The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 20, lB5O.

rangements of the Government with the Peninsular and
Oriental Company, for the establishment of steam coin-
munication to Sydney, are abandoned or delayed for some
time." We deeply regret this postponement of a measure
which would bl of so much advanta::!'e to the mother
country, as well as to our exteasive colonies of Aus-
tralia and New 'Zaland. Why should cur Government
enter into a most expensive contract for conveying
mails to Brazils—to the dominions of a foreiper-3nd
refuse an economical offer to extend our system of
steam communication to a most important integral por-
tion of Great Britain?
PRESENTATION CF NEW COLOURS TO THE 82D RE-
CIIMENT.—These colours will be forwarded to the head-
quarters in about a fortnight, and are expected to be
presented about the middle or latter end of next month.
ALLOWANCES TO WARRANT OFFICERS.—The Ad•
miralty have ordered that pecuniary allowances are to
be made to warrant officers of the navy, when the ships
to which they are attached are placed in the royal dock,
or in a private dock where fire and light are not allowed
on board.
-% The Commander of the steam-vessel Lucifer, Lieute-
nant E. A. T. Lloyd, having had leave of absence grsnted
to him to the 11th August, Lieuteaant George M. Jack-
son (1845), of the flag-ship Ajax, has been appointed by
the Commander-in-Chief at Cork to the temporary com-
m3nd.
COAST OF A ERICA. —Her Majesty's sloop Cygnet,
Commander White, now fitting at Devouport, is not to
wait fir the monthly mail, but is to proceed t ) Sierra
Leone and Ascension direct, when she has been paid ad-
vance and is ready fur sea, and place herself under the
orders of Commodore Fanshaw, C. 8., the Commander-
,f.

AGES OF PUBLIC MEN.
(From the North Wales Chronicle.)
Born.
... 1 May, 1769
... 21 May, 1779
... 7 Nov., 1776
... 22 Jan., 1777
... 19 Sept., 1778
... 11 July, 1779
... 23 July, 1779
... 15 Sept., 1779
... 3 Nov., 1779
... 21 June, 1780
... 2 July, 1780
... 29 April, 1781.
... 1 Nov., 1782
... 16 Nov., 1782
... 28 Jan., 1784
... 20 0,A., 1784
„, 1784
... 30 March, 1785
... 12 Jan., 1786
27 June, 1786
8 Aug., 1786
1787
3 Aug. 1791
about 1791
1 June, 1792
19 Aug., 1792

Age.

Duke of Wellington ...
Lord Lyndhurst ...
Lord Dunfermline ...
Mr. Joseph Hume ...
Lord Brougham ...
Lord Hey tesbury
Lord Denman ...
Lord Campbell •••
Lord Gough ...
Earl of liaddington
Marquis of Lansdowne
Lord Cottenham
Earl of Ripon ...
Earl of Minto
Earl of Aberdeen
Viscount Palmerston ...
Right Hon. H. Goulburn
Viscount Hardinge •••
Sir Robert Inglis ...
Sir John Cam liobhouse
Duke of Sutherland ...
Sir George Clerk ...
Duke of Richmond ...
Mr. Andrew Rutherfurd
Sir James Graham
Lord John Russell ...
Right Hon. C. S. Lefevre,
Speaker of the House of
Commons ...
Right Hon. Richard L. Shiel
Sir Frederick Tbesiger
Mr. Duncan M'Neill
Sir Francis Baring, First Lord
of the Admiralty ... ... 20 April, 1796 54
Sir Fitzroy Kelly ... 1796 54
Marquis of Normanby ... 15 May, 1797 53
Right lion. H. Labouchere 1798 52
Lord Stanley ... ... 29 March, 1799 51
Sir George Grey ... 11 May, 1799 51
Right Hon. T. B. Macaulay ... 1799 51
Earl of Clarendon ... ... 26 Jan., 1800 50
Right Hon. Sir Charles Wood Dec., 1800 50
Right Hon. Mr. Fox Malik) ... 22 April, 1801 49
Lord Ashley 23 April, 1801 49
Mr. J. A. Roebuck ... 1801 49
Earl of Carlisle 18 April, 1802 43
Marquis of Clanricarda ... 20 Dee., 1802 48
Earl Grey 23 Dec., 1802 48
Sir John Jervis ••• ••• 1802 48
Mr. Cobden ... ..• about 1803 47
Mr. Benjamin Disraeli ••• about 1895 45
Duke of Buccleuch 25 Nov., 1806 44
Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone... 1809 41
Right Hon. Sydney Herbert ... 2 Sept.' 1810 40
Earl of Lincoln ... 22 May, 1811 39
Mr. John Bright ... 1811 39
Marquis of ... 22 April, 1812 38
Viscount Melgund ... 19 March, 1814 36
Marquis of Granby ... 16 May, 1515 35
Hon. Georg() A. Smythe ... 16 April, 1813 32
Lord John• Manners 13 Dec., 1818 32
Duke of Argyll ... 20 April, 1823 27

78
74
73
72

1794
1794
1794
about 1795

56
56
56
55

THE GREATEST PATRON OF ORNAMENTAL ART.
It Europe (says Mr. Ralph Wurnum) can, at the pre-
sent moment, very generally congratulate itself on the
substantial revival of the arts, this is certainly very
greatly owing to the example of is single individual—
Ludwig the First, of Bavaria, who has done more for
the permanent benefit of taste daring the last quarter of
a century, in the small city of Munich alone, than was
ever before accomplished, by whole generations of kings,
either in ancient or modern times. All the munificence
of Pericles and of Lorenzo tho Magnificent combined,
would not teach one tithe of the patronage of Ludwig
tt.e First, of Bavaria. His works in every de-
partment t.f art are truly surprising, and all accom-
plished in half the time spent by Loufs XIV. over
the gorgeous accumulations of his one palace at
Versailles. During the quarter of a century that he was
active, the King of Bavaria raised on an average at least
one great public monument every year, and occupied
cohstuntly about 200 artists in their decoration—in
sculpture, stucco, scagliols, mosaic, marquetry, fresco,
and encaustic. I once stool alone, in the magnificent
thrune-room of the state-buildings. and could not help
exclaiming to myself, " Du I see one only a hundrc d
magnificent saloons, its one only of the palaces of the
Kin 4 of less than five millions of subiects I then
thought of Buckingham-house, and that lumbering piece
of Gothic in St. James's: but we are improving; still
there is something humiliating in such comparisons, when
we reflect that it is not money, but taste, which
effects these master-achievements of art. To describe
all these great works would require a volume; and be-
sides these, all material interests have f mild equal care,
especially roads and canals,—the first German railway
was opened in this kingdom,—and the same king origi-
nated the German Zolvereic, or Customs Union. if
ever a man merited the title of great it is Ludwig I. of
Bavaria. It has been said by some that this vast outlay
in art was, in fact, unbounded extravagance; but the
King of Bavaria could ace much farther than such
people. Twenty years ago a stranger was a rarity in
Munich. Now it swarms with strangers, pour:ng their
hundreds of pounds daily into the coffers of the Munich
tradesmen, wno are already reaping the golden harvest
which their late enlightened King has sown for
them; and Munich now rivals Paris or Rome.—Builder.

