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

(JAN:: OF apop HOPE

Mr. HUME rose to present a petition from Mr. Carnell,
;who bad been banished from the Cape of Good Hope. :The
allegations in the petition were verified by affidavit. The Pe-
titioner stated that he became acquainted with . a Mr.:4l-
- a Notary of "the Cape of Good, Hope, as a witness.in'
private cause. :The said Mr Edwards was afterwards sen-
tenced to . seven years transportation fig writing a letter :to
Lord C. Somerset, the Governin ; and the treatment o 1 whiCh
the petitioner complained was for being accused of
"to
in
Mr- Edwards' escape. Ile( Mr. Hume) was induced to present
the petition now, in consequence of two years having elapsed
since a Commission was aprinted_to. investigate the affairs of
that Colony, and no report laving yet been received. The Pe_
titioner declared, that in the escape of. Mr. Edwards he had
taken no part, nor was that escape meditated before hand
,by
Mr. Edwards himself. He also stated that the Governor Ogle
Cape of Good Hope had written. privately to the Governor of
New South Wales,reconimending that Mr. Edwards Slintild be
punished there with hard labour, and that the knowledge of this
circumstance when he obtained it, induced that Gentleman to
endeavour to escape. The petitioner complained that when ar-
rested he was put into a cell, which was hut twelve feet sqliare
and swarming with vermin, and although, according to
the Dutch law, an individnal must be tried when eight.days
in custody, that he was kept confined much longer, He was
afterwards brought before two Justices, and on the evidence
of a Hottentot girl convicted, and ,sentenced a tine of fifty
rix dollars. But Lord • Charles Somerset being . dissatisfied
with this sentence, he was again tried and condemned to ba-
nishment for five years. The lion. Member proceeded to. state
other.charges against the Governor of the Cape,. and mention-
ed that he had it on the authority of the most respectable inha-
bitants of the Colony, that they. were afraid to utter an opinion
on any act of. Government. The Honourable Member con-
cluded by pressing the prayer of the petition for an inveitiga-
tion of the case.

M
W r. .. HORTON did not propose to enter into the merits
of the complaint in the petition. The Hon. Illember,'hoWever,
said the punisliment.this individual suffered was 'ascribable to
the Governor. He (Mr. W. Horton) denied that; he
sentenced. by a Court of Justice, and- all the Government at
home could do was to inquire into the subject, and see. that
no wrong had been done. In one newspaper, since Jantiary,
11624, twenty-one inculpatory articles, had appeared relative
to the Government of the Cape of Good /lope.; but did the
Hon.. Member mean solely on ex-parte authority to condemn
.without evidence the conduct of the Commissioners who were
sent out to the Cape of Good Hope ? ThOse pniviris.sioqtrs,
from accidental causes, might have delayed their Report, but
they were amenable to the-House for their conduct ; and as they
-were in-the. Colony when this alleged act of injUslice wisi.done,
all he now wished was for the House to suspend its judgment.
The Commissioners were empowered -not only to inquire into
the.mode ,of administering justice in the Colony, but to ascer-
tain how far the Dutch law there in force-could be assimilated
to the English. law. And he must be allowed .to ottstrie„ that
with the Colonial Department it was a prinsiPal object to make
the laws of 111.. our,
.Dependencies confOrm as much as possible
, to those of the Mother Country. With respect to the pres&nt
case, and others. relative
,to the Cape of Good Hopi. ;a11.14e
wished was; that they should he fully investigated' before the
conduct of the Government was pronounced on: Be had no
Abjection to lay the Report on the case of Edward to the
noun, but he must caution against fx-pqrte statement-S.- The
Honourable Member then-read extracts front the correspon-
dence of the petitioner, requiring the . deciSion to be reversed,
and. from Lord Bathurst's answer, that there was no Report. of
his case in the Colonial Office. He was sure The Commis-
sioners would do their duty, and if-the systein- of law was de-
fective, it ought to be altered.. .
Sir M. V. RIDLEY said, 'he had received- nformation re-
specting one-of the Cortunissioners who had been in such a state
of health as entirely to unfit him mind for pursuing the inquiry;
and indeed during his illtiestehis friends in this volutti7 felt' an
alarm that soinething"inore' serious-had 'occurred than a mere
ties 'bf the ilutiel,Ofliis'otlice. If'the whole -Company
were searched for a man of the utmost assiduity, ability, and

