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

power was given to the Crown, and greater anxiety to consult
the pleasure of the Sovereign, than it appears to me to be the
feelings of the Parliament at this moment towards their Sove-
reign, so the effect of explaining away this precedent, is, in
my opinion, a failure. Those other precedents which the Right
lion. Gentleman has brought forward. does not, I think, bear
the slightest analogy to the question before us. There was a
grant of 50,000/. voted for Queen Caroline, and 100.0001.
in case she survived her husband. There was 50,0001.
voted to the mother of George the Third. There
was also 50,000/, voted to " Leopold." The prece-
dents used by the other side were such as would
not fairly bear upon the question, having
taken place when a
great many different parties prevailed and many different
societies had been formed throughout the country. It was
always the uniform opinion in such cases as this, that a simi-
lar sum as had been proposed should be granted. I now come
to the grant passed in the time of William Iv. In the begin-
ning of the Civil List it was proposed that 50,060/., should be
voted for Queen Adelaide, and on the death of the King
100,000/. I cannot conceive how the House, or any
Honourable Gentlemen can consider that the grant now
proposed is too great. Those other questions which
the Honourable Gentleman seises hold of lie mistakes. That
of the reduction with rea-ard to the officers of the Court, which,
it is alleged, would make a difference in the expense of her
Majesty's establishment to the amount of 10,0001. has been
made. There were objections on principle to some of those
salaries which are not now paid, and had the surplus gone to
the Royal Funds, as was originally proposed, I think there
would be at least a sum of 10,000/. now to be applied from the
different branches connected with the Household. I really
don't know anything more to say than that the proposal
ought to be adopted, when it is considered that the
Queen succeeded to the Throne at the very early
age of eighteen, a privy purse was voted to her, and her
alone, and I now think it necessary to vote what may be consi-
dered necessary for the Prince, who is about to be allied to
her.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive how Parliament can
do anything better than adopt the proposal that has been made.
As to the objection of such a sum being too large, when it is
considered that the country is subject to the expense of 100,000/.
per annum for Queen Adelaide, the young nobleman, Prince
Albert is at least entitled to 50,000/. as consort to the Sove-
reign. Ido not wish to rest the claim upon a stronger ground
than what is usually done in such cases, and what is
the general opinion of the House of Commons. lam con-
vince that this same course would have been pursued by the
Hon. Gentlemen, the late Member for the University of Cam-
bridge, if he had returned to his former office ;
he would
have proposed the same sum for Prince Albert as ss e did. I
cannot believe but that the proposition will be received
with due regard to the comforts of the Sovereign and the dig-
nity of this House. The Noble Lord who addressed the
House .upon the question, stated that he possessed a
strong feeling of loyalty towards her Majesty, and in support-
ing the amendment of the Gallant officer, made a great
I
display of his regard towards her Majesty. must give every
credit to the Noble Lord, but I would wish that he did not
confine his regard to the commencement of the Session, but
but that he would maintain it throughout.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear." The Noble Lord in making this declaration of respect
for her Majesty, appears to me very inconsistent with the vote
of 30,000/. he is going to support. I rather think if he sup-
ported the larger grant of 50,000/. as a provision for the Queen's
consort, ho would have really evinced by his action that great
respect for her Majesty, and render no longer doubtful the truth
of those professions of extraordinary respect which he had
made.—Cries of " Hear, hear, for some minutes.) I cannot
forget that the Sovereign of this country has been insulted in
the manner I have already mentioned, and I do not consider
those extraordinary professions of loyalty and respect are made
with that sincerity that they ought.—( Hear, hear. )—This is
no question with regard to respect or disrespect, and I am wil-
ling to believe that the Hon. Gentlemen who voted for the
smaller sum have done so with the sincerest notions of economy,
for they have acted with perfect consistency, all through.—
( Hear.) I must, however, adhere to the original proposition.
Lord ELIOT said, after the very personal observations
which had been made by the Noble Lord, he appealed to that
House whether any of the expressions which he had made use of
had justified the attack which had been mule upon him. He
therefore called upon the Noble Lord to disclaim that he (Lord
E.) had been actuated by any feeling inconsistent with that of
a loyal man. _ _ _

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had always contended for
the privileges of that House with the Noble Lord, hut he
could not but feel the greatest indignation on that occasion,
when he saw a Minister of the Crown insinuating, but not
daring to charge directly, a want of reward and loyalty towards
her Majesty, by the vote which an Hon. Gentleman thought
proper to give upon the question before the House.--
( Hear, hear, hear.) If those expressions be measured,
he appealed to every Member of the Committee whether
those inEinuations were not calculated to excite even
something more than indignation. The Noble Lord had said
a vote given for the smaller sum was inconsistent with the
respect which ought to be paid to the Crown. He for one re-
pudipted any such insinuation. He felt that respect for his
Sovereign which was consistent with the utmost loyalty, but
while entertaining that fe2ling of respect towards her Majesty,
he should recollect that he was the representative of the people
and one of the guardians of the peoples' rights—(Hear, hear,
hear)—but that attachment for his Sovereign should

_ .