of Parliament are still in existence to a very wide
extent, and that no sufficient remedy has ye., been
provided fur their correction.
The terms of your Majesty's Commission, and the
powers entrusted to us, may indeed enable us, by
means of a protracted inquiry, to ascertain a greater
number of particular instances of abuses, and to re-
commend additional cases to be laid before the At-
torney-General ; but neither are these powers ade •
quate to the task of a general and searching investi-
gation, nor do we conceive that this Commission
could ever be made a competent authority for exer-
cising that permanent and vigilant control over these
charitable trusts which seems absolutely necessary for
securing their due and regular administration.
In support of this opinion we proceed to remark
that there are many charities of which the income
has been irrecoverably lost for the want of some
proper authority to watch over and guard the trust.
Many others have been abused and diverted from their
proper objects because persons locally acquainted with
the circumstances have declined to incur the pecu-
niary responsibility or odium of instituting legal pro-
ceedings. In others, again, the trustees are unable
to carry into full effect the intentions of the founders,
by reason of some legal difficulty, or the inadequacy
of the funds for sustaining the expense of an applica-
tion to the Court of Chancery. In others, an ancient
and traditional mode of managing the trust has ac-
quired so strong a hold on the minds of all parties
concerned, that it cannot be expected of trustees to
undertake, on their private judgment, any attempt to

Teel: the established usage.
There is, moreover, a considerable number of
charities wherein the present cnal•administration is
wholly attributable to ignorance and want of infor-
mation on the part of the trustees, who, under com-
petent advice and direction, would be quite willing
to correct what is irregular or defective.
It appears to U 3 that in order to apply an effectual
and permanent remedy to these various abuses and
defects it is necessary to create, by legislative enact-
ment, some public and permanent authority, who
should be charged with the duty of supervising the
administration of all these charitable trusts.
In the foregoing and following suggestions we are
supported by the reports of the late Commissions and
of the Committee of the House of Commons of 1835.
Amongst the necessary provisions of a measure
for effecting this object, we recommend that trustees
should be compelled to make out annual accounts
of their receipts and expenditure. That
these accounts should be audited before some
local authority. That they should then be registered
in some local office, where they may be accessible to
public inspection, and that copies of them should be
transmitted to some public officer or board, at whose
office these accounts and all other information respect-
ing the various charities throughout the kingdom
should be preserved. That this proposed officer or
hoard should have authority to institute or direct
legal proceedings in such manner, and subject to
such control, as Parliament may think fit to provide.
That in the event of any local jurisdiction being pro-
vided for the easier and more economical regulation
of charities of small amount, it should be required that
all schemes ordered by such a local court be revised
and confirmed by the proposed officer or board.
We are of opinion that the creation of such an
authority as we have described would be the means of
saving a large amount of charity property by putting
a stop to many actual abuses, either of neglect or
misapplication, by advising a better administration to
trustees who are willing to be advised, and in many
instances by preventing expensive litigation, which
would seldom be found necessary when it was gene-
rally known that any instance of neglect or malver-
sation would meet with a certain and prompt inter-
ference. _ _ _

We abstain from entering more particularly into
the necessary details of a measure for effecting the
general object we have in view, but we venture to
suggest that the expenses of the establiahmen: neces-
sary for the purpose might very fairly be thrown
upon the charities themselves, and we find that a tax
of only one penny in the pound, upon those charities
whose income amounts to 101. and upwards, would
provide a revenue of nearly 5,0001.
We have already expressed our belief that the ag-
gregate income of the charities considerably exceeds
the sum of 1,209,3951., which we have made the basis
of the above calculation. And we humbly submit to
your Majesty, that these large revenues, intended by
the founders to secure various and, in many instances,
important benefits to, the community, demand from
the State some better security than at present exists
for their due and beneficial administration.
Given under our hands and seals, this 25th day o
June, 1850.

(Signed)
CHICHESTER (L.S.) T. IL S. SOTHERON (L.S.)
DUCIE (L.S.) JOHN E. BLUNT (L b.)
H. VANE (L.S.) JAMES HILL (L.S.)
WHAUNCLIFFE (L.S.) HENRY KINGSCOTE (L.S.)
FREI,ERICE. L'EEL (L.S.)
Treasury Chambers, Whitehall.

A report has reached U 3 that Mr. James Wa!lack
Mr. Munyard, and Mrs. Clifford, all diod within the past
week; they had all been suffering from severe indisposition.

FRO 31 THE LONDON GAZETTE

OF FRIDAY.
CROWN OFFICE, JULY 18.

MEMBERS RET ORNED TO SEIM; IN THIS PRESENT

PARLIAMENT.

Borough of Thvonport—Sir John Romilly, Knight,
her Majesty's Attorney-General.
Town of Southampton—Alexander James Edmund
Cockburn, Esq., her Majesty's Solicitor-General.

Court. liirtz-1, otfiend assignee, Ex2tsr; Savery, Mod-
bury; Bishop and Pius, E:' ter.
Timothy Bourne Bourne, cotton hrokor, Liverpool,
July 26 and Aug. 29, at eleven, at the Liverpool Dis-
trict Court. Bird, Oficial assignee, Liverpool; Norris,
Liverpool.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
J. NV. English, Poultry, chemist and druggist, Aug. 9,
st half-past twelve—D. Smith and F. D. Smith, B,vor-
lane, Hammersmith, wholesale dry salters, Aug. 9, at one
—T. J. Edwards, King-street, 13loomsbur3, dressing-
case maker, Aug. 9, at half past twelve.
In the Country.
C. Cooper, Wilknhall, Staffordshire, grocer and pro-
vision dealer, Aug. 21, at twelve, at the Court, Bir-
mingham.
PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS.

S. Higneet, Midd!e, Shrorhire, malster, Bs. 31, on
any Thursday, between eleven and three, a. the office of
Mr. Valpy, thrminghatn.
J. Yeomans, Sheffield, merchant, 2v. 6d., on any Sa•
turday, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Freeman, Sheffield.
C. Burgin, Sheffield, steel manufacturer, 2r., on any
Saturday, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Freeman, Sheffield.

C. Reinld, Reading, builder, 65., builder, on Saturday
next and three subsequent Saturdays, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane.

W. A. Reeves, Maidstone, cabinet-maker, Bs. 4d., on
Wednesday next and three following Wednesdays, be-
tween eleven and two, at the c.,ffiee tf Mr. Graham,
Coleman-street.

J. Ford, Richmond, Surrey, licensed victualler, 23. 5d.,
on Wednesday next and three fullowing Wiedoestisys,
between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Graham,
Culcmani street.

J. Addington, London road, Southwark, oil and co-
Lowman, 3s. 3d., on Wednesday nest and three follow-
ing Wednesdays, between eleven and two, at the office of
Mr. Graham, Coleman• street.

