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

The Duke of WELLINGTON—But always mem-
tioned it, the title. Nuny Noble Lords were very anxious
to give their opinions upon it ; it might be said that as
Parliament was sitting, they ought to have been in town
attending it, but at this seat,oa many were prevented from
doing so by necessity, and One of his Noble Friends wouid
certainly- have beet in town if he had known that the Bill
related to prcc,:dency, which ho did not until yesterday
evening.

Lord BROUGHAM could not help thinking there was
great truth in what his Noble Friend had said, that prece-
dency was settled in former Bills of Naturalization. He
happened to know that his Noble Friend, who was not in
his place, was not aware of that until he had made arrange-
ments for leaving town, and when he was informed of it
had sent him ( Lord Brougham) a note, mentioning that it
would be an unpleasant thing to be obliged to
put it off, of which the Noble Duke seemed
aware, but that was not the fault of the House,
or of the Noble Duke, but of the Bill being different
from other Bills—for these Bills generally passed with.
out discussion—but a question arose on this Bill from a
great novelty introduced, which deserved great considera-
tion. In former Bills the precise degree of precedency
was fixed, and, accordingly, precedent had not been fol-
lowed b:,t his Noble Friend, for this Bill did not fix prece-
dency, but was a Bill to enable her Majesty to do so. To
this he had a constitutional objection, and thought it
ought to be done by Parliament, which should not leave
die Crown to exercise its discretion, but fix it as
on former occasions; and, in his humble apprehen.
sion, and speaking with all respect for the Crown,
and the illustrious individual who possessed it, he thought
it would be a more gratifying thing to Prince Albert to
have his rank conferred by Parliament, which meant Queen
as well as Lords and Commons, and Lords and Commons
as well as Queen. lie did not wish to enter into a
lengthened ciicussion, but with reference to the observa-
tion that the case of Prince Leopold and Princess Char-
lotte was out of question, because she was not heiress pre-
sumptive—he said she was treated as such, for her grand-
father was in a state that his decease might be speedily
expected, while her father, though married, had been
separated from his wifo for }ears, and no other children
were the issue of that unhappy marriage. He mentioned
this because it appeared to be overlooked by his Noble
Friend ( Lord Melbourne) though in his department. He
was dealt with as being about to marry the heiress of the
Crown, and why did he say so ? because of their settling
upon him 50,0001. Would that have been done if he
had not been about to marry the heiress presumptive ?
It was perfectly clear, and it was a jeke to say otherwise,
that there was any difference between the two cases. fie
did not wish to go further into the question then, but if he
were forced to do so, he would not be deterred from ex-
pressing his opinion upon the matter as a constitutional
lawyer, because of any fear of his motives being miscon-
strued elsewhere. There was one way of looking at the
matter—an event might happen, which God forbid should
be the case—but after the marriage of her Majesty it was
possible that she might be called upon to pay the debt of
nature ; again he said, God forbid—but what, under such
circumstances, would be the situation of affairs? We
would have a King and a Prince of Wales; but according
to the Bill, Prince Albert having been married to an Eng-
lish Queen, a foreign Prince would have precedence of
the heir apparent to the Throne, of the Prince of Wales.
His Noble Friend the Noble Viscount, had said that the
Illustrious Personages who would be affected had assented
—or at all events would not object ito the atrangement ;
but his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack knew
that the rights of an infant were deeply affected ; had he
consented—could he consent ? He did not wish to enter
further into the matter then, as it was probable the discus.
sion would be adjourned.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the former Acts
did not do more than the present Act proposed to do, viz.
give the power of creation in, the cases to the Crown.
In the case of Prince Leopold, the Act of Parliament did
not give the rank or title, but it gave the Crown power to
confer it—the only difference was that the present Bill
gave a larger power. There was no necessity for adjourn.
ing the discussion. No one would oppose the naturaliza-
tion of Prince Albert. The opposed clause was the last,
and the discussion might be taken into Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned Friend
was mistaken in thinking that he (Lord Brougham) was
mistaken. The former Bills gave the power to the Crown,
but it was a limited and a defined power—it did
not give absolute power to the Crown, but it limited
it in a certain and particular manner. Under the
present Bill the Queen might create Prince Albert King
Consort, for the Crown could invent any new title, except
that of making or creating a King of part of these domi-
nions, which King Consort was not.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished the principle of
the Bill to be discussed in the presence of several Noble
Lords who objected to it. He did not think it right to
take a decision in the Committee on the Bill, for he ob-
jected to the principle of the Bill ; he therefore wished to
fix a day for the second reading, on the earliest day that
it could be properly discussed.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY entirely concurred
in what had fallen from the Noble Duke ; and he objected
strongly to the principle of the Bill. The Noble Viscount
said he had the assent of all those whose interests were or
would be affected by the Bill. Now, was the Noble Vis-
count sure of his facts ? Had he the assent of an Illustrious
Personage not now in this country? His Majesty of Ha.
nover was summoned to the present Parliament by the
title of Duke of Cumberland. Had the Noble Viscount
obtained his assent? Was he sure of that fact?
Viscount MELCOURNE had not at all alluded to that
Illustrious Person. He could have wished that another
course had been taken, and that there had been no delay.
He was most anxious to waive anything like division upon
1 the subject ; he would therefore agree to postpone the
second reading of the Bill till Friday.
The House then adjourned till to-morrow.