never induce him to grant one farthing more than the
necessity of the case demanded, although the Noble Lord, in
his capacity of adviser to the Crown, should demand it.—
( Hear, hear.) He must take the liberty of reminding him
that the safety and honour of the Crown depended in a great
degree upon the Ministers of the country avoiding any demands
whch the absolute necessity of the case did not warrant. The
Noble Lord was pleased to rely upon the precedent of Prince
George of Denmark having get a grant of 50,0001. in the life-
time of the Sovereign, Queen Anne ; anti in case of
his surviving her 100,000/. If this be found so excellent a
precedent why did not the Noble Lord follow it exactly?—
(hear, hear. ) Why did he not propose a grant of 50,000/.
fur Prince Albert, with a provision of 100,0001. in case of his
surviving her Majesty?—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord
did not find it convenient to go so far. The case of Queen's
Consort is recognised as an independent situation and indepen-
dent of her Majesty, and that a lar,'e family establishment should
be retained. Queen Adelaide had to support a heavy estab-
lishment.-10,0001. per annum was recognised to support
stables. The Noble Lord had given them all the arguments that
he thought necessary on the present occasion. lie ( Sir J.
Graham) thought the proposal of the Hon. Member for Lin-
coln was far more just than that of the Noble Lord. The
privy purse of Queen Adelaide did not amount to 25,000/. in-
dependent of the stabling establishment, an establishment
similar to that kept up by the Prince of Wales. They would
give for the privy purse of Prince Albert 21,0001. a year, and
for the establishment they proposed to assimilate it with
that of the Prince of Wales by allowing 9,000/. per annum.
The Hon. Member for Kilkenny had alluded to the case of the
Duke of Sussex, which was brought under the consideration
of that House last Session, when 21,000/. per annum was con-
sidered sufficient for him. What was the Duke of Cambridge's
pension ? He supports a very large, expensive establishment,
and has a son, who is nearly of age, with 21,0001. per annum.
It was true there was 6,0007• granted to Prince George. The
Noble Lord told us that the Princess of Wales had a pension
of 20,000/. ; but what had the mother of the pre-
sent Sovereign?-30,0001. lie thought that the question
of George, Prince of Denmark, decided the question, the grant
to him was an act of favour front Queen Anne herself, and
assigned for life. In that case her Majesty merely recommended
to her Parliament his succession, in ease of survivorship. She
made provision for him out of her own means. It is true that
in case of surviorship, whatever provision was made for Prince
George of Denmark was made out of the Civil List by Queen
Anne herself, who was at the time in full and entire
possession of a fixed income for his life, ar.d during
that life she made the assignment to Prince George.
Should the dignity of high station and large emolument,
viewing the subject most dispassionately, induce that House
to vote away an unreasonable sum ? 'Surely 9,0001. for his
establishment,and 21,000/. for his privy purse was generous and
large enough. He voted against the Member for Kilkenny,
but had not the slightest hesitation in supporting the motion
of the Gallant Colonel. In conclusion he begged to say that
he hoped it would be seen that he would not want loyalty when
a critical time should arrive.—( Hear, hear.) And should
his loyalty be brought to the test Hear, and cheers)
something better than words might then be necessary, and that
would be the time for the Noble Lord to see whether loyalty
and attachment to the Sovereign did not exist on his (Sir J.
Graham's) as well as on the other side of the House.—( Cheers. )
Mr. LEADER thought it necessary to say a few words in
explanation of the vote he was about to give. He had voted
for the 21,000/. proposed by his lion. Friend the Member for
Kilkenny, not because he approved of the latter, but because he
thought it better to give it than the larger sum proposed
by the Government. He entirely agreed with the lion. Mem-
ber for Kilkenny, that. nothing at all should be demanded as a
provision for Prince Albert. fie did not think that any of the
precedents quoted by the Noble Lord were strictly applicable;
but, even if they were so, was that House to be for ever go-
verned by precedent ?—( Hear, hear.) Were they not to re-
member that the people were in a very different state in the
time of Queen Anne to what they were now—that for one man
who could read and write then, there were hundreds of
thousands who could do so now that for one
man who considered political matters then, there
were hundreds of thousands who did so now
that for one man who discussed extravagant grants of the public
money, there were hundreds of thousands, nay millions, who
now discussed and understood them, and would condemn the
vote which the House would probably come to that evening?