A. Wilkie), Camberwell, Surrey, 49. Id., on Wednes-
day next and three following Wednesdays, between
eleven and two, at the cffiese of Mr. Graham, Coleman-

street.

A. Beattie and F. Macnaghten, Nicholas-lane, Lom-
bard-street, merchants, lid., on Wednesday next and
three following Wednesdays, between eleven and two,
at the office of Mr. Graham, C.,lemin-streot.
M. Cowles, Nine Elms, and York-road, Lambeth,
livery stablekeeper, 25., on Wednesday next and three
following Wednesdays, between eleven and two, at the
office of Mr. Graham, Coleman-street.

R. Robson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, manufacturer of
plaster of Paris, 2s. 6d., on any Saturday, bet.keen ten
and three, at the office of Mr. Wakley, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne.
J. Barr, Turnstile, High Holborn, and Old-road, St.
Pancras, builder, 3s. 3d., on any Wednesday, between
eleven and three, at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Basing-
hall-street.

Christy, Adams, and Hill, Rotherhithe, engineers and
boilermakers, Is. Gd., on Thursday, the 25th, and fol-
lowing Thursday, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
J. Shelford, Standen, Hertfordshire, butcher, 55., on
Thursday, the 25th, and following Thursday, between
eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stansfeld, Basing-
hall-street. _ _

J. Sydenham, Pool, Dorsetshire, printer and book-
seller, 45., on Thursday, the 25th, and following Thurs-
day, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stans-
feld, Basinghall-street.
P. Thompson, sen., Osnaburgh-place, New-road, car-
penter and builder, 95., on Thursday, the 25th, and
following Thursday, between eleven and two, at the office
of Mr. Stansteld, Basinghall street.
H. F. Horneman, Queen. street, Cheapside, merchant,
is. 9d., on Thursday, the 25th, and following Thursday,
between eleven and_twe. at the office of Mr. Stansfeld,
Basinghall-street.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghad-street.
S. and H. J. Hogg, Portsea, auctioneers and wine
and spirit merchants, Aug. 10, at eleven—C. Searle, Hill-
street, City-road, timber merchant, Aug. 10, at one—D.
Stead, Georgc-street, patentee of wood-paving,
Aug. 7, at one—F. Westover, Lewisham, cheeseulonger
and grocer, Aug. 10. at two.
In the Country.
W. Higgs, Wolverhan.p:on, iron dealer and shoeing
smith, Aug. 20, at twelve, at the Court, Birmingham.
CERTIFICA'T'ES GRANTED.

C. 11. Swann, Sandford, J. Swann, Wolvercote, and
W. Swarm, Eusham, Oxfordshirp, papermukera—W.
Rokerts, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, apothecary=
E. Bell, Lambeth-walk, grocer, certificate of the se-
cond class—J. Darby, Dorset-maws, Dorset-square,
horse dealer, certificate of the third class—T. Culling-
wood, Noneham Cuurteny, Oxfordshire, innkeeper, cer-
tificate of the second class—J. Brown, Bristol, builder,
certificate of the first class—P. Stranger, E. Evans, and
S. Cross, Birmingham, glass manufacturers, certificates
of the second class—G. G. Mason, Cinderhill,
Lancashire, cotton spinner, certificate of the first class
DISSOLVED
—A. Brown and W. Todd, Liverpool, provision dealers,
certificate of the second class, at the expiration of
twenty-onerdAyas fsroEmitsJuullypslsD ..

T. W. Carpenter and J. N. Carpenter, St. John-
street, West Smithfield, carcass butchers—Jane Hard-
man, T. Cocksey, and I'. Le, Boltnn.le. Mors,
L'incashirp, brass and iron founders—G. Bracher and
A. W. Pocock. Old Jewry, biscuit bakers—J. Jay and
J. Robinson, Hereford, attorneys—L. J:.ckson and E.

M`Donnell, Chaddesley Corbett, Worcestershire, sur-
geons—E. M'amnell and RS. Penkivil, Chaddesley
Corbett, Worcestershire, surgeons —J. Sharp and
T. B. Sharp, Maucheste:, iron merchants—J. Sharp,
'l'. B. Sharp, and J. Robins.‘n, Manchester,
engineers —E. Grondona and J. B. Naudet,
Albany-street, Regent's-park, cooks and confec-
tioners—J. Wintle and R. Wiutle, Adam-street, Adel-
phi, wine and spirit merchants--E. Robinson and J. R.
Wilkinson, Skipton, Yorkshire, grocers—A. Beale and
J. Edwards. Gecrge-street, Blackfriars-road, hat manu-
facturers—E. Draksfurd and T. Scott, Liverpool,
commission merchant,—W. Conway, J. Roach, T.
Pilditch and F. Fowler, Plymouth, railway contrac-
tors (so far as regards W. Conway)—J. Dunstan, W.
Duuatan, T. Dunstan, J. Barraclough, J. Barraclough,
and I'. Ty as, Union Foundry, Barnsley, York-
shire, ironteunders (so far as regards J. Dunstan, W.
Dunstan, and T. Dunstan)—W. A. Adams and G. All-
cock, Smethwick, Staffordshire, railway carriage builders
--T. Wright. J. Harris, and C. Gooldstraw, Manchester,
joiners and builders—Catharine Cooke and Charlotte
Sophia Gardner, Bristol, milliners—T. Hirst, R. Bram-
ley, W. D. Skelton, and H. Skelton, jun., Leeds, wool-
len cloth manufrcturers—S. Wood and W. B. Wood,
Macclesfield, silk manufacturers—R. Hickson and E.
Hoff, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, auctioneers—J. Pennell
and W. Poplar, Liverpool, cigar makers—W. Balding
and D. Downing, Tunnel-square, Rotherhithe, Cipher
merchants—11. Richards and G. Canwell, Piccadilly,
druggists—J. Rowland and W. Rich, New Baud-street,
tailors—R. Court and W. Genre, Bridport, Dorsetahire,
linendrapers—W. Brindle and L. Clayton, Coke, Lan-
cashire, boiler makers—T. Morgan, T. Banks, T.
Morgan, jun., Kidderminster, Worcestershire, tin-plate
manutacturers (so far as regards T. Morgan, sea )
J. H. Wrathall and W. Climes, Eliz s-place, Whit-
more-road, Holston, and Strand, printing-ink ma-
nufacturers—J. Grainger and R. Evans, Neata, Glamor-
ganshire, timber merchant—P. Morgan, J. Pearce and
F. Price,egard sAp. be rmo
e a vr;an ls. w
inen aonodd, m
woo. slleandu hrn, and
r:optersa(soa far
as' r
W. Webberley, Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, manu-
facturers of china—T. Reynolds and J. Tillcock, ,New
Bond street, tailors—J. B. Hunter, A. Thompson, R.
Thompson. and R. Morrison, jun., Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, ship and insurance brokers,
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
James Robinson, Ward's Fold, Cheshire, boatman.
Jelin William Beck,
Wmoracneestteers,torbread and biscuit-
JTatibm oameksea rsM.J ‘avai
ieal
ml CAo rrnd seonn,
Worcester,
Worcestershire, nail-dealer.
vor estershire, car-
p obracem,
ster, shopman.horse-fly proprietor.
Charles Gallimore, Bire:iNffg button-maker.
jWovihlenl
yi aomir.on
t.sltYh,ites,on.,
Hay-green, Worcester, mine sur-
veyor.
James Pearson, Gosty Bank,Staffordshire.
Edward Bent, Brierly-hill, Staffordshire, cowkeeper.
Jos:ter.
pnhTomlinson, Hanley °3tle
Uriali Bailey, Silkstone, Yorkshire,
Robert Lloyd, Aspley, Staffordshire, cratemAker.
Charles Davis, Birmingham.
William Price, Birmingham, schoolmaster.
John Davies, jun., Coleshill, Warwickshire, surgeon.
Henry Hunter, Birmingham, hairdresser.
Adolphus Frederick White, New Ferry, Cheshire,
schoolmaster.
John Prosser, St. Michael, Cwmdu, Brecknockshire,
farmer.
John Baker, Hay, Brecknockshire. tin-plate worker.
John Donovan, Glasbury. Radnorshire. plumber.
SCOTCII SEQUESTRATIONS.
A. B. Glenday, Dundee, merchant and shipowner, to
meet within the British Hotel, Dundee, July 24 and Aug.
14. at one.
W. R. Logan, merchant, Glasgow, to meet within the
Globe Hotel, Glasgow, July 24 and Aug, 21, at one.

