The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-25 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

E EN IN G F, D !PION .

the Civil List Act, paned at the commencement of
George the Third's reign, to receive an annuity of
50,000/. a-year, to be paid to her for her life. Queen
Charlotte, the Consort of George the Third, was by
Act of Parliament to have received 100,000/. a-year, in
case she should survive that Monarch. In the late
reign of William the Fourth, a similar proposition had
been brought. forward in that House, and had met
with no opposition. Earl Grey, who had brought for-
ward a measure in the other House, stated that it had
there passed unanimously. That Bill settled on Queen
Adelaide 100,000/. a-year, in case she survived
William the Fourth. In the case of Prince
Leopold, who was not the husband of the
Queen, and who might never arrive at that station,
and called upon to perform the duties and maintain the
station which would then devolve upon him, an allowance
of 50,000/. a year was settled upon him in case of• his
surviving the Princess Charlotte. With these prece-
dents before them, he proposed to move that her Ma-
jesty be empowered to grant an annuity, payable
from the Consolidated Fund, of 50,000/. per annum,
to Prince Albert—such annuity to continue during the
life of the said Prince Albert—such annuity to com-
mence on the day of his marriage. Therefore he would
receive this during the time that he should continue to
remain the husband of the Queen, and he would also re-
ceive the same allowance should he survive her Majesty.
With regard to any precise precedent on the subject, he
did not find he had much to offer, nor was he competent
to afford the House any detailed information on that
subject. The Committee of 1831, on an occasion of
this nature, had no precedent to refer to, and
they had taken the opinion of a former Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, the Honourable Member
for Cambridge, on this matter. He (Lord John Russell)
had read carefully through the celebrated speech of
Mr. Burke on the Civil List, and he did not find in it
anything which could affect the present question.
He could only say that an establishment should be
maintained by Prince Albert, as it would otherwise
be impossible for him to maintain his rank and dignity
in a suitable manner. He could only say on that sub-

ect that it would be prcper that the Prince should
have an establishment of his own, without stating
exactly what it might be. He could only observe that it
would be formed a good deal on the model of that which
the Prince of Wales formerly maintained. He would
have a Groom of the Stole, a Groom in Waiting,
and an Equerry, and the whole of that expense would
be about 7,0001. or 8,0001. It would be proper to
elect persons of superior rank—( H ear, bear)—for those
situations round the husband of the Queen. It was
proper they should be men of station and respectability.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") With regard to other
matters he could only refer in general terms
to the precedents he had already quoted. The
only ground which was urged, and upon which he
was told the Civil List ought to be. reduced, was one
which did not appear to him at all to affect the case.
The Civil List was almost entirely distinct from the
Household expenses, and when these matters bad been
formerly connected, the amount granted was 435,000..
That was the sum granted during the late reign,
and on the accession of her present Majesty a sum of
50,0001. was deducted, as not being required for the
establishment of a King's consort. The Government
now proposed to make the sum the same as had been
granted in the year 1831. That was his (Lord J.
Russell's) proposition, and the only objection which bad
been urged, and which he could not think applied to
the case, was founded, not on what was proper and ne•
cessary to maintain the dignity of the Crosvn—not on
what was necessary to maintain the rank of the Monarch
and the household of the Prince, but was founded on the
present unfortunate state of distress which unhap-
pily existed in some districts of the country. No-
body lamented more than he did that such a
state of distress should exist, but he owned he did not
think that was a ground upon which to come to a vote
for the permanent establishment of Prince Albert.
He could not think that, because, if the argument were
allowed, they could net well refuse to allow it per
contra. He could not agree to the proposition to vote
a sum of 21,000/. for Prince Albert, as had been
proposed by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
on the ground of much distress at present existing ; as at
some future time, when the country was in a state of
prosperity, the same grounds might be urged to entitle
them to call upon that House for an increased grant.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not thick, therefore, that that
was the manner in which an arrangement could
be made.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that
the great resources of that country were at all
impaired, and therefore there could be no ground for
refusing, because some temporary distress existed, a pro-
per establishment for Prince Albert. Tbeonry 'ques-
tion for the House to consider was, whether the suns of
50,000/. was a proper sum to be allowed for the support
of Prince Albert. s.The Noble Lord, who was very
imperfectly heard throughout, concluded by moving that
her Majesty may be enabled to grant a sum of 50,0001.
to Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha, on the
occasion of his marriage with her Majesty, to be con-
tinued to him in the event of his surviving her Majesty.
Mr. HUME wished to know as Prince Albert was
to be allowed so large an income, whether it was in-
tended that he and the Queen should live in separate
palaces ?—(Great laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL could not answer the question
put by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, but if be
thought it necessary he could make inquiries on the
subject.

GOULBURN wished to know whether it was
intended to make the provisions absolute, or determina
tile on her Majesty's life.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was intended that
the provision should he for the life of the Prince.
Captain POLHILL inquired in what position Prince
Albert was to stand on his arrival in this country?
Lord J. RUSSELL could not answer that question.
Mr. HUME wished to know if the greatest sum
was to be put first, and whether, if the House rejected
that sum, he should be precluded from proposing a
lower sum ? Because one Member might move 35,0001.
and if that were rejected he should not be precluded
from moving 21,0001.