One Noble Lord on the opposite side of the House had talked
of the misery of the people as a mere ad eaptandunt argument,
but he could not think that any better argument could be
brought forward to those who were the guardians of the public
purse, and whose duty it was to consider whether their finances
were flourishing, whether their trade and commerce was in a
thriving state, or whether or not there existed much misery
and distress in the country.—( Hear, hear.) He thought
that was the first thing they had to consider. The
mere amount did not so much signify. It was not the rais-
ing of 50,0001. front the whole revenues of the country, but
it was the moral effect that would be produced upon the
people out of doors. People would say that they were econo-
mical for the cottage but extravagant for the palace—that they
were economical for the union poor-houses, but extravagant in
Honourable
r(ab.fie 1 e
their provision for Royal personages. t In that opinion he most
entirely agreed, and he regretted extremely that so large a
should have been proposed by the present Government.
sum
hear,. hear.) That
could not pass by.
late Chancellor Gentlemen
te and particularly the . of the Excite-
oppost
you were in office you would have
quer, by
proposed 50.000/. a y
lost upon
There was one remark of
remark would not be
°ltfadthteauNntoebdleiTl
the country ; it
whether Whigs or Tories were •
only proved that in
was lavished with
power, the public money
Whigs talked a greatequal extrava-
ganee, and although the deal of economy
in opposition that
it was only when they were they practised
Wi
sa:ing " If
ear."—(llear,
cheers.) ten they. got upon the Trea-
suryit.—(Laughter, and
former
benches, they forgot their professions of economy,
d them, in order to
and they only rememberedtaunt Honourable
Gentlemen opposite, with having become economical themselves.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was very clear that the Hon.
Gentlemen, who voted for the smaller grant, were not very
consistent in themselves, and he was sorry that the reasons put
forward by the Honourable Member for Westminster, were
not those
which Animated Hon. Members on the other side.
o .
He should not have trespassed on the Howe, but that the pre-
sent,, time in which he had voted for the larger
instead was the only
instead of the smaller sum —(Cries of " Oh," from the Opposi-
tion benches)—and he wished to give a reason on the present
occasion for voting with the lion. Baronet, the Member for the
niversity of Ox • ford —( A laugh.) He did not think there
was any great weight in precedents, except as an argument that
from time to time 50,000/. was considered necessary to sup-
port the dignity of the persons siboss-ere married to the Sove-
reign. He did not think that the Hon. Baronet opposite had
at all weakened the precedent of Queen Anne, because the re-
venues of the State were at that time princt.,all,
in the ma-
' nagement of the Crown. When one recollected that at that
• period the entire revenues of the country did not
amount to 3,000,000/., and that 100,000/., or more
than a thirtieth of the entire sum paid by the people of Eng-
land was granted, they would see how strong the feeling was in
favour of a large sum, and how great was the proportion it bore
to the entire revenue of the country. Suppose at the time of
the decease of the late Monarch that the present Queen was of
that age that she had been married when the Civil List came to
be settled on the death of the Sovereign, was there a man in
that House who would refuse to give the same sum, viz. 60,0001.
for the King and 50,000/. for the Queen, as had been granted
during the late reign ? He was not to be told that the Queen
Consort had a regular establishment of her own ; and why had
t not been so? because the Monarch of that country had usually

been a King; and in all the instances, except in the
case in which the consort of the Monarch was a female, no
regular establishment was provided. There was but one in-
stance—that was,the case of the unfortunate Mary and Philip,
who was sent to the throne, and had regal power. For these
reasons he should most certainly support. the grant, and for
one additional reason, that he had been instructed by his con-
stituents to do so.—( Cries of " Oh.") Let them talk as they
pleased about their loyalty, but give him the people who were
ready to support the Monarch in every respect. Under cir-
cumstances the most unfavourable, they had instructed him to
support the grant, because the people telt that if Toryism
reigned at Court there would be no opposition to the present
grant.—(Loud cheers. )
Mr. HAMILTON briefly supported the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. J. JoslFs, strangers were or-
dered to withdraw, but no division took place.