eiple, and would interfere with the relay system. But
he wished to give notice that at the commencement of
the next session he would move for a Committt e to in-
quire how the relay system had worked. Le wished to
enter his protest against the Bill as it then stood, aed
he 11;itild for that purpose move that it be read a third
time that t;ay six months. But as many of those Noble
Lords who agreed with him upon that point were then
absent from the Hotve, he should not press his motion
to a division, lest he might give to her Majesty's Mi-
nisters a greater majority than that which they had ob-
tained on a former evening. Under these circumstances
he begged leave to move that the Bill be read a third
time that day six month;.
Lord HINNAIRD said he believed that the feeling of
the operative classes was not so decidedly opposed to the
measure as some persons appeared to imagine. He be-
lieved that the operatives would have no serious grounds
for complaint upon the subject if the amendment of the
Noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of llarrowby)
were adopted.
The Duke of RICEBIOND said he b lieved tha: 99
out of every 100 operatives were oppesel to the Bill as it
then stood. _

Lord REDESDALE said it had been alleged that that
Bill had bean framed as a compromise; but he had heard
no answer giveu to the question which had been put the
other evening—namely, as to who had been the parties
to that compromise. lie should certainly like to receive
some information upon that point trom her Majesty's
Ministers. It certainly would appear from the petitions
which had been presented to Parliament that a majority
both of the manufacturers and of the operatives were op-
posed to the Bill as it then stood.
Earl GRANVILLE said he had ncver stated that the
Bill was a compromis,.. All he contended for was that it
was the most practicable mode of settling a very difficult
question.
Tho Bill was then read a third time.
The Evrl of lIARROVVBY then moved an amend-
ment, the purport of which was that female children
should not be worked after six o'clock in the evening
any more than" females and young persons. lle confessed
that he felt most anxious to provide against the possi-
bility of those children being detained in factories for
hours after their female relatives and other young per-
sons should have left them. He did not wish to put an
end to the relay system; and he thought that a mist
satisfactory arrangement might be come to upon that
point by the employment of female children in the morn-
ings, and the employment of male children in the even-
ings. But he certainly thought it most desirable that
fern Ala children should be able to kayo the mills in the
company of their female relatives. The Noble Lord
concluded by moving the insertion of certain words for
the purpose of carrying out the object of his Amendm7nt.
The Earl of DARNLEY said he thought that if it
we: at all desirable to introduce a provision of that
description, it should be brought forward in a separate
Bill. lie hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would
not support The amendment.
Earl GRANVILLE said he believed that if they
were to introduce a provision of that description there
would be considerable danger that the Bill could not be
pa,sed in the course of the present session. The Noble
Earl had said that certain evils might arise from their
allowin; female children to be employed in mills after
the hour of six o'clock in the evening. But those evils
were merely hypothetical, and there was no evidence to
show that there wee any serious danger of their occur-
rence. He believed that it was much better that they
should confine the operation of the Bill to the specific ob-
ject for which it had been brought forward.
Lord KINNAIRD said he believed that if they were

to adopt the proposal of the Noble Earl, they would be
removing the only subject of complaint upon which the
agitation of that question could henceforth be continued
in the manufacturing districts. In his opinion it would
be much better that they should at once come to a com-
plete and satisfactory settlement upon the matter.
The Bishop of MANCHESTER supported the amend-
ment. It waa said that the present was not a ftvour-
ablo opportunity of pressing that proposal. But it was
because he believed that that meauro would for a long
Case continue as a settlement of the question that 13
wished to see Parliament pass it in the most satisfs.c-