The SPEAKER said that the established rule was,
that whenever the House was about to impose a har-
den on the people the lesser sum was to be put first.
Sir R. PEEL said that was undoubtedly the case
when there were only two sums, but when there were
a great number of sums proposed, if the, sum first pro-
posed as an amendment were rejected; would not the
original sum be considered as adopted conclusively?
Mr. HUME thought it clear that, the original sum
having been proposed, the other sums were to be pro-
posed as successive amendments.—(Hear.)
Mr. BERNAL declared that, though in Committee
of Supply the lowest sums were put first, yet this was
not a Committee of Supply, though it might be con-
sidered analogous ; and he had never known, out of
Committee of Supply, that course followed. He en-
treated the House to look well to precedent.
Mr. GOULBURN agreed with what the Speaker
had laid down on the subject.
Sir G. CLERK said, in Committee the lowest sum
should certainly be put first ; but, in Committte of the
whole House—not in Supply—it depended on the
terms of the resolution to be proposed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did
not consider, that when the first amendment had been

put, the movers of the others should be precluded from
putting theirs.

Mr. GOULBURN referred to a precedent, when
it was decided, that out of Committee of Supply, it.
was not imperative to put the lesser sum first.

The SPEAKER quoted another precedent, where the
lower sum was put first, not in Committee of Supply.

In answer to Mr. BAINES,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the revenues of the Duchies
ofCornwall
when ho
n
an dLarnr
arrived.—(Hear.)
.e_r
llowouldroe belong to the Prince
of ales
The House resumed, and further proceedings, were,
we understood, postponed till Monday.
On the motion of Mr. HUME returns were ordered
of the revenue and expenditure for the last five years.
Mr. EMERSON TENNENT obtained leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the htws relating to ejectment
and replevin in Ireland. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber also obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the amend-
ment of the law and the better administration of justice
in Ireland.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to
bring in a Bill to ascertain and define the right of
voting for Mcmbers of Parliament in Scotland.
Lord STANLEY thought that it would be better
to allow the Bill to be printed, and placed in the hands
of Members ; but he could not even allow the present
stage to pass without entering. his decided protest against
the provisions of the Bill, which looked to the difference
between freeholders in Scotland and freeholders in Eng-
land and Ireland, attaching to the qualification the
necessity of residence. Ile never could assent to there
being a distinction between the law of Scotland and

that-of England.
After a few observations from Mr. G. Hope, Mr.
Evart, Sir G. Clerk, Mr. Gillon, and Lord Stormont,

leave was given to brink; in the Bill.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER
it was expedient to rescind the resolution which autho-
rizes the sale of the Votes and Proceedings of the
House." He did so _in consequence of the advice

which be had , received and as subjects under discus-

cussion might possibly lead to a collision between that
House and the Judges, he thought it but fair not to

embarrass the question with his motion.

.
'The notion was therefore postponed, and at Seven
o'Clock the House adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JI N. 24.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.

EVEN ING EDITION.

IThe LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
) sack at the usual hour.
Viscount DU NCA NNON laid upon the table, by
command of la-3r Majesty, certain papers relating to
Canada.

---fheEishop of EXETER begged leave to present a
petition from Birmingham, in the county of Warwick,
signed by 4,000 inhabitants, composed of the most re-
pectable bankers, merchants, and tradesmen. It also
gives the profession and residence of all who signed
this large petition, so that they could judge of the re
Lpectability of its character. The importance of this
petition was such, that he must request permission
i to have it read at the table.
The petition was accordingly read. It stated that
religion way much affected by the progress and dangers
to the people's morals which arose by the spread of what
was called Socialism, which was increasing much through
the influence of Mr. Owen.
l The Bishop of EXETER continued by saying, that
in moving that this petition should lie upon their Lord-
ships' table, he would have taken a longer time than
usual to consider its objects ; but the vast importance
of the subject would excuse him presenting it at once.
He would ,have eagerly sought for some other
hands to bring up the question ; it was altogether
no distasteful to him, and involving such dange-
rous doctrines as were calculated to be a great
barrier to morals or religion. The consideration of such
a subject rendered it a very painful task in him to take
it app. He came down to the House on this evening in
consequence of having been told that this petition would
have reached him. He asked the Noble Lord, the head of
the Home Department, some questions relative to Social-
' ism. He (the Bishop of Exeter) at first thought that her
Majesty must have been advised to give directions to
'‘lagistrates or other guardians of the peace to proceed
against the meetings held by those persons. To his
utter astonishment he was then told by the Noble Mar-
quis that the Government had not taken any steps,
because the Socialists had not offended against the law,
but that the Government would be ready to proceed
against them as well as any other offenders of the
peace. The Socialists had not offended against the
laws. The Noble Marquis did not say that he knew
nathing of their proceeding ; he (the Bishop of Exeter)
did not suppose that any member of her Majesty's
Government would possibly affirm the legality of their
proceedings ; but he must say that he put this construe-
ticn upon the Noble Marquis's answer, that the Noble
Marquis was generally informed of the proceedings of
the body, for he was sure no man occupying the
ituation that the Noble Marquis held in her M•t-•
-...>ty's Government, as guardian of the peace and
-corals of the country, could have permitted matters to
proceed without inquiry. His astonishment certainly
as overwhelming, when he was told that the indivi-
dials, in the judgment of the Noble Marquis, the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, had done
nothing illegal. He was sure the thought had never
flashed across his mind, that either the Noble Mar-
quis or any member of her Majesty's Government,
could have any reason either of political expediency or
e.ny thing else for not proceeding against them manfully
and steadily.
Lord BROUGHAM was very sorry to inter-
rupt the Reverend Prelate—it was almost the
only time he bad entered the House alter its sitting
but it might be well for the Reverend Prelate to
know that he was charged with four petitions from
the individuals against whom the charges were now
brought, He thought that it was better that he
should present them before the Reverend Pre-
late made his statement, as it would put
him in possession of what he had to answer.
The petitions were from the officers of the Central Board
of the Society of Rational Religionists, vulgarly called
Socialists. It was signed by Mr. Owen and other officers,
and prayed for a full inquiry into their system.
The other petitions were to the same effect, from three
Societies belonging to Mr. Owen's party.