On our return to the Gallery, we found

Sir R. PEEL on his legs. 'He said he should never shrink
from vindicating a vote which might be considered unjustly a
subject of popularity. He would not have risen to address the
House, if it had not been for the insinuation—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—introduced so unnecessarily, so unjustly, and
so contrary to all Parliamentary rule and precedent—( Cheers)
—an insinuation so unworthy, as he thought it, of the station
which the Noble Lord held as a Minister of the Crown, and a
leader of the House of Commons.—( Loud cheers.) The
Noble Lord distinctly stated, that if it had not been
for the events of last May, the present vote would
never have been opposed. What right had the Noble
Lord iito make such an assertion ?—(Cheers.) Supposing he
( Sir R. Peel) had said that the vote of 50,t001. was a base
subserviency to the Sovereign—( Vehement Tory cheering)—
would not that have been thought to have been perfectly irre-
gular, and perfectly unjust? Would he not have been told by
the Speaker, that he had no right to assume or impute motives
to any one ?—( Cheers.) This he would say, that he would be
unworthy, indeed, if he permitted himself to be influenced at
all by the events of last ;flay; but he would say, also, that it
would be equally unworthy and cowardly, if he shrunk from the
performance of his duty from the fear of such an imputation.
—( Hear, hear.) It would be a false and effeminate delicacy,
if he acquiesced in a vote which he thought to be wrong, be-
cause he feared that some Gentleman, on the opposite side,
would get up and say,' You were acting from spiteful motives,
you were acting from a recollection of the events of May last."
He did not vote for a smaller sum on the ground taken by some
Honourable Gentlemen. He did not take that course
which some Honourable Gentlemen constantly resorted
to, viz., of estimating how many families could
be supported by it. He did not vote for it on account of any
temporary distress in the country, or on account of its financial
difficulties, for he believed that that great country was power-
ful and rich enough to make that which would be a proper
allowance to the consort of the Sovereign.—(Hear.) He would
introduce none of these invidious topics, but he would say, that
so far from acting from any feeling of hostility or opposition to
the Crown, and however he night incur temporary displeasure,
he believed he would be only consulting the real and perma-
nent interests of the Crown, if he took care that the vote he
gave was at the same time consistent with liberality to the
Crown and justice to the people. He contended that the vote
which he was about to give was one which every true friend
of the Crown would justify, and he was a much greater friend
to the Crown if he protected it from the unpopularity which
must follow an extravagant vote, which could nut be defended.
So much with regard to the Crown, and now with respect to
the position of the House of Commons, and the position is
which parties stood; and he sincerely hoped that no unworthy
contest would take place between the two great political parties,
as to who should show the greatest liberality. It might promote
the temporary interests of one party to do so, but that sort of
unworthy contest—that shrinking from the fear of incurring
the displeasure of the Sovereign, would do more to ruin the
character of the House of Commons than almost anything else.
He would not be provoked by the example of the Noble Lord
to introduce asperities. His Hon. Friend had given notice of his
motion, without any communisation with him.—( Hear from Col.
Sibthorp. ) He had heard the speech of the Noble Lord and he
had heard the explanation of the expenses to which Prince Al-
bert would be subject, before he intimated or formed any opinion
as to what might be sufficient. He did not then exactly under-
stand what was the motion of his Hon. Friend, but
he would say at once, to the best of his judgment, what
would be a just and liberal allowance. He thought that
30,000/. daring the life of her Majesty, by way of
privy purse would be a just and liberal allowance.—(Cheers.)
He thought 30,000/. in case of Prince Albert surviving her Ma-
jesty, and not having issue, would be a just and liberal allow-
ance. He thought that in case Prince Albert survived her
Majesty, and that there should be an heir to the Crown,
30,0001. would be a sufficient provision.—( Hear, hear. )
But if there was a numerous progeny, and that expenses
which he did not foresee arose, he for one should vote for
an increase beyond 50,0001., which was becoming the dignity
of the father of the Royal Family.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord insinuated that there would be some kind of dis-
respect to the Crown unless he (Sir R. Peel) and others ac-
quiesced in his proposal.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and " No,
no.") Suppose the Noble Lord said that he acted upon prece-
dent, and that he considered the precedent of a Queen consort
to be strictly in point. Why had he not proposed 50,0001.
during the life of the Queen and 100,0001. a year afterwards ?
—( Hear, hear.) Supposing he had adopted the same course as
in the case of Queen Adelaide, would he not just have as much
right to say that they would be guilty of gross disrespect to the
Crown if they opposed it?--( Cheers. ) He would have prece-
dent in his favour. The Noble Lord must therefore abandon
that ground, and saythat the considerations were epee, and that
they must apply as well as they could reasonable analogy
to the case. The first case was that of Prince George of Den-
mark, and the Noble Lord could not deny that so far as the
public funds were concerned no provision had been made for
the Prince of Denmark. Parliament had assibaed, or the
Queen possessed, certain hereditary revenues, the same in
amount as those possessed by William and Mary. Parliament
did not contemplate the marriage which had taken place, and
made no increase, but the increase was made out of those reve-
nues by the Queen herself. Parliament did provide for Prince
George of Denmark, and granted one hundred thousand
pounds a year in case that he survived her.—(Hear, hear.)
