the sum they now proposed that
it would have been opposed by his (the Opposition) side
of the House. His feelings were as good towar.!k
the Royal Family as any man in the country, but 1.).
thought it was a want of proper feeling and deeen4 to
call upon the poor weavers of Lancashire, wh'.) had
no clothes to their back,, to give their mite towr.rds
grant. He thought that his proposition was quite sufficient
for her Royal Highness, and he felt that he was but doing
justice to his country by pressing the amendment.
Mr. W. TAYLOR considered the amen jment of the
Hon. Member for Preston an invidious our,
Mr. PROTHEROE felt this measure ',could tneet with
the approbation of his constituents, and, he should t'oerer
fore vote for
The House then divided, and there appeared for, the
amendment, (the tellers not being tounted,) not a Singe
vote ; for the original motion 2'.!3.
The original resolution wre: then agreed to,
On our return to the ;allery we found,
Mr. WYNN warrliy- protesting agaiost the conduit
ot-
the Serjeant-at-Altris, who, although servant of the
House, had vielently prevented him, a Member from en-
tering the lionse. ,

Lord ALTHORP thought that a complaint of such
nature could be made only when the Speaker was in ,the
Chair, .
w hllofler.
HWo N ause, th se isd h u
bt
jeact as h t
cotul
di s
properly
ralyCobentm.broi tegehotf
fore it. • he
,
A MEMBER, asho-e name we could. not ascertain, 4:1••• pressed his conviction that the Seijcant-at-Arms woull not
have intentionally shut the door of the House on the Right
Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BERNAL (the Chairman of the Crzmnittee) said.
he always understood that when a division, Was imlled for:,
it was the duty of the Set3eant or Et•.,puty-Serjeant-at,
Aims to close the door of the House. It his (Mr. Bernal's)
eyes did not deceive him, that duty was corr. ttly per-
firmed in the present instance. As to any of her faet9,
they would more properly be brought under tit conside-
ration of the House itself than of the Comtnitteei.
Mr. WYNN wished to know how the door •
*Kr
'shut when a Member was half in and half imr: of the
House ? Had any apology been made he -An.. leave
mentioned the Occurrence:
thati‘irpoCnAtLheVsEATeaonltt.saetr_vAetrimsco shut the door .
:e had heari I repeated
The conversation here dr,pped
; the 11°Ilseroersruumed
acnadlsitluie report was order„ to tee brought up to ix . w.
On Lord A.L NETHERL ANDS.
.THORP'S moving that the House resolve
itself ink!, a Committee of the whole House on th t Reform
Bill,

ton! ELIOT said, he rose to put a ques'zion to the
Noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affair', which he
would have asked in the Committee of Sup ply on Alon-
day, had the House met on that day. Tli.e Noble Lord
prefaced his question by a few observatict its which were
not very distinctly audible in the gallery. We understood
the Noble Lord to plead, in extenuation 'if his trespassing
upon the House on this occasion, the resp.gt and esteem
which he,had had various oprortunitiet '3f observing ex-.
isted towards the English in Holland anti B Igium.
coercive measures which bad been r(arted to, and by
which all that had been established by/the Corkress of Vi,
enna had been destroyed, had prod, iced a very injurious effect in that respect. He did not 'know whether or not
the Noble Lord was aware of it. ; hut theee was a cry
from one end of Holland to the ether against what was
considered as an act not only of great injustice, but of
great hostility on the part of t its. country. As to the for,
tresses in the Netherlands whi,cia it had beer, agreed by Coe
Allied Powers to raze, the inhabitants of the conntry
considered them as much zreir own as the groaud ON
which they were built, The questi.in Ire had to ask he
was —"
would pult in nearly the Noble Lvitl's own words, and it
s thero any oktection to 'giving the other acts and
document: the same rmhlicity as, the protocol ?"
Lord PALMERSTON, a;iter observing how incon-
venient it would he to enter into any discussion on Foreign
Affairs at that ISon4 and impede the progress of the Refomi
Bill, said /19 would content himself with stating, in an-.
sever the Not.le Lori., that he did see great and material
objections to giving to the other documents the same pub-
licity
it, to the protocol in question. He could ,tot pos-
sibly at present eonsent to lay before the House
ot,o r
documents excepting those which had been trAd, public.
Lord ELIOT asked why it was that publicity should
not be given to those documents as well as to the protocol ?
Lord PALMEDSTON replied, ,diat the protocol had
been published in consequence of die allusion which
‘hatl
been made to it in the speech the King of the Fteneh,
and which rendered it nee
c-,saary that the matter should
t 40
of
be fairly
theiY ex
p
objectl
a
i
n e
wd
hih .
By
tl cn
vaitei(:sn' mightthe
b eotehieuri rpealy-
pmarred.

Mr. (VCONNEIL protested against the eulogy pro-
niinued by the J':( ohle Lord upon the King of Holland,
and thought tIA Belgians were justified in revolting against
a grinding despotism.

BUSIY,P.SS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord -4.L.P.10RP gave notice that, under all the cir-
c44"44,-"Z3 of the ease, he would on Friday next move that
nouse should sit on Saturday next, as it had upon the
preceding Saturday.

REFORM BILL.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the
whole House upon tbis Bill.
The first question was, that Greenwich, including the
parishes of Greenwich, St. Nicholas and St. Paul, Dept-
ford, and Woolwich, Kent, form part of schedule C.
Sir R. PEEL said, the question was that Greenwich,
Deptford, and Woolwich should acquire the right of send-
ing two Members to Parliament. He thought the,,e
places ought not to acquire that righ►. In considering
the matter, he would cautiously abstain from entering into
observations respecting the principle of the Bill, reserving,
to himself the full right of speaking upon it when the re •
port was brought up, and on the third reading. In this
stage of the proceedings, be thought it would be more
convenient to assume that what had heretofore been done,
bad been done well, and justly, and rightly. Conceding
this, therefore, for the present, he begged to state that he
saw no peculiarity which would entitle these places to re-
turn Members to Parliament. The Noble Lord could not
surely rely upon the fact that Greenwich had formerly re-
turned Members to Parliament. He set the prescription
right. and brought in the first place ; and secondly, there
were a number of places which he did not propose to en-
franchise, and which had in former times, like Greenwich,

redly powased was founded popula-
enjoyed the right of representation; and thirdly, there was
ersicd ed a protection.aood oae T, he
as
no reason why the claim of Greenwich should be extended
to the other places set forth in the proposition. In the
next place, he was not aware that there was any trade car
n iFu ;oc iniildna
hilt
iehesee
y whichcould scarce yhe .considered
er