tory shape. The Noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said
that the evils of leaving female children in factories
alter their female relatives should have left them were
merely hypothetical. But he (the Bishop of Manchester)
begged leave to differ altogether from that statement.
As the Bill then stood, mills might he open from half-
past five in the morning until half-past eight in the
evening. Now, the result of that arrangement would
he that female children would be compelled to return
home, unaccompanied by their mothers or other female
relatives, and would be left to the care of adult males,
those adult males being any persons over the
age of eighteen. He contended that such a sys-
tem might be productive of great evil; and
he should further say that the comfort and happiness of
mothers and of other members of families must to a
great extent bo destroyed by the knowledge that they
had left behind them in the mills female children, who
would have to return home at an advanced hour of the
evening without their prottetion. He, implored their
Lordships to adopt an amendment which, he believed,
would greatly conduce to the happiness of families en-
gaged in factory labour.—(Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said, that although he had voted
the other evening against the proposal of the Noble
Earl upon that subject, he could not resist the impres-
sive appeal which had just been made to them by the
Right Rev. Prelate • and he should, therefore, vote for the
amendment. He Prelate;
it to be wise and expedient
that they should adopt the amendment, and by that
means remove what might hereafter become a dangerous
topic for azitation.
Lord GRANVILLE having briefly explained,
Their Lordships then divided. The numbers were—
Contents ... ... 14
Non-contents ..• ••• ••• 30
Majority ... —l6
against Lord Harrowby's motion.
The Bill was then read a third time and pasted.
The Earl GRANVILLE then moved the second
reading of the following Bills, which were agreed to
without discussion:—lncorporation of Boroughs Confir-
mation (No. 2) Bill; Militia Ballot Suspenaion -Bill; Po-
pulation Bill; Population (Ireland) Bill; Loan Societies
Bid; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill; Linen, &c., Manu-
factures (Ireland) Bill.
Several other Bills on their Lordships' table were ad-
vanced a stage.
Lard MONTEAGLE gave notice that on Thursday
next he should move an address for the issuing of a
Commission to inquire into the state of the law between
landlord and tenant in England and Ireland.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Twenty-five mi-
nutes to Eight o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, Jury 19.
QUEN'S MESSAGE—GR
LATE DUKE OF CAM-
BRIDGE.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
ths Queen's Message,
Mr. HUME wished to know what was intended
to be done when they got into Committee.
He wished the Noble Lord to state to the House gene-
rally what his views and intentions were, and the 'con-
ditions upon which he proposed to make the grant. The
House was probably not aware that many years ago au
annuity of 27,0001. per annum was voted to the late
Doke, which he continued to receive up to the
time of his death. The allowances to the Royal
Family, too, had been greatly increased by the changes
in the currency, and on that and other grounds they
ought to consider upon what principle the grant should
be made. The King of Hanover had most
unwarrantably, he thought, continued to receive
his allowance of 21,0001. as the Duke of Cumberland,
and be had twice asked the House of Commons to recon-
sider that allowance, but the House, on both occasions,
refused to entertain the subject. Besides that allow-
ance, 250,0001 a year was paid to Hanover
as a subsidy, but, according to his idea of the
matter, the payment ought to have ceased
the moment Hanover obtained an independent Sove-
reign. Now these were circumstances which ought to
be looked to before they made any additional grants, and
he bad therefore prepared an amendment accordingly,
but he was anxious not to move it if it could possibly be
avoided.
The House then went into Committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose, and said he should
confine the observations he had to make to the subject
of her Majesty's most gracious message. The question
of whether the annuity paid to the present Duke of
Cumberland was rightly paid or not under the authority
of the Act of Parliament, constituted a totally
separate Matter, and the Committee had now only to
deal with the case of the present Duke of Cambridge and
his sister, the Princess Mary. Now, the late Duke of
Cambridge, by an Act passed in 1773, was entitled to
part of an amount of 60,0001., which was allowed to
George 111., for the purpose of granting annuities to his
younger sons. One of the provisions ef that Act was, that
none of the younger sons should at any time be allowed
more than 15,0001. per annum, while the annuity which
fell vacant by the death of one son was to pass to the
survivor. Under this Act 6,0001. was added to
the annuity of the Duke of Cambridge, and
afterwards a further annuity of 6,0001. a year was
granted to him. The whole sum paid to the late
Duke of Cambridge as an annuity was 27,0001., but
by a subsequent Act, passed three years ago, ' an
annuity of 3,0001. was settled upon the
Princess Augusta, which was to come into opera-
tion at the death of tho Princess Sophia.
The'next matter for the consideration of the House was
the case of Prince George of Cambridge. The Honour-
able Gentleman the Member for Montrose was in
error in supposing that there was a settlement made
by Parliament of 6,0001. a year on the present Duke of
Cambridge. The further question arose, whether Prince
George of Cambridge inherited from his father
any considerable amount of property. It had
been his (Lord John Russell's) duty to inquire
into this subject, because there were rumours that a
very large amount of property, which was in posses ion
of the late Duke of Cambridge, had been left to his
children. Those rumours, lie found, had been vs-ry
considerably exaggerated. The sum which the ht Duke
had lint to his children was divided into three equal
portions, between the present Duke of Cambridge and
the two daughters of the late Duke, the Princess :ales's.
lenhurg-Strelitz and Princess Mary; and Prince George
of Cambridge was charged with the payment of annuities
to the amount of 1,6001. a year during the lives of the
persons to whom those annuities were lo ft by the Lite
Duke of Cambridge, which would absorb the whole
of the third part of the money which had been
left to him. All that remained to the prsssnt Duke of
Cambridge was the sum of 1,2001. a year, which he
would receive in the shape of rent from the
estate at Coombe-wood. The House W 9.2 well
aware that while it was true that the late
Duke of Cambridge did not excecd his income, and that
when he was Viceroy of Hanover he made some saving
out of his income, it was likewise true that those savings
were not to any considerable amount, and that the amount