Let the House bear in mind that the 30,000/. granted now to
Prince Albert to be paid to him, not only during the life of
the Queen, but after her decease if he out-lived her, was more
than equivalent to the 100,0001. to Prince George after Queen
Anne's death. It was worth at least 200,000/, or 300,0001.
Now he would take the case of Prince Leopold and the
Princess Charlotte ; then the House granted 60,000/. to main-
tain their whole establishment, and 50,000/. was to be appro-
priated to Prince Leopold if he should survive the Princess ;
but no one could deny that on that grant being made the gene-
ral voice of the people was, that in case Prince Leopold went
abroad, the 50,0001. was too much. And accordingly that
Prince, since he had been King of Belgium, had returned the
greater part of that money back to this country. Looking,
therefore, at these things, he ( Sir R. Peel) could not think
the Noble Lord could call upon the House to be bound by the
analogy of what had taken place in former times. Then,
again, the case of 21,000/. being allowed to each of the mem-
brs of the Royal Family, was a proof that 30,0001. for Prince
Albert was a liberal allowance. But to come to the point of
King William and Queen Adelaide, his Right Hon. Friend
maintained that by giving 30,0001. a-year to Prince Albert,
they would substantially give the same allowance as had been
given to King William and Queen Adelaide, and he (Sir
Robert Peel) must confess that he considered his Right
Honourable Friend's arguments undeniable. It was
to be remembered that the provision for a Queen Regnant
was much more applicable for her consort than the provision
of a King could be for his consort.—(Hear, hear.) On
all these grounds, therefore, he had come to the conclusion
that 30,0001. was a perfectly sufficient allowance, and having
come to that conclusion he was perfectly resolved to abide by it,
notwithstanding the unjust imputations the Noble Lord oppo-
site had thrown out. He should disregard such considerations,
and he could assure the House that he was not one who would
enter into unseemly contests, and make endeavours to vie with
others in liberality.—( Hear, hear.) He entertained as high a
respect for the Crown as any man, but as a representative of
the people he would be found to be the last man who would
counsel the House to an extravagant vote.—( Cheers.) lie had
no compunctions of conscience on the ground of disloyalty.—
( Hear, hear.) He had never made the concurrence of
political sentiments on the part of the Sovereign the condi-
tion of his loyalty.—( Cheers.) He had never been otherwise
than loyal and respectful towards the Queen ; he had never said
one word of disrespect towards the Crown or any memberof the
Royal Family—( Hear)—but when he was performing that
which lie believed to be his duty both to the House and to the
Crown, he should think himself unworthy of the position he
held as a Member of that House if he did not pursue a straight..
forward course for the fear of being attacked as disloyal, and
having accusations made against him which were utterly un-
founded.—( Hear. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to
make a few observations in explanation. In answer to what
had been stated with respect to the privy purse of her Majesty
and Prince Albert being the same as that allowed to the late King
and Queen, if Prince Albert was allowed 30,000/. he begged
the House to recollect that it was one time in contemplation
to take away the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and, in
case of that deduction being made, it was intended to have
added 10,0001. to the privy purse as an equivalent ; but that
deduction not being made, the amendment was abandoned.
But her present Majesty was in a very different position ; she
had given up her hereditary possessions, and the result was,
that her Majesty, as respected her Civil List, was in a very
different situation toiler predecessors, King William and Queen
Adelaide.

Mr. VILLIERS had listened with great attention to the
arguments in favour of the vote now proposed, and he must
confess, after such attention, that he could see no reason what-
ever for the vote. He had voted for the motion that had
been proposed by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, but between
the vote proposed by the Government and that proposed by
the Gallant Colonel opposite, he must confess he could see co
distinction.—( Great laughter.) There was no distinction be-
tween them in principle, as they were both arbitrary.—( Hear,
hear.) As he understood the Gallant Colonel, he proposed
30,000/. a year now, 50,000/. a year in case the Prince sur-
vived the Queen, and so on, and the vote of the Government
was for the 50,000/. now, without any increase. Now, both
these he held to be excessive, and he therefore could see no
distinction between them.—( Hear, hear.) They all knew, as
it affected the country at large, there could be no difference
which of the sums was carried, but he could not conceive that
either of them were necessary. He had voted for the motion
of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, because he believed that
some amount was necessary, and that that was the
smallest suns they could well grant.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The Committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the original motion ~.. 158
Against
Majority against it - 104
PRIVILEGE.

