The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-31 00:00:00

CHINA.

Lord SA NDON said that he:should withdraw a notice
of motion with respect to China, upon they ssurance of her
Majesty's Ministers that a Cammittee should be appointed
on the subject. The notice for the appointment of that
Committee had beer, standing on the paper from day to
day for weeks past, and yet the Committee had not been
named. He wished, therefore, to know when the Govern-
ment intended to name that Committee ?
SIR JOHN HOB HO USE understood that the Com-
mittee was to be appointed to-morrow. He begged,
however, to remind the Noble Lord that the proposition
did not originate with the Government, but with the Hon.
Member for London.
THE KING OF HANOVER.

Mr. HORSEMAN seeing the Hon. and Gallan

Member for Sligo in his place, wished to put a question
so him relative to what he had been represented to have said
the other night. It had been stated that an application had
been made to the King of Hanover to give up that part of St.
James's Palace which he had occupied previous to be-
corning King of Hanover, and to that application an
answer had been sent refusing to give up the apartments.
From the statements it appeared that the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member stated that he was instructed pozitively to
deny the statement. Now he wished to know whether
such were the fact ?_

Col. PERCIVAL said that he did not on that occasion
state that any such application had been made to the King
of llanover. What he stated was, that no application had
been made to the Duchess of Kent, and upon the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies stating that it was
new to him, he (Colonel Percival) when the Noble
Lord sat down, read the authority to the House on
which he made that statement.--SCries of " Hear, hear.')
The Gallant Colonel here begged leave to read the follow-
ing passage from the letter of Sir F. Watson which he had
received last Friday—" It has been erroneously conceived
th t the King of Hanover's apartments at St. James's have
been required by the Duchess of Kent ; but ,in fact, her
Royal Highness did not only not express a wish for them,
but ( yen observed that Viey would not suit her ; and further,
her Royal Highness is nit pleased with the manner in which
hi r name her name has been used upon the subject." The
Gal. Col. then continued—" I may be permitted to state that
the assertion !made was not that no application had beenmade
to the King of Hanover, but that none hal been made by
the Duct ess of Kent.—( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear. )
The very conclusion of the letter I read shows that some
application had been made, or her Royal Highness would
not hive bean displeased. The Hon. Member seems to
think that I have received since Friday some fresh infor-
ina,i ,n. That I consider at least as part of his question.
Aid I cm prepared to say that I have heard from a Mem-
ber of the Government that an application was made to the
Kin ; Hanover, by the First Commissioner of Woods and
For .sts, for the use of the apartments in St. James's, on be-
half of her Majesty, and that it was refused.—( Hear, hear,
hear")—and that another application was made to the same
ogee by Lord Melbourne--which was also refused.—
( Hear, hear.) I stated that no application had been
made by t'ie Duchess of Kent.—( Ironical cries of" Hear,
hear," and " Oh, oh.") I do not understand the
tr;umphat t tone of Hon. Gentlemen.—(llear, hear.)
The letter itself, I repeat, intimated that some application
had been made.