whieli the late Duke of Cambridge bestowed in charity
wes sal ways so meutficent us to prevent his amassing
any cottselereble fortune. The hest etatement he (Lord
J. Russel.) meal make of the situatiou of the present
Duke of Cambridge Fray, that, btaides the income he
derived from the army, he had no other income except
the 1.200/. a year derived fawn the small property of the
late Mike of Cambridge. He bad income which he derived
from his prof, esional services in the army; but with re-
spect to the income derived from that source Prince
George of Cambridge had always done his duty as a
soldier— (Cheers) —and that income was as fairly
his right as the income of any officer in the army.—
(Cheers.) He (Lord John Russell) therefore came to
the conclusion that, in answer to her Majesty's message,
the House ought to make some provision for the
present Duke of Cambridge.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the
question arose its to what that provision should be ;
and the precedent to which the Hon. Member (Mr.
flume) has adverted is naturally the precedent which
occurs—viz., the precedent of the Parliamentary an-
nuity granted to the Duke of Gloucester. The Duke of
Gloucester, the brother of George 111., received an in-
come of 24,0001. a year. By an Act passed in the year
1778 King George HE. wars enabled to grant to the son
of the Duke of Gloucester (the late Duke) an annuity
not exc, eding 8,0001. a year. In the year 1806 that sum
was augmented by 6,000/. a year, making an income of
14,0001. a year which the Lae Duke ef Gloucester en-
joyed to the day of his death. The provision made for
the Duchess of Gloucester by former Acts of Parliament
forms a separate consideration. Before her marriage
with the Duke she had an annuity of 14,0001. a
year. Considering, then, this precedent, and taking
into consideration the position in which the
Duke of Cambridge stands, we have to deter-
mine the ,1110:1 which it would be right for the Minister
of the Crown to propose to her Majesty to ask Parlia-
ment to grant to the present Duke. Now, in consider-
ing this proposition, it ought to be taken into account
that when the late Duke of Gloucester was granted that
annuity there were at the same time living several sons
of George less than six sons of George 111.,
enjoying very considerable incomes. The Noble Lord
then continued—l say this because it is well known to
the country and to the House that a person in the posi-
don of a Royal Duke has many claims upon him for
acts of benevolence and charity, and that while the
Dukes of York, Clarence, Kent, Sussex, and Cumberland
lived, there were not likely to be so many claims upon
the Duke of Gloucester as there would be upon a prince
nearly connected with the Throne, and who is, at the
same time, the only prince of the Royal Family who is
living at the dam, and who is not the son of the reigning
Sovereign. That is the position of the present Duke of
Cambridge. He is the only prince of the Royal family,
except the young princes, the sons of the Queen, who
are infants according to law, and who, of course, are not
applied to on subjects of this nature ; he is the only
prince of the Royal Family residing in England at the
present moment. The House will, I am sure, consider
that this must make a difference with respect to the
claims that will be made upon him—that he cannot
well any, " I will use the income Parliament gives
me entirely as if it were given for my private advantage,
and I will be entirely deaf to all those claims of charity
to which my father was so munificent a contributor." I
do not think that that is a sentiment characteristic of
the present Duke, and I therefore come to the conclu-
sion than, considering these things and the position in
which be is placed, an annuity of 12,000/. a year—being
2,0001.1e5s than that which was granted to the Duke of
Gloucester by the Act of 1806, would be a proper. sum
for this House to vote for the present Duke of Cambridge.
-,-(Hear, hear.) I think it would be a sum which would
()cable him to maintain his present rank, and that it is
not at all beyond that which we ought to give him to
sustain the dignity of his situation and to answer those
claims which are likely to be made upon him. There
then remains the case of the Princess Mary. The House
will remember that by a provision made a few years ago
the sum of 3,000 a year was granted to the Princess Au-
gusta from the death of the late Duke of Cambridge. I
propose that the same sum should be granted to the
Princess Mary; that sum would be of course secured by
Act •of Parliament, and upon her marriage or her
attaining the age of 21 would be absolutely hers for
life. The result of this arrangement would be
that 6,000/., the jointure of the Duchess of Cambridge,
3,0001. a year payable to the Duchess of Mecklenburgh,
and 3,000/. a year to be pay able to the Princess Mary,
malting 12 0001. a year, and 12,000/. a year proposed to
be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge, would
make altogether 24,000/. The sum that was payable to
tee late Duke of Cambridge was 27,000/. a year, and
the sum, therefore, that I propose now will be 3,000/. a
year less than that amount. It is unnecessary to enter
into any further details with respect to this subject.
Whatever any Hop. Member Las to say upon it does
not appear to me to be at all connected either with the
annuity payable to the King of Hanover, or to any sala-
ries granted for civil services. These are sums granted
to members of the Royal family to enable Prince George,
now the Duke of Cambridge, who has deserved the con-
sideretien of the House, to keep up the dignity of his
rank, and I therefore cannot regard them as in any way
having reference to other greets. The Noble Lord
then moved the resolution, which he banded to the Chair-
' man. It was to the effect that the Committee was of
opinion that her Majesty should be enabled to grant a
sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund, not ex-
ceeding 12,0001., to make suitable provision for his
Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
On the question being put,
Mr. 11U M.E said he was exceedingly sorry to differ
from the Noble Lord on a question of this nature, be-
cause no man could be more ready than himself to give
credit to the late Duke of Cambridge for the prudent and
nr management of his affairs, or to testily to the
affability and kind-heartedness which had ever distin-
guislied that Royal Duke. The Noble Lord, however,
had not stated the whole of the facts with re-
gard to George HI. George 111. was allowed
60 000/. to divide amongst ten sous. That
was 6,600/. a year to each, and it was pro-
vided that on the death of one his annuity was to be die
vieled amongst the survivor?, with the stipulation, how-
ever, that none should receive more than 15,0001., for
without some such stipulation the last survivor would
have received 60,0001. a year. He found that
8,0001. a yeer was all that was granted for
many years to the late Duke of Gloucester. The Noble
Lord had omitted to state that 6,0001 a year was
granted to the Duke of Cambridge for his son, at
the same time that a similar amount was granted to the
Duke of Cumberland for his son; so that in fact the
present Duke had for many years been receiving 6,000/.
a year from the country, although indeed it was paid
to the father, who received 27,0001. a year instead of
21,000/, which was the allowance of the other brothers.
Why should not the Committee adopt in the present
case the precedent of the Duke of Gloucester, and vote
an annuity of 8,0001.? In 1806 the state of the cur-
rency led to an increase of all official salaties, and to
that of the Royal Duke also. All that had now gone
by, and we had now returned to the sober times of bul-
lion payments. At the same time we were in a state of
perfect peace, andnow, if ever, was the period her making
retrenchment. Ho spoke as a trustee of the public funds,
and he said that he did not wish to see so large a sum
taken from the Consolidated Fund when there was so
much want and distress around. He thought it would
be desirable that there should be an inquiry into the
arrangement of the civil list for life on the accession of
a new monarch, and whether al end should not be put
to the allowance of the Kiag of Hanover, who had for
many years been receiving a large sum from this country.
He was glad to hear that his Royal Highness the Duke
of Cambridge had followed his profession of a soldier,
and that he was helms, d by the army. If his (Mr
Hume's) proposition were acceded to, he would have an
annuity of 8,0001. a year; he would also have whatever
allowance might arise from his military command; and
he would have the one-third of what his father had left;
and that he thought, in the present state of the country,
would be ample and sufficient. He begged to move, as
an amendment, that 8,0001. a year shoud be substituted
for 12,000/., and he should take the sense of the Com-
mittee upon it.
Mr. DISRAELI agreed with the Noble Lord, that the
proposition ought to be considered on its own merits,
and should not bo mixed up with the arrangements pre-
viously made to the King of Hanover. The Noble Lord
was also right in stating, when the House was called
upon to consider a message from the Crown on subjects
of this character, that there were two considerations
laid before them; first, whether any provision should be
made for the illustrious person to whom the message re-
ferred, and if that were answered in the affirmative, then
what should be the amount to be considered as a compe-
tent provision. There were not, certainly, two opinions
upon.,the point that the illustrious individual for whom
they were now called upon to make provision, was one for
whom Parliament was unanimously of opinion that some
provision ought to be made. The Committee should con-
sider the conditions under which an appeal was made
for an English Prince of the Blood to an English Par-
liameet. The Prince was in a position which permitted
of his favourably impressing bis claims on the consi-
deration of Parliament. It was, for instance, the con-
institutional jealousy of Parliament which had virtually
deprivt d the Sovereigns of these realms of the power of
making charges upon their estates in favour of princes
of the blood. Therefore, when a prince of the blood
came before them tinder the circumstances of the illus-
trious Duke, they must always remember that that was
a consequence in great part of the conduct of the House
of Commons. There was another consideration which
ought not to be omitted when the House of Commons
dealt with a question of this nature—namely, that that
House was a party to the passing of the Act which pre-
vented any prince of the blood from assisting or in-
creasing his fortune iu any of the ways which were
open to other subjects, and when also they considered
how much the House of Commons had been concerned
first, in the settlement of the civil list, and next
in the Royal Marriage Act, they would, he was sure,
remember that in reference to every prince of the blood
there were peculiar causes which permitted his claims
to be urged with gun.: silent. But with regard to the
illustrious prince, there were other considerations.
The merriage of the late lamented Duke of
Cembritlge was one that was very much desired
by the country; for on the cceurrcnee.of a most lament-
able catastrophe it was desired that the sons of
George 111. should Lase no time in forming those
alliances which should ensure the permanence of the
Royal family with which the people of this country as-
sociated their best inter. ate, nor was it possible they
should be insensible to this claims and character of the
illustrious individual hiumele He only expressed what
everybody felt, that the conduct of the present Duke of
Cambridge had endeared him to the best feelings of
the country—(Hear, hr are—he had shown himself pos-
sessed of many qualities which were popular and highly
esteemed in this country. and he had led a life both
spirited and decorous. With regard to the first propo-
sition of the Noble Lord, whether the provision was one
that ought to ba made, there could les nu want f. f unani-
mity on the part of the House. To the second question—
the amount of that provision—the Hen. Member (Mr.
Hume) had addressed himself. It was certainly impos-