file SPEAKER then, addressing the House, said—The
Sergeant-at Arms is desirous of making a communication to
the House.

The SP-MEANT-AT ARMS, at the bar, then said—l have to ac-
quaint the House, that in conformity with the orders of this House,
1 attended this day in the Court of Queen's Bench, to make a re-
turn to the writ of habeas corpus, for bringing up the bodies of
William Evans and John Wheelton, Esers., and that the Court
came to the decision that they were not to be taken from my
custody ; and I accordingly returned them to their confinement.
I hold in my hand the return that I made to the Court. Is it
the pleasure of the House that I bring it up ?.
The SPEAKER—PIease to bring the return to the table.
The return was then read by the Clerk. It simply set
forth the warrant of the Speaker, which merely specified that
the Sheriffs had been committed for having been guilty of a
breach of the privileges of the House, and that he (the Ser-
geant-at-Arms) held their bodies by virtue of that warrant.
Mr. DARBY said he thought the present the proper time
to give notice that he should move, on Wednesday next, that
the Sheriff of London, and the Sheriff of Middlesex, should
be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
CORN IMPORTATION ACT.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Corn
Importation Act, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
Mr. LABOUCHERE rose, but from the noise occasioned
by Members leaving the House, was inaudible in the Gal-
lery. We understood him to say that he asked leave to bring
in a Bill to place the impartation of flour into Irelandi
g
n on
laws,
the
same footing as it was now introduced, under Vie exist
into England.
Mr. HUTTON said the great variation between the laws of
England and Irelandwas made the ground of complaint in Ireland,
and that several persons, favourable to a repeal of thetttiieo-
isiaJ ion,made
v and
use of it as an argument for that measure. The le
enact-
ments with respect to the two counties was different,
I while American flour could be imported into England, the

same advantage vias withbolden from Ireland. He should,
therefore, second the tootion

Colonel CONOLLY said it was the first time he had
heard the Repeal of the Union made use of to deprive the agri-
cultural interest of Ireland of the protection it was entitled
to. The President of the Board of Trade had stated the mea-
sure was loudly called for, but the harvest, though injured in
some places, was, in many districts, abundant, though the agri-
cultural districts in Ireland were much agitated. That class
had just as much right to be protected as any other. He was
taken quite by surprise. The House should look whether the
measure would not injure that interest, and if it would they
were bound to resist it.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Hon. Gentleman did not ap-
pear to u• derstand the nature of the Bill. Its sole object was
to put Ireland on the same footing in this respect as England,
and the Irish agriculturist would have that protection which
had always been considered sufficient to the English agricultu-
rist. He had reason to believe from a communication made
to him there was a strong feeling pervading various parts of the
community in Ireland of the injustice and inexpediency of the
difference in the law of the two countries, and it was in itself
so absurd, that if the particular circumstances of the ease did
not press attention to it, it ought on general ;rounds to be
adopted.
Col. CONOLLY observed—The Right Hon. Gentleman
had received his information from one quarter only, namely,
the millers.—( Laughter. )
Mr. E. TENNENT said the Right Hon. President of the
Board of Trade was in error. The Bill giving protection was
not for the protection of mills, but for the purpose of extend-
ing the number of mills, as there were very few in existence
at the time it was granted. They never would have been built
to such an extent, unless those engaged in them had fully ex-
pected to enjoy the right of grinding all Irish grown produce.
Were they prepared to grant compensation ? lie could assure
the Right Hon. Gentleman that the Bill would meet with the
opposition of the agricultural interest of Ireland. It would meet
with opposition in that House, and:certainly in another.—
(" Oh, oh.")
Mr. O'CONNELL said, it was certainly a miller's question,
and no other. The only object of the Bill was to put the
Corn-laws in Ireland upon the same footing as they stood in
England. He could assure the Hon. Member for Belfast
that the number of flour mills were not increasing; on the
contrary, the oat meal mills were. The flour of the last year
was nearly useless, and totally unwholesome.---( Hear, hear.)
All they wanted was, to be allowed to get some good
flour to mix with it. —k Hear, hear, hear.) There
was no meddling with the Corn-laws in the Bill, as the flour
imported was to be subjected to the same duty as it was subject
to in England. _

Col. ICERCEVAL said the Bill appeared to be supported
wholly by the Hon. Members for Dublin, which would not
tend to gain it support from the agriculturists of Ire-
land. Why did not the Hon. and Learned Member, the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, who was a county Member,
and in the secrets of the Board of Trade, state his opinion
upon the subject.