integritynne did noiknoev of one mote qualified than Mr. Com-
missioner Riggs.
Mr. 1117111 E said, that the Government at home should insist
that whenever a-complaint of this nature was made, in which
the righti of a British subject had been violated, the Governor
should he bound to send home all the papers and documents
,connected- with the subject. If that rule were enforced, they
would hear of much fewer complaints.
Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE bore his testimony to the qua-
lifications of Mr. Biggs, whose conduct in the impury in New
South Wales had given universal satisfaction.--n Hear 1)
The Petition was then laid on the table.
LONDON UNIVERSITY.
Mr. BROUGHAM brought in his Bill for founding an
'University in or near the City of London, which was read a first
tilee, and ordered to be read a second time en Monday next.
COMBINATION. LAWS.
Mr. HUSKISSON presentedni Petition from the Artisans of
Bolton-le-Moor, respecting the Combination haws.—Referred
to the Committee.
Mr. GOULBIJRN presented a similar petition from the
Master Builders of the City olDublin.
31r. HOBHOUSE presented a petition from the Cotton-
spinners of Belfast, praying that the hours of labour in manu-
taetories should be diminished.—( Hear. 1)
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND):BILL.
Lord A. HAMILTON-moved the Order of the Day for the
third reading of the Small Debts Bill, anti then moved that it
be read a third time that day six months.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved an Amendment, that
it .be now read a third time, which was carried without a
division.
Mr. HUME proposed an additional clanie ty way of rider,
pronibiting attornies and prosecutors to hold theoffice of Justice
of the Peace, whilst they continued to practice -in their woks-
sion.—Agreed to.
The Bill was then read a third time anti passed.
SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. CANNING laid on the Table the communication be.
tween the British Commissioners and Foreign Powers, relative
to the Slave Trade.
Mr. 13ERN.AL asked a question of the Right Hon. Gentle-
men, but we could not collect it accurately ; it related to the
eenture of a foreign ship by a British vessel, which was carried
item Port-Royal.
Mr. CANNING said.he had received information on the
subject, but he could not trust his memory to enter into the
particulars of the case.
ROYAL FAMILY.
On the motion Of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the
whole House, -on the RoyarMessage relative to a provision for
the Princess Alexandria Vittoria, daughter other Royal High-
nee the Duchess of Kent, and Prince George Frederick Alex..
antler Charles Ernest Augustus, son of the Duke of Cum-
berland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
-Whenever Ministers had on former occasions brought dotrn
Messages from the Crown, recommending allowances to Mem-
bers of the Royal Family, the House had never shewn any
want of respect for those Messages, even on the very few oc-
casions where the recommendation had not been complied
with. As this feeling of respect was ohe of a permanent
kind he would not occupy their time by any general remarks,
but confine himself to a statement of the nature of his proposi-
tion: In 1818 the House was informed, by a message from the
"King, that a marriage was about to take place between his
Royal Highness the Duke or-Kent and her Royal Highness the
Princess of Leinengen. • It was. proposed, therefore, to add
6,0001. per annum to their Royal Highnesses income, and in
case of her survival an. income of 6,0001. per annum to the
Duchess. This provision was considered as a fair and liberal
one at the time, because the rospect of children was not
taken into consideration. The House, however, would per-
, ceive that such an allowance was obviously inadequate after
the birth of a Princess, to enable her Royal Highness to
educate that child with proper care, and to keep up the
state and dignity becoming her high station: It might he a
liberal provision for any one else, but a member of the Royal
Fancily was placed in a situation which prevented 6,0001. from
• going so far as in the case of private individuals. They were
exposed to calls on their feelings and their benevolence, from
winch others were free. All who held situations in public would
recognize the frequent calls made upon them, and they were
far more numerous in the case of the Royal Family. He was
authorized to say that all the Members of the Royal Family
were benevolent and charitable.—{Heat!)—They not only
contributed largely to the calls which were made upon them in
public, but also they answered other less visible, but scarcely
less numerous appeals.—(llear !)--He made these allusions
only to chew that the same income would.not go so far with the
Itoyal Family as with private persons. Since the marriage of
then Royal H ighnesses the Duke and Duchess of Kent, a (laugh-
, ter had been born, who was now six years of age. To that young
Princess a suitable education ought to be given, and though he
. would not enter closely into details of the situation of the
Poiret Family, yet he might say, that the relation of that young
Lady to the British Crown rendered her an object of peculiar
interest. He had 'pot the honour of being acquainted either
, with the young Princess or her Mother, . but from all he had
heard the Princess appeared to have been so far educated in
the manners, morals, and piety which became her condition.—
. Sne had moreover been taught to entertain a becoming sense
of her own dignity and rank. Perhaps such a proposition
should have been earlier made, but the necessity was not felt
in consequence of the aid furnished by his Royal Highness
Prince Leopold to his Royal Sister. The time had at length
*aired that the public interest required that she should be
educated out of the national purse. He could not antici-
pate the slightest objection to the proposition, that the sum
• of n9OOI. per annum should be granted for the education and
support of the Princess Alexandrine Victoria, daughter of the
• late Peke of Kent.—( Hear !)—He would now call the atten-
• tien of the Committee to the case of the young Prince, son to
the Duke of Cumberland. When his Royal Highness married
a Message was sent down by his Majesty, proposing an increase
. of 60001. per annum to'his Royal Highness's income. To this
proposition the House did not think proper to assent. He
would not re-open the grounds of the opposition ; but it was
generally urged that the marriage was an unsatisfactory one,
an& that there were objections against receiving the Princess at
Court. He did not deny the constitutionality of the objections,
he was only re-stating therm. Ins /821, a similar proposition
- sae made, when other marriages of members of the Royal Fa-
mily were about to take place. Aneadditional income was
given to those other branches, but -refused to the Duke of
Cumberland.' Still the House was unwilling to act unjustly,
. and- they made a provision of 60001. per annum in• case her
Royal Highness should survive the Duke. The objections then
, urged could not apply to the present proposition. Since 11318
a Prince had been born from that marriage, and he was now six
years of age. His relation to the throne was not 'so intimate
as that of the young Princess of Kent, but still it was an object
of great importance to provide for the careful education of every
Prince who might by possibilinnone day till the British throne.
Fur 10111 C years past the Duke • of Cumberland had resided
abroad—( Hear !)—not out of any distaste to this-country, but
because he felt he, could not reside here on the same footing
with the other members of the Royal Family. With-regard to
the young Prince, however, it was indispensable that his eau-
- cation should be had in this country—e(l-fear, hear!)—This was
necessary on the score of morality, manners, religion, and sound
constitutional principles.,—(Hear, hear !)That point-was one
on the deepest interest. He proposed the addition on the expli-
cit understanding that the young Prince was to be brought up
in Englaed. As he could not perceive anyneason 'for making
a difference between the allowances, he should also recommend
6,oool.'per annum for the education and support of the young
Prince of Cumberland. lii acceding to this proposition, lie was
sure the House would be doing nothing inconsistent with the
principle of its former proceedings, or hurtful to the interests of
the country. •
Mr. BROUGHAnnadmitted that the Chancellor of the Be-
chequer had in no way deviated from the line of his duty, nor
miscalculated the feeling of the House and the country. It
was certainly desirable to secure the due maintenance of the
dignity anti splendour of the Crown, not only by securing
a proper education and adequate support to the wearer of the
Crown, but also to the other branches of the Royal Family.—
When circumstances of an untoward nature had thrown some
branches of the Royal Family into a state of debt and de-
pendance, Parliament had come forward to their relief; and
if any thing like it were the case now, it was the duty of
Parliament to do it again. The proposition to the young
Princess was extremely liberal, but he did not mean to ob-
ject to it. With regard to the case of the Duke of Cumber-
land it was very different. The opposition in 1818 to thegrant
of an additiotiel income was not on account of the marriage
merely, because that marriage was contracted under the King's
consent, and even if it were an unsuitable marriage, that was no
reason why the parties should starve. Besides the marriage was
indirectly sanctioned three years afterwards, when-60001 a-year
was settled on the Duchess in case of survivorship. His real
• belief was that Parliament opposed the grant on the ground of
the rooted dislike entertained by the people of this country, man,
woman, and child, against the Duke of Cumberland.—( Hear 1)
The Duke of Cumberland had now an income of 419,0001. per
annum, and yet he lived abroad. He was not in an official sta-
tion like the Duke of Cambridge, nor did he live at Hanover
, or amongst the English, but in another part of Germany. The
people of this country had a right to know why he did not live
in kengland, like an English Prince. Why did he not follow
etkinexample of the Duke of York ?—That Illustrious Prince
-wan crippled with debts, even almost to the loss of respec-
tability, yet he never applied to Parliament for relief.—
He knew no reason why the Duke of Cumberland did not
dive here. What security had Parliament that lie would send
etsis son over. to this country to be educated after the grant was