...............-----_ ..... ------- , , eli=te
i..ible to shat their eyes to great dis:ross walcu,cd shot
in this eonntry, and though he was rather sty-tee'
tot
he complaint oi. distress shoald coy INinwbsi•
(the edieisterial) •s;•dts of the !loose, attll.circeoe
ever were his feelings wider other 0 pro•
stancea, he could not consider the Pregef their
position without same reference w the state,
,`_'sd ell
cloristituents. The proposition of the Noble Ims BO
I funded upon the case of the Duke of Gloueescei, va,
upon the whole a more just one could not bes,e.leecre's
But, above all, her Majesty's Ministers bad wi11'!...7011°
discretion, prudent e and wisdom prPoseds
ire the
Duke
reduced from that which had been glyesoestbli
)ulte of Gloucester. He (sir. Disraeli) enders' eterec
the reduction had been in consequence of the 'Otte
circumstances of the country; be coald see,n,ooooe'
'Jason for it, and he thought therefore that ta"toeto.•
ton ought to have bsen made. Under all
tibeteOe'r
stancesde of the ease, thee, taking every poin- i°,., esr '
ration, and con4.lerina the stile Of the couniq!testlf
faro' 0
eially th. oso classes- with" whom they were „o too,
connected. in that House, it was a fair aed by traste'l"
immoderate propesition.—(flear. hear.) Isle 00%
then, that although the Hon. Member (xr. stA "
had sugger ts eel
faithful to his traditionary office,
amendment, he would not ieel it his duty to e
oil!'
amendment to a division, but would rether agstio°
the House that under all circumstances the P Fee pro•
,::. the Government was a just, fair, end Louder°
tlls'
position.
Mr. BRIGHT said he was rather disaPPintelt;
statement of the Noble Lord in one particular. /ee it;
dcerstood the Noble Lord to say thst the ,hit:o3ollghbo
abrialge had divided his property eclu'lle-ere sf re
children; hut that he had attached to tea be-hieshl
son certain annuities which entirely eat iis"lf tbe 1:;,
Disk„
to 1.600/. a year. The daughter o
eti00,,,,
of Cambridge, on her marriage sale 1 eat t„;
had an allowance from Parliament of 3,004 61.Itaee•!,
life.—(Several voices, "From the death of herteeil
It was unfortunate that the ro erty left by lbe, illde
tabs°
father was left in such a miPtinPer that the whe,i% 0 o
now handed over to other partiea leaving,,li`4l;l)ollo
provided for by the country. lie r• Dtriee es
net say one word against the late Dake of Ctilyit se/1r
looking to the statements of the Noble Lord, ...of ,I
that since 1778 he had been in the receipt of $e715,01'
ing, from his share in 60,000/.
21 00 '
, 0.., and latterly, for
waxy years, 27evieete9
110
e
was not aware of t •
his receipts es th t to leo
Hanov • • er, but Parliament was bound eheat Or iile
outo altogether from its considesation t lab g e ,
we
a duty to their farailY in t tbel of
a year. to
and 05. bode/ 0
as well as in the other degrees,
bound to act by theni so as not to throw the eialciat
maintenance upon the public when it was
t. dPge sli„°11001
avoid it. That the late Duke iS Caal,ur' oildre",.,oo
therefore, have made some provision for 8",,,e1,,1'"05i
theist c 0... Ito iri
tjot
of the large income be derived froze
have been but fair, and not to have .", cud fiii
howeveliiriet) e
of
manner upon the public. The past,
be remedied, but the future could. Ile (/!.,,r'eut it!jelli
not opposed to some provisioia for the P''; iesoliecet
bridge in case his private pros:P.4ll sad ie ttiejeteli
for his station; but the advantages pre' all the froirt.
0 mighti be purchased at too dear a rate, taree 'e I
off tt-iheismonarchy should, in his opiniotesocier tbe.qtto,
nature as not to let them cense Oh t 00°040
the public in an unpleasant manner for tlut 60104
Heo, looked at the fact in this light. The Pro-n--a adoOf , the
of this country had a numerous familY• and for
cV,U,provision would, n 6 doubt, have be eistereoto
d wren of the Queen. Would the Prime 04 ale off
oach of da
even A
eaeynpropose or the Parliament grant, ilot(jobted air'13:1001
.Primecallnisitieer wouldgr. pprroipgobste) juts
C mbridge, howeve-, was only
and would Parliament be justified in hgrt:eafter g 0501,1
sum greater than that which would he 'efere o'oo'
to her Majesty's own offspring? I'
therehe eeildiep.
at year each was considered too much Or
unjust toberdtll'
. the reigning Sovereign, it would be Uni,"e eeesiatsilr'
jelly's offsprine to ' etas to •L" • ere°. bet
a give that b telt' r'it si 0
Queen II
, . e (Mr. Bright) might be taste oteesPeed .1
ieg certain opinions on the subject or the re et 0 ir/-00se
monarchical institutions htheewasfirst cousin rtl:onbtettliigliieeftbeto
quite satisfied that the Minister wile '1,40101; tr
eta.ovmocateeohnd such
to
i a subject to the eients" be its 'el
ion and by its economy. The imp before
the viol
be made on the country b the vote bef°,ra obje yoel ad
wes an unfavourable e yin respect to 'toe gssoe
eonsideratifonhaetootiti:7. an tb:riu:or:
against the monarchical system °lt was Osjeoll
of expense. Though the qaestiou 71 preceif
s:,ermeti.ch of precedent as of piuciple, still 0106',
at important. The vote to the Dolt° 04 kotel'
first was only et) 0/
.., which wee inere"whig le rees
—it was ~I sate tor party puo'es---bY the tile a l'l
the
et ijorree.
ment of the day. If that was the ease'
Lord should have been the last man in, tlitettitr„,?eiei
bring such a precedent forward; and °',.l',-,,e SO g,oore
dents that was the last which should ll"'ift.oo, -tel;
with Parliament. In his (Mr. 13 ' hes) OP- loe do/
. rig for t
a year was -
an Income sufficient' amp be grail, er
of Cambridge, and more ought sufficiently
to Lev feel',
atiheonse. Looking to these cibrcurestelieseate rig"( I'
maker'
some
the late Duke of Catabridgerheth 40,°04
income
emperovision for his family Due 0' "aabellee'
years' he received from the stat; °odic° ;00
that to grant 12,0001. a year would be to Pc"cetO°
fi
after the children
provided tor, ho should support the teseencoe-- so' la os
The
House Marquiswas anxious,