Mr. J. O'BRIEN was an agriculturist, and in favour of
protection to that class, but he was much in favour of assimi-
lating the laws of the two countries, and he thought the pro-
position a good one.
The resolution was then agreed to, and ordered to be re-
ported to-morrow.
METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT.
Sir M. WOOD rose to move for the appointment of a Com-
mittee to consider the reports of Committees of 1837, 1838,
and 1839 respecting the improvement of the metropolis, and
any other plans that might be offered : To consider the pro-
priety of purchasing the interest of the proprietors of Waterloo
and Southwark bridges for the purpose of throwing them open
to the public : And to consider the expediency of surveying
the Thames from Staines-bridge to Gravesend for the purpose
of embanking it.
Sir R. INGLIS said the motion as it stood upon the paper
was a very harmless one, viz. the appointment of a Committee,
but the motion made by the Hon. Baronet was so very exten-
sive that it could not pass as a matter of course. Improvements
had been ordered by former Committees, but the question was
whether there was money enough to carry out even one of
them ; yet the Hon. Baronet wanted to go into a survey of ns
less than 60 miles of embankment at an enormous cost.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had been as
much taken by surprise as the Right Honourable Baronet. He
thought he was going to move for the renewal of the Improve-
ment Committee, in which he would have had his sup-
port. He would suggest that the Hon. Baronet withdraw his
present motion, and confine himself to the notice on the Paper.
• Mr. HERRIES hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not allow such a motion to pass with his consent, without
providing the money.
Sic R. PEEL said the Hon. Baronet was proposing an im-
mense undertaking that required deep consideration. At the
same time he was perfectly aware that the erection of the new
Houses of Parliament had very greatly impeded the navigation
of the River, and it was a subject well worthy of the considera-
tion of the Government. The Worthy and Hon. Alderman
did not advance the cause he had so much at heart by advo-
cating such a large proposition.
Mr. BELL had had some experience in these Committees,
and as his constituents were rather interested in the matter, he
wished to ask the Hon. Baronet whether he intended to pro-
pose any new taz upon coals.---(A laugh.)
Sir M. WOOD said the proposition he had made need not
prove so startling to Hon. Gentlemen if they remembered that
when they went into the Committee for the Improvement of
St. Giles and other places they did not know that he could
provide a shilling, yet he provided a sum of 300,0001. He (Sir
M. Wood) considered the throwing open of those two bridges
of great importance. Some few years ago the Corporation set
an inquiry on foot to ascertain what expense it
had been at in promoting the public improvements of
the Metropolis, and the report stated that those
improvements had been effected without the cost of one penny
to them. If a Committee were now granted him (Sir M.
Wood) he could carry on all those improvements. If the
House wished for his motion to be printed and stand over for a
few days he had no objection.
Major WOOD said that in order that the question be
left open and not prejudiced, he should move an alteration of
the motion, to the effect that instead of Southwark and Water-
loo Bridges the words " certain Bridges on the River Thames"
be inserted.

Mr. H OWES said he thought the Improvement Committee
had acted with extreme partiality. All their improvements
had been devoted to the north side of the River ; and although
his constituents on the south side were required to pay their
quota of expenses, they received none of the beneht, which
they considered a great hardship. The Parliamentary returns
would show the s• ate of disease in his district, which, from its
confined and crowded state, was deplorable. He hoped, there-
fore, that they would consider the justice of a more equal
application of the funds.—The motion was then ordered to be
printed.
RAILWAYS.

Mr. LABOIJCHERE then moved the following resolution
—" That it is the opinion of the House that the following clause
be inserted in all the Railroad Bills that may pass through Par-
liament during the present Session :—' And ho it further en-
acted, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed or con-
strued to exempt the Railway by this Act, or the said herein-
before recited Acts, authorized to be made, from the provisions
of any general Act !elating to Railways which may pass during
the present or any future Session of Parliament.' And that
the Committee on the Bill do report specially to the House that
this order has been complied with."
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord MORPETFI, in moving for leave to bring in
a Bill for the Regulation of Municipal Corporationa
in Ireland, said that the question, after all, was now
agi eed on both sides to be one not of principle, but of
detail. At the close of the last Session the Bill had been sent
back to them from the Lords with certain amendments, and
those amendments seemed to be the same that had in previous
years occasioned its rejection. It being the general wish of the
supporters of the Government and of the majority of the people
of Ireland, that such a Bill should be introduced, and thus
bring the question at last to an amicable adjustment, the Go-
vernment had determined as early as possible to bring forward
a measure that would secure the acquiescence of Parliament.