made ? Trustees would be appointed to receive the money
when the young Prince should be sent over. It was
painful to be obliged—to allude is the circumstances of the
Royal Family, but it could not be avoided. He could not pass
over the fact of an illustrious Prince being in such a state of
debt, that he could not eveneyieit a rece-course without having
his carriage seized in tsuch,d-way as 'no private man could en-
dure. Yet that Illuetrioui Personage had not come to Parlia-
ment for aid. The Duke of Cumberland might surely contrive
to live in this country on 19,0001. per anndrn. Hi-could,•111ot
sit down without expressing his sense °Wee great lose sustaihed
by the death of the Duke of Kent, and be hoped that his
widowed Princess would follow his example in her care and
attention to the education-ollfer thi/d.-Hear!-)
Mr. HUME protested against the principle of his Learned
Friend, that the country ought to pay the debts of the Royal
Family. He was ready to agree to the proposed-allowance to,
the young Princess of Kent. Her Mother was a pradente-
careful woman—(Hear!)—and no one-in any class of society
could have done more than she had towards the proper edu-
cation of her daughter. The allowance ought to have been
much earlier made, as the circumstances had not changed
for the last few' years. Tardy justice, however, was better
than no justice at all, and he should 'cheerfully agree to the
proposition. 'With regard to the ()thee vote, he would take
the sense of the House on it, although he should stand alorie.
lie wondered how any Chancellor of the Exchequer could make ,
such a monstrous proposition to the House. The case stood
now just as it stood in 1818 and 1821. Besides, why waste
6,000/. a year on the education of the young Prince, when just
as good an education could be given him for 1001. a year?
—(A laugh.)--After the opinion of the• House already
expressed towards the Duke of Cumberland, he could :not
consent to place him on the same level with the Duke of Kent..
The public would never sanction such a proposition. Thera
was no security that the young Prince would be sent over to this
country for his education ? And even if he was, his pareep
would continue to reside abroad. But the Duke of Cumber-
land had an income of 19,0001. per annum, and ought to edu-
cate his own children. His late Majesty had done so, and had'
never allowed the Duke of Kent more than 6001: or 1000/. a
year, until he was 30. Was the Duke of Cumberland'in'debi
If so, let there be a Committee to inquire into the nature and
origin of those debts. In the case of the debts on the Civil
List, there had been two Committees of Inquiry, which chew-
ed that the public allowance to his late Majesty was not suffi-
dent for his expences. He objected to the grant for the young
'Prince of Cumberland, because there was -no precedent, bk-
cause hie father's allowance was already sufficient, and becanie
the opinion of the House had been already expressed on the
subject.
Sir I. COFFIN hoped that Ministers would comedown with
a proposition to pay off the debts of the Duke of York. He
knew a tailor to whom his Royal Highness owed 12,0001., and
who would never get a shilling of it.
Mr: MONCK objected to the grant to the Duk-e of Cumber-
land. It would not even be tolerated in Russia, Austria,
France, or Prussia. 'Some inquiry was necessary. With re-
spect to the other grant to the Princess Vittoria, 6,0001. was
too much, hut as the mother had too little, 12,0001. for both
would be about right. He had been surprised at the niggardly
grant of 6,0001. to the Duchess of Kent. With respect to the
Duke of Cumberland, the case was very different ; he had
19,0001. a year, and lived abroad. He should object to the pro-
posed allowance.
Sir C. FORBES heartily concurred in both grants. Prince
Leopold ought never to have been allowed to pay for the edu-
cation of his niece. The Duke of Cumberland had lived
abroad because he could not afford to live in England on the
allowance of 19,0001. a year. He hoped Ministers would pro-
pose to increase his income 6,000/. a year, and to pay tip the
arrears from the time of his marriage until now. The charges
against the Duke were astonishing and. disgraceful. if guilty,
he was a subject and amenable to the laws. The Committee was
about to condemn him and to punish him unheard.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY (as we understood) concurred in the
liberal provision made' for the young Princess of Kent, and
hoped that something would be done to relieve the Duke of
York (who deserved so much from the country) from his
embarrassments.
Mr. T. WILSON supported the first proposition most wil-
lingly. He had some doubts-as to the second. He was fully
of opinion, that if any proposition were made to assist the Duke
of York, the House and the country would assent to it with
the utmost readiness. -
Mr. BERNAL thought the allowance to the young Prince
of Cumberland too large:. The opinion of Parliament had
already been expresaed on that point. Hit Royal Highness
continued to reside in Germany with 19,000!. a-year, which was
equal to 28,0001. a-year in England.. On thut point be should
take his ground. It' any insinuations were made on the Duke
of Cumberland, they had originated with the_Chancellor of the
Exchequer himself, who had said that the grant was to be made
On the express condition that the young Prince was to be taken
from the care of his parents, and brought over to England for
his education. This wits certainly an indirect insinuation
against the Duke. Under the present circumstances he would
notlote for a single shilling for the education of the son of the
Duke of Cumberland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that he
had made any insinuations direct or indirect against the Duke
of Cumberland, He had only said that it was desirable .in
every' point of view that the young Prince should be educated
in brigland. Any insinuations against his Royal Highness
would be unjustifiable and uncalled for. lie also denied that
the House had refused the additional allowance of 6,0001. a
year on the ground of dislike to the Duke of Cumberland. No
such reason was alleged at the time. He had been asked whe-
ther he knew in what state the Duke's pecuniary affairs now
were. Of this he knew nothing. He knew that he was once
in a state of some embarrassment on this score, a circumstance
which must often happen to Members of the Royal Family
from the teuretations to which they were exposed. He was
sure no one who judged candidly of men's actions would ex-
pect the same measure of prudence in their affairs as was found
in persons differently • circumstanced. He did not, however,
know what was the condition of his Royal Highness's finances
at present. 'With regard to the residence of the Duke abroad,
the had state of hie Duchess's health, she being advised to
.reside at some of the foreign baths, accounted naturally
enough . for that. It was most unusual in making a grant of
this kind, to annex to it a condition as to the residence of
the individual. It was not for him to say that the Duke
would never come to this country. Ile thought it probable
that if he was enabled to live here, he would come.—( Hear !)
At present, with an income of 6000/. a-year less than his Royal
brothers, it could not be supposed that he could live here, or if
he could, that he should like to do so. The Duchess had two chil-
dren by a former marriage, which might be supposed to make a
difference in thet Royal Duke's expences. if his Royal High-
ness wished to come here-and educate his son, it was not likely
they would hasten the execution of that wish by saying to him
" we refused you formerly 6,0001. a-year, because we did not
likeyou, and now we refuse it to you, because you did not come
and lire among us." The Duke of Sussex, it bad been said,
was itt the same situation in this respect as the Duke of Cum.
berland. The children of the Duke of Sussex, it should be
remembered, were not Princes of the Blood Royal, the mar-
riage of the Duke nothaving been according to the Royal Mar-
riage Act. The Duke lived separate from. the. Duchess, but
she had an allowance of her own to live upon. There was
therefore no analogy between the cases. He had heard nothing
in the course of the discussion to place the case of the Duke of
Cumberland upon a different footing from that upon which it
had been introduced to the House by hint. The prinCiples
upon which the present application was founded, were directly
the reverse of those by 'which the former application was
guided. He hoped, therefore, no opposition would be offered to
t. the grant. -
Mr. JOHN MARTIN said, it was with pain he felt him-
self obliged to object to this grant of money. He had opposed
many motions for the reduction of taxation, and he knew not
with what face he could meet his constituents, were he now to
vote for any additional expenditure of public money.
_Mr. SecretarY PEEL observed, that there was no ground
for the expressions of surprise which had been uttered in the
course of the discussion at the late period of the Session at
-which this proposition had been brought forward. The ab-
.sence of so great a number of Members front the House, who
might have attended, shewed. that no great objection existed to
the proposed grants of money. Great latitude of observation
and argument had been indulged in by many Hon. Members,
but he thought it would be far more becoming to keep the
strict-matter of debate before_ die House. The proposition
was, that the child of the Duchees of Kent, and the son of
the Duke of Cumberland, should have a pecuniary provision
made for them respectively, with s view more especially to
their receiving an adequate education—an education suitable
at once to their exalted station, and those high destinies
with reference to the Crown of this country, which they
might one day be .called upon to fulfil. To the whole of this
proposition, he (Mr. Secretary Peel) gave
,his most cordial
assent. 'it was impossible for any one to have noticed the
conduct of the Duchess of Kent, not to approve of it.—
( Hear, hear!)—No one had shewn a stronger inclination to
observe the dictates of economy, at the same time that she
in no way lessened the dignity of her station. As a mother,
and especially in titer care and solicitude for the education
of the young Princess, her conduct had been most exem-
plary.—(Hear.!)—There could therefore, he thought, be no
real objection to the vote of money for that Illustrious Person.
With regard to the vote for,the son of the Duke of Cumberland,
he well understood the ground of the Hon. Member for Aber-
deen's opposition. The son of the Royal Duke had arrived at
that period of life which required that some consideration should
be paid to hie education. This was in fact thefoundation of the
vote, and the Hon. Member's opposition to it was that the vote
was 60001. a year, whereas 1001. a year would be amply sufli.

