The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-26 00:00:00

land, relating to probates and administrations, and to
divorce and matrimonial causes, similar in principle to
the bills for England now before the House of Lords ;
Also, whether it was intended that the bill relating to
Clergy Discipline, which the Lord Chancellor etated,
shortly before the Dissolution of Parliament, was then
in preparation, should be introduced this session, and
whether it would include the Church in Ireland ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that when the
bills relating to the first part of the question came down
from the House of Lords, the Attorney-General for Ire-
land was prepared to introduce similar bills for Ireland.
With reference to Church discipline, it was not his in-
tention to legislate on the question otherwise than as
a whole in connection with the United Church of Eng-
land and Ireland.

THE SOUND DUES.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER that part of her Majesty's speech, in re-
ference to the sound dues was read, and he moved that
it be taken into consideration on Friday, June sth.

THE ALLOWANCE TO THE PRINCESS ROYAL.

Mr. FITZROY appeared at the bar, and brought up
the report of the committee on the annuity to the
Princess Royal.

The resolution was read a first time.

On the motion that it be read a second time,
Mr. CONINGHAM rose and said—l rise for the pur•
pose of proposing an amendment to the resolution,
adopted apparently unanimouly the other day. I regret
very much that we had not an opportunity of dividing
on that occasion, as I am fully convinced that the public
out of doors would have been undeceived on the subject.
If we had divided I believe that a very large minority
would have opposed the proposal of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. I object to that proposal on principle,
I object to the amount. I object to it as a precedent
(laughter at the pronunciation of the word). I re-aPsert,
as a precedent (repeated the hon. gentleman, utterly
unconscious of the cause of the house's merriment).
The reasons I have before urged against the annuity
I still entertain ; but I shall content myself with
proposing a reduction of the annuity. I move, then,
that for 8,0001. a year 6,0001. be substituted. In pro-
posing this annuity the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made a remarkable omission in referring to the revenues
of the Duchy of Lancaster. The reason why only
20,000/. has been paid into the Queen's privy purse is,
that the property has been grossly mismanaged. It
will shortly be my duty to bring that matter under the
consideration of the house. With these few observa-
tions I content myself with moving the substitution of
6,0001. a year for 8,0001. a year.

Mr. COX seconded the amendment.
The SPEAKER having put the resolution and the
amendment,

Lord PALMERSTON rose and said—l cannot help
expressing my great regret that the hon. gentlemah has
thought fit to raise a discussion on this provision.
(Cheers.) I really had hoped that after (as he has ad-
mitted) the apparently almost unanimous opinion of this
house experienced on a former evening, that even those
who entertained individual objections or differences
of opinion as to the relative amounts which should con-
stitute the marriage portion of the Princess Royal
would have acquiesced on this occasion. I must eay
again that, on a question as to the provision to be
made for the person whom the hon. and learned member
for Sheffield has called " the el lest daughter of England,"
and Who is now going forth to hold probably a great
and important station in a foreign kingdom—l had
hoped that we should not have been called upon to discuss
the difference between 60001. and 80001., and matters
of that kind, which may be held to be utterly in-ignifi-
cant as regards the re3ource3 of the country, but which
are of value as indicating the confidence and attachment

of this house to the sovereign of these realms, and to
the dynasty under which we have the happiness to live.
(Cheers.) I shall follow the ex 4ruple of the hon, member
in one respect, by not entering into any lengthy dis,
cussion. I shall not follow his example by urging the
house to diminish the vote, but I most earnestly entreat
the house to divide in favour of the vote.