For that purpose they had endeavoured to frame a Bill
with all fair dealing and justice, which would be similar
to that sent down by the Peers. He would then detail
the permanent features of the Bill. The schedules of the Bill
with regard to the different corporate powers of Ireland would
be the same as those that had been agreed to for the last two
years. The first schedule contained the towns to which they
proposed to extend corporate institutions immediately. The
franchise they proposed to adopt for immediate use was the
same as that contained in the Bill last sent down from the
Lords—the rated franchise of 101. They did not deny that it
was higher than they thought ought to be imposed on the
Irish, but they thought that, unless they were prepared to con-
cede, it would be a mere mockery, as the Bill would only be
strangled and choked, as its five forerunners. They proposed
with those opinions, that in three vears after the establishment
of a rate for the relief of the poor, the municipal franchise should
be similar to that of England.—( Hear.) With respect to cor-
porate towns, and those on which it was proposed to confer the
municipal franchise, they proposed that those bodies which
enjoyed property to the amount of 100/. were to remain as con-
constituted by the Act 9 Geo. IV. ; of those bodies whose pro-
perty did not amount to 100;., it was proposed to transfer the
management of them to the Poor-law Guardians. They did
not propose to incorporate the Grand Jury clauses into the
Bill. but to reserve them for a second consideration.
With respect to the compensation of the present corporate
officers, the Government proposed to deal w;th them as had
been done in the case of the English Municipal Bill. There
was some amendment founded on that subject by the House of
Lords, which they could not sanction. That was all he felt
it incumbent on hint to state with respect to the particular
provisions of the present Bill. He should express a hope that
the Bill would now pass, after the discussions which had taken
place with regard to it in both Houses. The Bill he purposed
to introduce would effect a great improvement, he believed, in
the present corporations, and would correct their worst abuses.
He should be sorry that a single word should fall from
him which could excite any discord, or which
could prolong the chance of bringing the matter
to a friendly issue. The contest of parties on the subject had
been carried on long enough. He hoped they would now
agree in abandoning their former grounds of quarrel, and that
they would join their efforts to promote some measure of prac-
tical improvement, and to carry into effect an indisputable ob-
ject of national welfare,
Sergeant JACKSON did net rise to oppose the motion of
the Noble Lord, but to express his satisfaction at his having
abandoned what was most objectionable in the Bill which Go-
vernment had introduced last Session. He was glad to find
that Government had received some amendments proposed by
th- House of Lords, to which they had formerly objected; he
was also happy to find that the Noble Lord had re-
linquished for the present the new qualifications con-
tained in the Bill of last year. He should say, how-
ever, that, for his part, he would have wished that an
end should have been put altogether to Municipal Corporations
in Ireland ; and lie believed that the people of that country
felt no anxiety for such institutions. There was a petition
re-
spectably signed to that effect, from a large portion of the in-
' habitants of Galway ; and he would ask what reason there
could be for forcing corporations on people who did not wish
for them ? The Hon. Member for Belfast had presented a pe-
tition of a similar nature, f:om certain inhabitants of that in-
fluential
Ile had himself received a communication
fromm
hadihtbae ne been signed
town.nssitglensmiee(aienti,
nh
totolN:e. statednt_o"N.,tn,
hh
oicatfh aHon. petition to the same effect
Gentlemen opposite
Clonmel, and signed by men
of all religious and political opinions. It appeared that the
strongest feeling existed that no corporate institutions should
be introduced there. He (Sergeant Jackson) had reason to
think that many parts of England would be glad to get rid
of their municipal institutions ; and it was felt that
they produced a good deal of ill-blood. He had not, however,
risen for the purpose of opposing the motion of the Noble
Lord, and he should not wish to offer a factious opposition to
any measure whatever.
Mr. REDDINGTON wished to set the Learned sergeant
right on one point. When the inhabitants of Galway yeti-
filmed against Municipal Corporations, they had merely done
so as regarded the imperfect measure which it was proposed to
pass at the time' which they felt they had reason to complain of.
Mr. LITTON had always wished for justice and a fair
reform of the corporations of Ireland, because he thought
such a measure would add to the stability and permanence of
order in that country. He wished, however, for corporations
based on principles of general utility. If it was intended to
make these bodies exclusively Roman Catholic, he would tell
the Noble Lord that the Bill should have his most strenuous
opposition. lf, on the other hand, the measure was brought
forward and carried out on fair and impartial principles, it
should have his support.
Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL supported the principle of