dent for the. education of the Prince.—(Laughter, and " No,
no," from Mr. Hume.)—The Hon. Member had said that he
could provide as good an eduCation for one hundred pounds a-
year as any Prince of the House of, Hanover need hare. The
fact was, that a college was about to be instituted in London,
which he understood was chiefly for the instruction of the
don mechanics, and here it was that she young Prince, accord-
ing to the Hon. Member's notions, could pick up a good 'etle- •
cation at a cheap rate.—(Continuedilaughter, with expressions ,
of dissent for Mr. Hume.)—Was he misrepresenting the Hon.
Gentleman ? He kept saying " Hear, hear !" to his propo-
sitions, but he believed they were fully warranted by the Hon.
Gentleman's own argument and opinions. His Hon. and
Learned Friend below him (Mr. Brougham) had recommend-
ed this College.
Mr. BROUGHAM—" I do not know a better."
Mr.- Secretary PEEL--" As I said, the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman does not know a better—not even that College of
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman is Rector."—(A
laugh.)—Treating the subject, however, without levity, he would
ask whether the grant ought not to be acceeded to upon. the
ground of educating the son of the Duke of Cumberland ?
(Mr. Secretary Peel) had been present upon the last discussion
of a vote to the Duke of Cumberland ; and the opposition to
that vote he understood to proceed upon the fact that the Royal
Duke's marriage had not met with the approbation of those
whose approbation in such a case was thought necessary. It
was now seven years since that discussion, and during that time
the duke had a son, who might hereafter ascend the Throne of
this kingdom. In the first place, then, what objection could
therehe to the Duke being placed upon the same footing as the
rest of his brothers ? An objection was felt to the young Prince
receiving his education abroad. The answer to that objection
was, then give him money that he may be educated here. That
this should be done concerned the country nearly. He thought
that the Objection of the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last
was not valid. This proposition was to be tried upon its own me-
rits ; and if found to be reasonable, the Hon. Gentleman need
not fear to face his constituents after voting for it, although he
had voted against the reduction of taxes. The considerations
were public, not personaL The question was neither more nor
less than this—whether individuals who might be called to
fill high destinies in this country, should have an education
suitable to their expectations ; and whether one of them should
be abstracted from the, influence •of foreign impressions, his
exposure to which seemed to create a general dislike. His
Right Hon. Friend had been most groundlessly charged with
a desire to separate the son from the father. His proposal had
no such view, or tendency. It merely went to secure the pre-
sence in this country of the son, without +going the length of
binding the father to accompany him. To do so, he thought
would be going too-far, and not to do the other, would be ne-
glectinf their duty.
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL said he should *support
the vote for the Duchess of Kent. He felt the highest respect for
the conduct and character of that illustrious Lady. With re-
spect to the Duke of Cumberland he could not come forward
so readily about that unless his residence in this country were
made a condition of the grent. -1-le saw no reasonable hope
that the residence of the young Prince would be in this coun-
try, and every ground for a contrary expectation. The habits
and tastes of the. Duke, his father, were entirely foreign--his
friends were foreign, anti he was likely to continue to reside
amongst them. At an Englishman, he certainly wished that
the young Prince should not continue to reside in the midst of
foreign connexions. He did not see how the Chancellor of the
Exchequer could guarantee to them the object which the pro-
posed grant had in view.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said if he
could come down to the Muse with a proposition for money for
a certain purpose, with an intention to deceive the House by not
realizing that purpose, he should he totally unworthy of their
confidence, and of the place lie held. The education in Eng-
land of the son or the Duke of Cumberland Was the principle of
the vote, and he distinctly declared that that was the ground upon
which he asked for the money.' He would not ask for it upon
any other ground. Ile did not, however, pretend to pledge
himself to the residence of the Duke of Cumberland here.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished to know what remedy the
Right Hon.' Gentleman could have, if the Duke and his son
continued to reside abroad.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—" If that
were to happen, I have no hesitation in saying that I should be
guilty of having deceived the House, and the object of the grant
would not be answered."
Mr. DENMAN thought that a stand ought to be made
against the frequency of I;Tanta of the-public money. There
was something so amiable in making grants of money to
Princes and persons in high station, that it appeared to be
quite irresistible with some Honourable Membere. If the
taxes-continued to be as productive as they were at present,
Ministers would find plenty of excuses for taking money from
the pockets of the people, and it was necessary to give them a
timely check. No sooner was the name ti Cumberland men-
tioned, titan trp started another of the guardians of the public
purse, and proposed • that all the arrears since the rejection of
the last vote should be added to the present. No sooner had this
proposition been made,. than another Hon. Baronet near him
got up, and telling them what sn 'excellent man was the Duke
of York, proposed that they should pay off all his debts ; and
upon this rose a Gallant Admiral to assure them that his
Royal Highness of York owed to his tailor no less a sum than
12,0001. Therefore, he supposed they were to pay all his
debts at once, without any further inquiry. Ought not his
Royal Highness, knowing his income, to have kept his expen-
diture within it ?—(Hear, hear !)—And was he, for the mitres
hensible conduct of getting so largely into debt with his tailor,
to he rewarded, and .the public plundered? The ,case was
diftrent with the Duchess of Kent: Six thousand a-year was
a mere pittance for the Piincess Royal of England. The Duke
of Cumberland had 19,000/. a-year, and yet not enough.—
lie would not refer to the circumstances connected with his
Royal Highness. These had been once under discussion, and
the consequence was, that his Royal' Highness had withdrawn
from this country to live abroad. Perhaps this was the best
thing he could do. He was there removed from the obset,
vatiou of England, and he saw no reason why they should
ask him to come back again. Then this proposal would have
the effect of separating the son from the father, for no one had
been found to say that the Duke of Cumberland had signified
his assent to any proposition to come and live here. He
hoped a vigorous resistance would be made to any such grant
without the condition that the. young Prince should reside in
this country. He had no doubt the benches would thicken, and
that the sentiment would be echoed front the other side of the
House.

Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he thought it extremely
hard that an individual who had not asked a grant of money
from the House should have his individual merits, and his right
to the grant, supposing it were to be asked, brought into
discussion. The Illustrious Individual to whom he alluded had
refrained for many months past from bringing his private
affairs under the discussion of Parliament, and it was most
unkind to reward him, when a vote was asked for another in-
dividual, by debating the question, whether, if be did apply,
he would be a fit object for the bounty of the House of Corn-
mons.—(Hear, hear !)—The Hon. and Learned Member for
Nottingham had entirely mistaken the source whence flowed
that vein of liberality upon which he had animadverted as
endeavouring to bring in others to share in". the bounty of
the House. It formed no patt of the proposition of his Right
Hon. Friend ; but had actually proceeded from the mouth
of an Hon. and Learned Gentleman who sat in the 'very place
where the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Denman) then sat

himself. That Honourable Member in opposing the grant to
the Duke of Cumberland, said that of the two he had rather
pay the Duke of York's debts than agree to this motion. This
was the way in which the Duke. of York's name had been
introduced, and immediately his whole character had been
brought into discussion, as though he had come before the
House infertile paupcdit!--( Hear, hear !)—To come, however,
to the actual business of the night. First, with regard to the
Duchess of Kent, it would be a waste of words to argue her
title to.the grant now proposed.to the House. He would, how.
ever, make one observation upon it. If his Majesty's Go-
vernment were chargeable ;with any thing on account of it,
it was that they had not sooner come forward with the pro-
position.—(Hear !)—Greater praise he could not give to that
illustrious Lady than the demeanour which she observed in the
situation in which she stood. :Quiet, retired, and unobtrusive;
never putting herself forward in the public scenes of life;
known to few, she yet sustained the dignity of her high station,
and devoted the whole energies of her mind to the education
of that child whom the House were now called upon to adopt,
and to whom . they might hereafter be required to pay their
_al.
legiance.—(Hear !)--The vote of the Duke of Cumberland he
wished the House rather to consider as a vote to the child who
stood next in importance to the young Princess. To this rote
it appeared there was a double objection—first, the parents re-
sided abroad, than which nothing was more 'obnoxious to the
habits and feelings of a British Prince; and next, the Duke
was odious in England, and therefore it was contended, they
ought not to assent to this proposition. He wished the House
to understand that this grant was proposed to the son of the
Duke of Cumberland, not as his son, but because he might as-
cend to the throne'of this kingdom. As to the actual employ-
ment of the money *hen granted, he considered that it would
be the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to take care that not one
shilling should be issued without the security of the child being
in the kingdom...—(lear, hear !)—His Royal Highness, after
all that had passed might certainly without blame prefer 'a
residence abroad. From his recollection, and be spoke
without the aid of reference, the allowance formerly asked
for the Duke • wag refused, expressly upon the disap-
probation expressed at his marriage by the Court. The
seeond • refusal was grounded on the former refusal. Waa
it then at all unnatural that the Duke of Cumberland, who be,
sides found a: secret lurking dislike against him.in.the country,'