of GRANBy siid eyed 1:1500 to,
late Duke of :1.16+ was sure, to do themti°ll 101
iouCambridge—m I.) a d esr •'e
v s and natural mode, therefore,ea '---- !I. tesl-107°gieh
respect was to grant such an allowance
o;
to tes•ekol,
successord as would suffice to"ance istictrio
imtityand
his maintain, u 0.4,00 e•,
unlit} of high station. 1' tr
dell el
weuld, ever,more _e was assured, be only too 0.01 00
encourage • in the pie sent illustrious prince ti'edsget,
the v•
to inees of his illustrious father, and to eile,-,sitelhe
transmit that name and theOf ttl°'- tYI 0
memory
ewe ilo.,
unimpaired, to ,the latest posterity. With r ease hie
add. • Awn to the income of Geotle`- re'
the Duke of 0 p
the 0
made not for party
, purposes, hut bacause is,
in .
Lome v. as insefe •
I,,tent. gor far
had alluded
R. INGLIS said the Hon. Member 0001 V
life
of
flltaled to the bargain made with eel f°l/
her Majesty as a bad hergal trilifOr
country 03 the ova Jeff
sidere ; but
he
(Sir R. Inglis),
peared iCto
be
a t'al bargain for tho Cullo".0141100'
from returns on the table of the '°,,,-- tbe c.4a.a1l
the be •
ginning of the reign III. to V` r
of George by tse ,
that of
William IV, the sums receiveble v? (ta' le
duties soael
reign from the Post-office, for the wine wo e,'
70,0001.
than 11660y0e04,0r alone),
and other sourceisl,l isattio;
1 v St
00/, while the sum granty,,aool, 'lOOO,Ol
iu that period amounted only to 69,p00' of 00,0 ;4,
balance of 47 O , 00,000/. clear in favour us. fel' c
ve €4O ,
It that sum were in the hands of the t for
have no • raen tis
. need to apply to Paha
visio I /9 lee I
n or her children.;es 0 Atiji4
Colonel RAWDON rose amidst loud cr. t'u- i
be obt di
and so much confusion that he could use af 06101?
heard.
s He had known the late Pill'et-I0 Ydecljs
tarhodmhis earliest years—in Hanover Pllal.4o42tOdefr
he bore the fullest testimony to hie, ti„el, ti/- eil
ber •
ality and his great char' He sue- 1'
charity. '0)0
support the motion
of the Noble Lore. .4 co , A,
Colonel CHATTERTON, amidst lel'oclerd° fe
division and still louder confusion, wil;As,;,p°lo. dt;110l
saytl that the present Duke of Cam
-oi
oleo
ior.ough knowledge of the Milital 6er
e°l3°9
the income prop used by the Noble Lora tw tee
ea
enough. Ho suggested the same gum 4/
sate
Gloucester—viz
, 14,000/. a year.
I/ - the 01'P 55
w e
The Committee then divided, 11
, , 06 4
For the amendment •• $ 0"
... ••• ••• /
Against it ••• ti V,
Majority •••
••• ..• ••• tir
110 01
••• ••• lo t• , 0 o,t
The
_amendment was therefore •--e se of )1
Mr. HUME then moved h t the Teio s 0
ta, en cote of ot
10,000/. a year.—(Cries elrt ..nd° 0
of "Oh 0" ' •
twice the amount of 'f' the e thes- 00 re
the salary o of 9'0,1
Treasury, who ha ,1 the whole business • 11l ~ r.
eear ow,
attend to.—(Hear, hear.) For many Tee_evies r, oli•,11
George 111. did not receive so much' chore Offat ir tit'
net (Sir R. Inglis) had alleged that ets:011 -I
have been better with the Wood' and r ot 0 oiede
posal than with the present satinet On; the
list. He (Mr. Hume) begged to refer P-ecoil-solfii
tow the debtor and creditor side of th°,l:o `be (0 0),
oods and Forests, as contained in " for ?oil' cur
Committee, of which the Noble Meeaber opt
tile
Duncan) was chairman—(Hear, hearr-yetir! tearcA
itt appeared that for the last tvventy-Oee th"'• ea'
bad derived little or nothing frnealle tbe'
Baronet.
(Hear, hear.) He
Bronet. He was not at all dispor„Lge"Lig•° ter.) he '
Family on so ern: • (m-• h e t ll'ir
mous a fond.-- Deler,,4lo ille
Sir '•I
1 • WILLou i goy said that bar be
Lord replied ' 6-• per ft of
to the Hon. Member, 001001,0$
etete to the Committee whether, in tueheeiel cr sr.,
riage of the Duke of Cambridge,'be al'e- es'et hr
so- Pi/
addition to the 19.0,J0/.? oot efe d
Lore J. RUSSELL Id rather boo 05 if
wou •-,_ ave, 43 Ap
question at present; he would ouses- or
Dote
the. allowance to the Duke of Gloneeetere•tis ayce 0,1
ruinage, was 14,0001., and he did not at Presello,rige /tile
under any circumstances 9. greut,°r„,,,bri°olll'," 15
14,000/. per annumthe Duke f ki'..--' 0 Li- r° '.l
0 •10 h 0 nO
to __,osit A ; v ,
hear) With
_reference to the Pr''cit'e atato per„oo
Member for Montrose, he bad ale 7,2 pl. 40Y 0/
which induced him to ,c
•that 1-
-'°°
tile.'
1"
consider „ to met
etc r.
was not more than a proper allowave: COO le'eete
Cambridge, and he would not detain tliewevetheserj fa
repetition of his views. He would, IW.OO ei 'ci 10 le'
opportunity of expressing his appreelativrlee oil
forwards the
with which his 11011,e'd o oil!(
the views which he entertein 011,0
ject.—( le
a—ear, hear.) ,1, held it)el,elC;
Mr. •
.V. SMITH thought it wool. e°ll,oo„t's
tory to the country if the Noble Loaer 05;01"4
clauseDae in the Act granting. the 12,000 t• Poe eel, AV)
led Cambridge, providing thiltLe to Posscl•
Hanover
illustrious Duke acceding at soy tisefl'ler,.n• etoitii
lHanover the allowance should cohere''. f ffriedesi"
every year from the public revenue 000trfttee tali
source of much dissatisfaction to the r 1,0011,10 el
, Mr. HEY W ORTH calved u the s' 0 - 0'
poll ~,,, o ,I ,/
in mind that all this money to coma re le
was 'f /411°Id
earrings ~f thr, I 1 0
la man t et 0 i
Mr. lIENRY DRUNIMON.I) „id thaty(ooogoo
had tint robbed the Crown f its PrnPerhe 11° itlll/1i
0 bet „ ee e
the Queen would at this women.,der 0 F
such l last ended estates as would ' ger."
Ceesary to apply te the House for 00
raster
the lea i F •
/sat amity. 1/7
The Committee divided. The numb... -5 , i 0
Ft r the motion ••• ".• /5 lb" ‘7l)
For the amendment ••• ...- 0 ede t'llile
Majority ... ••• •:s. loot rtsst
The resolution was then agreed tot f ll,' ei%
'went c'es teti 4
resolution to authorise the pa) 0 ogP 5 4P
nuns to the Princess Mary, Mr' '" VP ii
should not oppose the grant. , n nciltov 01,0'
CLERKS INT THE MONT-L„- gafl- (fil-
o De
MENT OF THE Pol. too - eer
Mr. ANS TEY rose to call the.attOeera
to the petition of 138 clerks in tbe' 02"