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

I'iti VILEUE.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the petition of the
Messrs. Hansard should be read by th., Clerk, which
was (loth!, and it appeared that th:j had had anodicr
action commenced against them by Mr. Thomas Bur-
ton Howard, as the attorney of John Joseph Stockdale.
The Noh:e. Lord then said that he conceived the House
wouh! not expect that he shou'd do more than to move
that Thomas Burton Howard should attend the House
forthwith.

Mr. LAW doubted whether the petition contained
any statement of the cause of action, and the petition
having been read again,
Sir R. INGLIS said he thought his Learned Friend's
objection was perfectly well founded, fur the action was
not even against the Hessrs. Hansard, as printers of
the House, and there was nothing at all to con-
nect it with the preceedings of the House.
He for one should protest most solemnly against the
motion of the Noble Lord as tending to prohibit Mr.
Stockdale from bringing any action whatsoever against
the Messrs. Hansard in their private capacity.
Lord HO WICK. said the objection of the Hon.
Baronet would be perfectly well founded if the
motion was to commit Mr. Howard, whereas
it was only ordering him to attend the bar—
(Cries of " Hear, hear")—and to explain if, as he had
every reason to believe, the present action was similar
to the former ones ; and it should be recollected
that in those former actions the writ did not, any
more than the present, specify the cause of action.
They had every reason to believe that the action that
had been brought was a direct violation of the privileges
of the House, and that such being the case, there could
be no objection to his Noble Friend's motion, the object
of which was to ascertain what the action was.

Strangers were here ordered to withdraw, but no di-
vision took place.
Sir E. SUGDEN having arose to address—he
thought that there could be no doubt that the present
action was brought upon the same ground as the former
one. He doubted, however, whether any good could be
obtained by the present premature step ; he thought it
would be far better to ascertain from Messrs. Hansard
the fact of what the nature of the action was, because
it might turn out that there was another cause of action.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that those
who wished not to concede to the House the power
of committal, might think the motion unnecessary ;
but he thought those who believed the House had such
a power, and ought to exercise it, would agree with
the motion of his Noble Friend, which was, that Mr.
Howard should forthwith attend at the bar. He had
seldom seen anything which had more the appearance
of special pleading than the objections which had been
taken on the. other side. There had already
been three actions brought in the case of
Stockdale v. Hansard. Messrs. Hansard, by their
petitions informed the House that another action had
been brought against them, and if such was the state
of things, he would ask whether it was not the duty of
the House to proceed in the first instance, because, if
they waited to the expiration of four days, judgment would
be signed, and execution would issue? He thought that,
above all things, the privileges of the House should be
defended ; and he trusted, therefore, that the House
would adopt the motion of his Noble Friend.
Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, and on our entering the gallery
we found Sir R. Inglis on his legs moving as an amend-
ment " That it was not at present expedient to take
any farther steps."
Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, but the
amendment was negatived without a division.

The original motion was then put. The House di-
vided on it, and the numbers were as follows :

For the motion lBl
Against it 67
Majority — —ll4
Lord TEIGNMOUTH wished to take the earliest
opportunity of explaining some expressions of his
on the debate of a preceding evening. He under-
stood that what had then fallen from him, as reported
in the newspapers, had given considerable offence.
He had directed his attention to the different news-
papers in which the report had appeared, and
when he had read them—though he was sure there was
no intention of misrepresenting him—he found that
there was a passage in them which gave offence. He
would trespass on the recollection of Hon. Members
on the subject. Of the Judges he had spoken in term;
of the greatest respect ; and he had merely said that they
were legally incompetent to decide on the privilege of that
House. It would appear, however, from the newspapers,
that he thought they were unfit to give a judgment on
any subject, and that their decision was absurd and il-
legal. He (Lord Teignmouth) trusted that every
Gentleman then present would allow that his words had
been perverted, and that he meant nothing disrespectful
to the Bench. With regard to the bar he found it
stated that he had said that the members of the profes-
sion were not fit to give an opinion on questions con-
nected with the business of the House of Commons--
he had never said so, and he could not comprehend
such a statement. He had always felt that the
studies of the bar were particularly fit to pre-
pare people for the House of Commons. He bad
merely wished to say on account of the occasion alluded
to that there was a tendency in the proceedi ags Of
Courts of Law to fetter the judgments of men. He W
sure that many Hon. Members would bear him out in
his explanation, and he had spoken of the Judges in
terms exactly similar to those employed by
the Learned Attorney-General. He (Lord

Teignmouth) felt that at this day it would be a very
serious matter to give displeasure to the Judges, and
he should have been very sorry to have done so.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged leave to say that
he was present when the Noble Lord who had just sat
down had made the speech he had alluded to, and that
he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) entirely agreed with the
Noble Lord in what he had just said, that he (Lord
Teignmouth) did not utter a word about the propriety
of having the Members of the bar disqualified from
sitting in that House.
PRINCE ALBERT'S PENSION.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the