as expressed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who opened
the opposition—was it at all extraordinary that he should take
up his residence abroad? Driven from this country, what was
more natural then that he should resort to the country of his
wife ? Since the former refusal of the House, however, they
now found that hiS Royal Highness had a child six years old.
the Royal Duke would not,. for feelings of shame at his re.
duced allowance, -reside in thks country, let them at least
rescue the child from-the contagion of foreign principles, and
give him an education worthy of the future King of this
-Empire. With respect to the iecurity for the due execution
of the provisions of Parliament, he repeated that his Ma-
jesty's Ministers would be answerable; that the -Act of. the
House was executed as-it-was explained by them to the Hoase.
—(Hear, hear !)

Mr. CRIPPS said, he certainly thought a separate condition
for the presence of the child in this country, ought to be made
with refetence to their vote for the son of the Duke of Cumber-
land, and he should move to that effect-. - "

Sir C. FORBES said a few words in explanation. -
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the:two propositions Might to be
separated. The Duchess of Kent's allowance he belie'Ved was
6,000!. a year; that of the Duke of Cumberland three times
that amount. He thought, therefore, that considering this dif-
ference, and the retiring amiable qualities of the Duchess, and
the obnoxious fact of-the Duke of Cumberland being abroad,
ought to make them more scrupulous about the grant to the
Duke. If the Hon. Member (Mr. Cripps) would make a pro-
Position that the child should be upon British groUnd before
money was taken from the pockets of the people for him, he
would support it.
The Resolution for a grant of money to the Princess Victo-
rina was then put from the Chair, and passed neon. con.
Upon. the second Resolution being proposed, -
Mr. CRIPPS moved as an amendment the insertion of the
words " in Great Britain."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said; that
after he had stated that the money was bona fide for the educa-
tion of the young Prince, he could not Consent to the amend-
ment proposed ; unless the-House believed that it was his inten-
tion to deceive them, they would not take a course which cer-
tainly implied a doubt of the iniegrity-of Government. It could
scarcely be supposed that the Duke of Cumberland, knowing
the pledge that. had been given, would, be so ill advised as to
do that which would inevitably cause every shilling tb be taken
away from him. This was no patent right that he was pro-
posing, but. something which it would always be in the power
of the House to withhold.