Colonel FRENCH regretted t'uatthe noble lord should

have thought it necessary to address the house at all.
He felt assured that the house would record its unani-
-1110119 decision against the amendment.
Mr. GILPIN—Had Mr. Roebuck divided the house
—(cries of " Order")—he begged to apologise for calling
the hon. and learned gentleman by his right name—(a
laugh)—but had the hon. and learned member for Shef-
field thought fit to divide the house on a former occa-
sion, he (Nfr. Gilpin) should have voted with him. He
did not think, however, that it was wise for his hon.
friend the member for Brighton to re-open the question.
He would yield to no one in a desire to do what was
right for the Royal family, and was not prepared to
divide against the vote. (Cries of " Divide," and
" Withdraw.")
Mr. F. SCOTT asked whether the amendment had
been seconded ? (Cries of " Yes.")
The SPEAKER again put the resolution and amend-
ment. For the former there was a perfect storm of
" ayes ;" for the latter, the single voice of the hon.
member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). The hon.
member persisting in his opposition.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and
The SPEAKER again put the question, and with the

came result.
The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers, and some laughter.
The resolution was then agreed to, and leave was
given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to found a bill
on it.

14
328
-314

On the motion that the house should resolve itself
into a committee of supply, in order to grant the dowry
of 40,0001.,
Mr. MAGUIRE said that he was by no means averse
to making a fic allowance for a Royal personage, but he
thought he should not prove himself a proper represen-
tative of the people if he did not declare his opinion that
8,0001. a year was an ample dower to the Princess
Royal, and that the 40,0001. was a piece of unnecessary
liberality on the part of Parliament, considering that the
persons who would have to pay that sum were many of
them in needy and distressed circumstances. He thought
that on Friday night the house had not been very fairly
treated by the hon. and learned member for Sheffield.
(Hear, hear from the ministerial benches below the gang-
way.) The hon. and learned member by the course he
had taken, had precluded others from placing their oppo-
sition in a more practical form. If (he hon. and learned
member bad gone to a division alter his speech he should
have supported him, and many other hon. members
would also. He now moved, as an amendment, that no
sum be given. (Laughter.) What he meant was that
the,proposition to add the 40,0001. to the 8,000/. a year
should be negatived. (Hear, and laughter.)
The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that the
proper time for expressing his dissent would be.when the
motion should be put to the house.
The SPEAKER put the question amidst a storm of
" ayes."

Mr, CONINGHA WI said he considered the annuity
of 8,0001. a year an amply sufficient provision for her
Royal Highness. Pledged to reform and retrenchment
he should act in direct violation of his pledge if he sup-
ported this vote of 40,0001.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was prepared to justify his
support of the resolution on the ground that on two for-
mer occasions the daughter of George 11. had 80,0001.
dowry and 5,0001. annually, and that the same sum was
given to the daughter of George 111., on her marriage
with the Prince of Wurtemburgh. Although he thought
it would have been better for the government not to
have altered the precedent, still, as the amounts were
nearly the same in effect, he should support the proposal
of her Majesty's ministers. He thought her present
Majesty was entitled to be treated with quite as much
liberality as either George 11. or George 111. (Hear.)
Lord R. CECIL rose to a point of order. Would it
not be possible, in the case of these exceedingly vexati.tio
us divisions, to revive the ancient rule of requiring the
"noes"
to move out of the house, and thus prevent In-
convenience to the "ayes ?'' (Cheers and laughter.)
Sir J. TRELAVNY asked whether the noble lord ap-
lied the term " vexatious" to the public of England? He
should have much preferred dividing the Other night,
when he should have been prepared to support any -
sonabla proposition.. He now found
himselfp ea
in asorme-
what difficult position. He should be the last person to
withhold admiration of her Majesty, or not to desire that
the greatest amount of happiness might follow her Royal
Highness the Princess Royal. The revenues of the
"may of Cornwall belonged to the Crown in cases
where the eldest son of the Sovereign died, and Burke
said that they could be disposed of for the benefit of the
Crown for life. He should divide with those who pro•
po3ed to reject altogether the dowry of 40,000/.
Lord PALVIERSTON—I wish to set the hon. baro-
net right as to the supposition that in the event of the
country being deorived by death of the Prince of Weles
the revenues of the duchy of Corn wall would go to the
Crown. Such is not the fact, the revenue. of the duchy
of Cornwall wouli go to the next heir to the Crown. I
shall not stop to argue the question, but will simply ex-
press a hope that the house will abide by the decieh,n it
has already corns to.
Sir J. TRELA.WNY would reiterate his statement,
that according to all the authorities in the law books, if
the eldest son of the monarch died the revenues of the