Day for a Committee of the whole House to have that
part of the Queen's Speech read which related to a pro-
vision for Prince Albert.
Lord MAHON begged to know when it was ez-
pected that Mr. Howard would be brought to the bar
of that House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it would be impos-
sible for him to inform the Hon. Gentleman, but he
thought it would take place when he was taken.
An HON. MEMBER gave notice of his intention to
ask some questions with reference to the important
transactions which were taking place in China.
Mr. FECT()R gave notice of his intention of asking
some questions relative to the affairs of Spain.
DEBTS OF THE CROWN.

Mr. G. PALMER asked whether there was arii
foundation for the rumours which were abroad, that
considerable debts had been incurred beyond the allow
ante made by that House to her Majesty.

Lord J. RUSSELL had only heard that such re'
ports were in existence that morning ; and he could
assure the House that they were totally unfounded.—"'
(Loud cheers from the Ministetial benches.)

SOCIALISM IN IRELAND.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Noble tiara
the Secretary for Ireland whether, as had been stated
in another place (to be sure the source was not to be
relied on), Socialism had spread to a considerable extent
in Ireland ?
Lord MORPETH had no information as to the el.
istence or spread of that system in Ireland. He rather
thought that an attempt had been male to introduce
it last autumn, but it had been very promptly put down'
PROVISION FOR PRINCE ALBERT.

The House then went into Committee of SupplY to
vti
shiaotn
fpoorr tii)orni
non
of her
Albert,
Majesty'smr. BSpeech r a tin tifillge
tcoonasi(pleror
Chair.
On the resolution being read authorising her Majesty
to grant 50.0001. a year to Prince Albert,
Mr. HUME then rose and said, he could assure
the House that in rising to perform the dutY
he had undertaken, he did it with great
regret. It was a matter of very great regret
that her Majesty had been advise to come
forward at such a period to demand an establishment or
a grant of money for Prince Albert, because from the
tenor of the speech to which allusion had just bee°
made, he was induced to suppose that some separate
establishment was to be maintained. He could not be'
lieve it possible that the Noble Lord and his colleague°,
and all those who had voted with him (Mr. Hume) last.
Session against an increase of the grant t. the Duke 0'
Sussex—he could not believe that any individual who
had voted on that occasion could act with such incowis"
tency of conduct as to propose so large a grant to the
House then. Since the House had last sat he had re-
ferred to the precedents quoted by the Noble Lard'
and it did not appear to him that any of them bore
upon the question then under their consideratiol: .
There was a precedent in the case of Prince Leull°l,
which he presumed might be depended on, where 60,0001
was granted. It appeared from the resolution that thate
60,0001. was granted not to Prince Leopold, but to tn.
Princess Chlrlotte and Prince Leopold, for the est
of tni kr 1,...n01d, ..‘,,dectly upon the utls
roarutit:g t::.“ it wai to he separate
i
di.tinet ; thell.)us.• wi.u:d find, by referring
to the debate that took place on that occasion,
when an objection wes made in a mild and gentle cifitit
that it was too large, an answer was given to the etre%
that although it was a large amount, yet the llou°
should bear in mind the Princess was then recetvig
30,0001. An additional 30,0001. was voted to one'
them to maintain their rank and dignity, but not 13, 5
shilling was given to Prince Leopold. If the Nob ,
Lord would look at the speech of the Minist;
of that day, Lord C:lstleeeagh, he would find
stated that the expenses of the Crown were invariably
looked on with more jealousy in this country than in An
other, anti although the grant was voted unanimously;e
yet Mr. Tierney made an observation upon the inexPrt
diency of it in the then state of the country, to sulVe,
what was called the splendour and dignity of the CrO`4,l,e
No grant that had ever been made to any branch or L-ot
Royal family had been more objected to than the VI

EVENING EDITioN •

Made to Prince Leopold.—( Hear, hear.) Within
the last three days he had received no less than
Ittletters con plaining of the grant being continued
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.
Home) 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 yielded 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 deficiency ? 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 decorations of palaces and castles. It had been
asked the other night what was the amount of the present
income of Prince Albert. That question ought to be
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 the immense cost of 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 then voto,oefooroihe propo_
sition of the Hon. Member for Lincoln 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 considered that in 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 to fulfil 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
len, but also devoted
Queen,
ele)na,rliaarnen
idiutieayt
t
, the public taxes,
nt hoatt
otni ml y e
gtroanl
teeadn
hgirse
etsot; hae
9s,iedeei.fitei of the
Queen was
andto litish
eser.evcieciep
ttshoef rt
he vee
En 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