' 111 r. J. P. GRANT protested against his supporting the
Amendment being construed into any doubt of the integrity of
his Majesty's Ministers. lie believed his Majesty's Ministers
were as likely to continue in place as any Ministers he had
ever heard of; but if the contrary should happen, how would
the Ministry in place be bound by the pledge now offered ? It
was said that the House had it in their own power to enforCe-
the redemption of the pledge.' But what ground would there
be for any future House of Commons to interfere with this
grant ? He thought that for the security of the great • object'
they had all in -view; the words of the Amendment ought to
make part of the Resolution.
Mr. K. MARTIN said he should support the grant without
any amendment; because he considered the Royal Duke ought
to be placed upon the same fciating an his Royal Brothers. He
also thought he was entitled to the arrears which had been ad_
verted to.
Lord BINNING supported the original resolution. He
thought the amendment totally uncalled for and unusual. The
only nieaning of it was, that there was reason to ettspect* either
the King's Ministers, or the Royal Duke himself, of some un-
fair play. He did not think there was any ground for such
fears, and above all he considered the House would have the
remedy in their own hands. He also thought the intention of
the grant, with such an amendment, might be defeated in the
event of the young Prince going abroad for a few months, on'
the score of his health.
Sir J. NEWPORT begged to disclaim most distinctly any
imputation upon the integrity of his Majesty's Ministers.—
(Hear !)—He considered that when a grant was made, the re-
solution by which it was made should bear upon its face tbe
ground and intention of that grant. If this were not done how
could reference be made upon any future dispute upon the
subject? Memory was a bad Monitor upon such occasions.
Mr. HUSKISSON observed, that the great point to be I
looked to in making this grant was, that it was intended for
the education of a Prince who might hereafter succeed to the
throne of this kingdom. Now he did net think it all usual in
an act of this kind to question die conduct of the Crown, in a
matter so nearly touching the sovereign interest as the education
of a young Prince so situated. If this amendment were to be
-embodied in the Resolution, it would become part of the law
of the land, and then the Exchequer would not be warranted
in issuing the money even if the individual were absent from
the island upon any occasion for a few weeks. He saw no ob-
jection to its being inserted in the Preamble of the Dill, which
met necessarily follow the adoption of the Resolution before'
the House, that the money was given for the purpose of enabl-
ing the young Prince to be educated in this country.—(Hear,
hear!}—This was quite a different thing, and by no means so
imperative in its nature as the Amendment now proposed. The'
spirit of that Amendment he thought wee grate contrary to the
practice generally observed in the conduct of public business..
Dr. WS INGTON said he was a little surprised to hear
the Right Hon. Gentleman state reasons why the Committee
should p:412 the Resolution, and at the same time not insert one
word to record the ground upon which the Grant was to be I
made. Without this there could be no security that the sum
voted by the House would be applied to its legitimate object.
There might be no danger that the understanding to which the
Ministers pledged themselves would be departed from by the
present holder of the Crown, but what was to assure them
that it would be acted upon by future Sovereigns? The pre-
sent Administration might abide by it, but who was to answer
for their successors ? The present Parliament might act upon
it, but how could they be secure that the Parliament to come
would consider it desirable teehave this young. Prince educated
in his native land? His objection was to making this grant to
the Duke of Cumberland. fie would cheerfully vote it to his
Majesty for the education of the child in this country, which he
considered to be a great national object. • Bat he felt no confi-
donee in the Duke of Cumberland, and would not consent to
place the money at his disposal, to be doled out as he should
think fit. He did not wish to revert to former recollections,
but he would say that the Duke of Cumberland stood in the
same situation now as he did in 1815, when Parliament refused
to grant an addition to his income. it was very natural for the
Duke of Cumberland to wish to remain abroad, and he' would
not vote one shilling that was likely to bring him back again.—
If the resolution were not worded so as to prevent the result
which he apprehended, he should vote for the amendment.
- Mr. T. WILSON said that the difficulty which lie felt in
voting upon the question, was not surprising, when so much
difference of opinion existed on 'allhatuls. 'From the best con-
sideration which-be could give the question, it appeared to him
that unless the object of the vote were more clearly defined in,
the resolution, they should be declaring the House of Cemnions
of 1615 to have been wrong without being certain that they
were themselves right.' For this reason; if no alteration were
made, he should vote for the amendment.
Mr. C. WY NN said there would be no inconsistency be-
tween the proposed vote and the former conduct of Parliament
in relation to the Duke of Cumberland: On the contrary, when
the increase of allowance was refused, one ground for the re-
fusal was, that if any children resulted from the marriage they
must be provided for by the State. That case had arisen, and
they were 'now called upon to act upon it.. The resolution
would therefore be perfectly consistent with the former conduct
of Parliament, and he should- cheerfully vote for it.
Mr. WARRE said that he had hard nothing in the course
of the debate which relieved his mind from the apprehension
that, unless Parliament . explicitly declared its resolution, this
child would be educated out of England. thought it was
the wish of every one that the child should be educated in
England, and he could not therefore see why it should not be
so declared in the Resolution.
After a few words from Mr. TRANT, which were Inaudible
in the gallery,
Mr. PEEL suggested, that the Abject of securing the educa-
tion of the child in England could be as well secured by insert-
ing a declaratory sentence on the preamble of the Bill, as by
adopting the proposed amendment of the resolution, which
would not be a respectful course to the Crown, as that resolu-
tion was an echo of the Royal Message.
Mr. CALCRA FT contended for the necessity of a clear un-
derstanding that the child should be educated in England, for
there, from the existing relationship to the Crown of a child of
the state, such education ought to be provided; and not in foe
reign countries, where the father hid for some years taken up'
his residence. -
After a few words from Sir JOHN NxwponT, suggesting
an amendment to the resolution confiding the education of the
child to the King, and not to the Duke of Cumberland, the
Committee divided on the first amendment, when the numbers
were—
For it , - ' „. 64
Against it - - 79
Majority against the first amendment —l5
The Committee then divided on the original resolution, when
the numbers were—
For it
Against it -
Majority for the' original resolation -
JUDGES SALLARIES BILL.

. ]O5

h 5
-..50

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested'
that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Brougham) should
defer his objections to this bill until some subsequent stage of
the proceedings, and not in the Committee.
31r. SCARL'ETT said he had some objections to the details

of the measare, which must of necessity be discussed in the

Committee.

Mr. BROUGHAM was willing to postpone his opposition
to any future stage of the bill, but this could not affect the ob-
jections of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. scarlett.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER coincided
with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, that the Hon.
Member for Peterborough's proposition must be debated in the
Committee; he only suggested that the discussions in the Com-
mittee should be confined to this.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved

the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report
of the Judges Salaries.
The Report was ordered to be re-committed in a Committee
of the whole House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that
an instruction be given to the Committee to make provision for
the. retired allowances to Judges—Ordered.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole
House.. . .

The CHAIRMAN' having put the Resolution, that 10,0001. be
granted to the Chief Justice in lieu of the salaries arising from
certain offices—

Mr. SCARLETT.rose. He said that in his opinion the pro.
position contained in the resolution before the Committee ought
not to be acceded to. He disapproved of the abolition of cer.
tain salaries enjoyed by the Chief Justice, because these sa.
larks were connected with the office. The Chief Justice

had been in possession of these offices from very ancient
times, and they had grown out of his situation. It was true
that abuses had been practised. A system had sprung up of
granting those offices to be held after the death of the Chief
Justice, and also of selling the offices. These practices could
not be too much reprobated. But there was a legitimate source
of profit connected with these offices, which arose from one of
two ways. The Chief Justice received the fees of the office.
or he sold the fees. Now it was propoaed to take away all
fees from the Chief Justice. He (Mr. Scarlett) did not deny
that Parliament had the power to diminish or abolish those fees;
but he contended that Parliament, if they diminished or abolish-
ed the fees, ought to make a fair compensation. Now lie con-
tended that the proposition before the House did no such thing.
It did not afford an adequate compensation. What was the
Committee about to do ? They had agreed to.raise the salaries
of the puisne judges 1,5001. per annorn, Instead of 4,0001. to
make their salaries 5,500. The average salary of the Chief
Justice, as well as he could learn, was about 15,000/. Now the
present Chief Justice would be incapable of bartering the rights
of his office for temporary gain, and was it reasonable that a part
of the emoluments of his office should be taken away, in order
to found a fund for the increase of the puisne judges' salaries?
This system wax most unfair, and was derogatory to the pie-
fession. On this principle he (Mr. Scarlett) opposed the resolu-
non. He felt that the elevation of the chief personagea in the
Courts of Common Lavr shed a lustre on the whole profession.
The bar was in some degree like the Lottery. There were
a few great prizes, but there were numberless blanks. The
total expences of the profession exceeded infinitely the total
profits. The desire of attaining toi. the highest situations in the
profession was an honourable ambition. One reason stated for
raising the puisne judges' salaries was, that it would induce
eminent lawers to accept the situations. Now this argument
applied still more strongly to the Chief' Justice, who was the
head of the common law courts. Instead of 10,0001. per an-
num, he (Mr. S.) should propose, as, a permanent arrangement,
that 12,0001. be granted in lieu of other emoluments. Another
subject on which he desired to observe was, the appointment of
the Chief Justice by the Lord Chancellor. This was a most
improper practice, An Administration,,as durable as he hoped
the present was. would find it desirable to have as many compe-
titors for the office of Chancellor as possible. Now, it might be
the interest of the Lord Chancellor to have no competitors in
high stations, and to appoint men whom the Ministry could not
fix upon to fill his office, in case of a vacant': This, to besure,
had never happened, hut it may so happen, and be attended
with great public inconvenience and intory. The import.
mice of the office of Chief Justice could not be overrated. QK
long as law exists, and is respected in this country, that situa-
tion must be looked up to with veneration and respect. In ct n-
elusion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed as an
amendment to the Resolution, that 12,0001. be substituted for
10,0001. in lieu of the salaries now paid to the Chief Justice of
the King's Bench.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
paid great attention to the arguments of the Learned Gentleman,
and was compelled to declare his opinion of their fallacy. The
question for the House to consider was, whether or not the sum of
10,0001. perannum was an adequatecompensation for the office of
Chief Justice. With regard to the distinguished individual who
at present held the office, if it were made out that the House was
doing something todeprive him of an adequate compensation,thcn
there would be reasons for increasing the allowance ; but no such
objection applied to him. The average gross amount ofhis ealary
for many years past was 9,2001. per annum ; but the Chief
Justice had to pay charges in his profession to the amount of 7
otits,
ut therefore, e
therefor
Exchequer)e were, LO;
annum.per annum.Nvhat
oprertMi.:ger 'jilt enet Chancellorpr
proposed was, to add to that sum 1,500/. and thus to make tha
total salary 10,000/.l' The Learned Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett .
thought this sum was not sufficient, and that it ought to be such
as to make persons of the highest rank and talent accept the:
office. In this he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) perfectly
agreed ; but he thought there was a more powerful inducement
to accept the office than 2,0001. a-year would be, and that in-
ducement was the greatness and importance of that office. On
the whole, he thought a sum- of 10,0001. a-year sufficient.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said a few words, but was not.
audible in the gallery.
Mr. MONCK thought the salary of the Chief Justice ought
to he raised in proportion to the salaries of the Puisne Judges,
and would therefore vote for the amendment of the Learned
Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett.)
Mr. SCARLETT, in explanation, said that in his opinion
the dignity of the office of. Chief Justice could not be made too
high. On this principle he differed from those who objected to
raise a Chief Justice to the Peerage. It should be remembered
that a man who made 5,0001. a-year by his private practice,
was richer than a Chief Justice who received 10,0001., becauaa
the latter had to maintain an expence proportionate to his ranit.
Ile did not, therefore, think that 10,0001. a-year was sufficient.
He would, indeed, rather leave the salary as it was, than con-
sent to such an alteration.
Mr. PEEL said it was clear that the Lord Chief Justice
ought to have some fixed salary from the country, and ought not
to depend for his profits on the sale of offices. If he thought it
a degradation to the judicial character, he would be the last to-
propose any measure of the kind ; but the direct contrary was
his opinion. He thought that that Judge's salary ought to be
fixed, and in estimating its amount it ought to be compared
with other high judicial offices, that of Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land for instance, which was of the same amount then proposed
to be given. He was quite decided in the opinion that the
dignity of the judicial character should be sustained by liberal
remuneration. '
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY, the amendment
granting 12,0001. to the Chief Justice of the Court of King's
Bench was put and negatived, and the original proposition of
10,0001. was carried.
The other resolutions respecting the Judges' salaries were
then put and carried, by which 80001, were granted to the
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 70001. to the Muter of the
Rolls, and 6000/. to the Vice-Chancellor. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to a
question from Mr. Hume, stated that his intention was to re-
gulate the fees of the law officers according to the reesnunenda-
tion of the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire
into that subject.
Mr. HUME observed, that nothing could be more unjuat
than to tax litigants in that form, and that the time had arrivo
when the abominable fees of the Lord Chancellor ought to be
put an end to, so asap deprive him of the inducement to pose..
pone the business of his Court. He received many fees whiala
he ought not, and it was most unjust that he should be tit
liberty to fix what fees he pleased for himself to receive.
The :CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had ex.
plalned before why he could not deal in the mannir-
expected with the Court of Chancery. He could do nir
thin with it until the Cornrailsioners had reported. The
motion which the Honourable Gentleman opposite and °theta
entertained of the -profits' of the' Lord Chancellor were
exaggerated to a degree of which the House could have no con-
ception. The salary which the Lord Chancellor received; ex.
-elusive of his emoluments as Speaker, of the House of Lords
amounted only to .5,0001. His fees might be about 7,0001::
making altogether 12,0001. This was very far short of the suns
of 20,0001. and upwards, so generally supposed to be received
by his Lordship. The, whole of what lie received was much
less, and was liable to the land-tax, besides a deduction of
3,5001. for the payment of the Vice-Chancellor, which sum, at
the express suggestion of the Load Chancellor himself, was
taken from the emoluments of his office. That reduced, his salary
to 8,500/. His salary, then, upon the whole, did not amount
to 10,000/.4 scarcely to more than 9,0001. What he had tis
Speaker of the House of Lords was perfectly distinct from v 7 hfit
he ilerived from the Court of Chancery, and it-amounted to
only 3,0001. or 4,000/. making the 'total of his income amount
to only 13,0001. or 14,000/. a year. If the Chief justice of. the
King's Bench, and the Chancellor, were each to have
10,0001. a year, it was not too much to give-the Lord Chancellor
of England 13,000/. or 14,000/. a year. In the devotion of
-mind and body, no one could exceed the exertion of the Lord
Chancellor.
- Mr. HUME then said that he would rather give 15,0001. is
year to the Lord Chancellor, than not have his salary fixed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in reference to the oheett
ration which ikir.,HUITIe had made respecting the iridneensents--