The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-02 00:00:00

THE SUN,

Mr. V. SMITH approved of the stationery being sup-
plied from one office. It was also to be observed that
the vote had been decreased this year, and that a saying
might he effected in printing Parliamentary papers.
Many things were printed which ought net to ho
There should be an officer to discriminate what papers
were valuable, and what not. There was an item of
1,0001. a year for printing for the Railway-office.
Mr. C. LEWIS said, tho increase for printing the
papers of Comrniesions had greatly diminished. The
item for the Railway .office was only an estimate, and
might be lees.
After a few words from Mr. BROWNE concerning
agricultural statistics,
Mr. REYNOLDS said be would undertake for the
printers of Dublin, that they would do the printing for
the public departments 20 per cent. cheaper than it
was now done in London.
Mr. C. LEWIS observed, in explanation of the cata-
logues of the National Gallery, that the profits of the
sale were deducted from the expense of printing theM.
Mr. COBDEN pressed on the House the necessity of
having their reports in octavo form instead of quarto.
Mr. FRENCH wished to know why an answer was
not given by the Treasury to the question put by his
Right Hon. Friend the Lord Ma) or of Dublin, with re- '
gard to the printing being done for 20 per cent. less tha❑
was now paid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, was not
disposed to pay any attention to voluntary offers of that
description; but a contract wero made it would be
very different.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. Gone-
sunN, in favour of the House reports being printed in an
octavo shape,
Mr. DISRAELI expressed his opinion in favour of the
change, and observed that no species of information
could be more valuable than that contained in the yeti-
-0116 blue books presented to the House.
Colonel DUNNE complained, th...t although there
were 36,000 soldiers in Ireland, the stationery was but
7001., while for the constabulary, amounting to but
12,000 men, it was 1,0001. That was a disproportion
which required some explanation.
The vote was then agreed to.
10,000/. for defraying, for 1850, the expense of build-
ing, &c., the Edinburgh National Gallery.
Mr. BRIGHT protested against the state. If Edin-
burgh had a national gallery, why should not Manches-
ter and Birmingham have national galleries also?
Mr. HUME defended the vote, inasmuch as it was for
the promotion of science and the tine arts, which had
made considerable progress of late years in Scotland.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the words in the estimate
reminded him of an advertisement of Mr. George Robins
—(A laugh)—and, fur that reason, he certainly enter-
tained some suspicion of the utility of the vote.
Mr. V. SMI 111 thought it was a fair thing to have a
public museum in Edinburgh, but he should like to have
some information on the subject, particularly as regarded
the contracts for the building.
Mr. BRIGHT said that a sum of 4,000/. was put down
as a site fur the building, whereas he was informed on a
late occasion that the corporation of Edinburgh were to
give the site for 1,0001. There were large sums of money
left to Edinburgh in the shape of legacies, and it would
be much more independent to apply them in that way
than asks for grants of the public money.
Sir J. GIBSON CRAIG observed that those charities
were strictly tied up and could not be applied to any
other purposes than the intentions of the donors.
The vote was then agreed to, and the House resumed.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE, &c, ANNUITY
BILL.

The House having resolved itself into Committee on
this Bill, it was proposed to fill up the blank with 12,000/.
Mr. HUME said his had given notice of his intention
to propose that the blank should be filled up with 8,000/.,
that being the amount given on a former occasion to the
Duke of Gloucester, who was a nearer relation to the
Sovereign than the present Duke of Cambridge; but be-
lieving that a vote of 10,000/. would be more likely to
receive general support, he would propose that the blank
be filled up with that sum.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK trusted the Hon. Member would not
move so large a grant. Let the House just consider
what the Royal Duke had. Why should he have 10,000/.
—for what purpose? If we had a Royal Family it was
necessary there should be provision for certain portions
of that family. But it was a matter of great import-
ance to know when the individuals of that family should
cease to have a claim.—(Hear.) Some line should be
drawn, and he was of opinion that the further an indi-
vidual was removed from the situation of heir to the
Crown the less right had he to an allowance from the
public. He admitted that a person so near to the Throne
as the Duke of Cambridge should be provided for, but
such provision ought to be judged of by the habits of
the people among whom he lived. 10,000/. was a very
iarge sum. The Duke of Cambridge when alive had only
24,0001.
HUME.-27,0001.
Mr. ROEBUCK—WeII, 27,000/. His two daughters
were to have 3,0001. each, and his son 12,0001., and his
widow 6,000/., making together 24,000/. Now, let the
House remember that her Majesty had been so fruitful
as to produce seven children. Every ose of these seven
had the same claim as the late Duke of Cambridge.—
(Hear, hear.) Every one might marry, and there might
be a multiplication of families of this description.—
(Hear, hear.) Were was this to end?—(Hear, hear.)
It might seem an ungracious proceeding to enter into a
discussion of this sorr. If the money could be obtained
without applying to the labouring population he should
be happy to contribute his quota; but it would have to
be wrung from the hard earnings of the industrious and
laborious millions. It was the duty of the House to con-
sider whence the money would have to be derived, and
the purpose to which it was to be applied.—(Hear, hear.)
What was the purpoaf•? The maintenance of these
Royal persons in that sort of decent splendour which
was compatible with their situation. For that pur-
pose such a sum was more than was necessary.
—(Hear, hear.) The Duke cf Cambridge, he supposed
would marry. The Duke of Cambridge would have a
family. Was that family to be provided for? He
might be told that sufficient for the day was the evil
thereof. But the evil was here, and they ought to begin
by cutting down the money to the lowest point; and he
should therefore move that the blank be filled up with
" s,oool."—(Hear, hear.)
The question was then put that " 5,0001. should be in-
serted."

Vv
Mr. W. BROWN did not consider 12,000/. necessary
to support the dignity of the Duke of Cambridge. Her
Majesty's Ministers, whose duties were very laborious,
did not receive near so much, and yet it was proposed to
give the Royal Duke 12,0001. when he did nothing.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that her Majesty's Ministers re-
ceived 5,0001. The judges of the land received 5,0004
Every moment of their time was devoted to the public
business. lle did not wish any indignity to be mani-
fested towards his Royal Highness. Ile wished him to
be provided for as an honest English gentleman, and
he thought 5,000/. quite sufficient fur the purpose.
Let the House recollect that he possessed a sum of
money; that he had an estate, and received a salary as
a general officer.
Mr. AGLIONBY said in theory he did not see why
5,000/. was not sufficient, but he thought no good likely
to result from dividing on that sues, when propositions
for 8,0001. and 10,000/. had been already negatived.
They who cared more for royalty than for economy had
beaten these propositions by large majorities.—(Cries of
" No, no.") Was it not so?—(No, no.) It was so re-
corded.—(Hear.) If the lion. M.?mber for Sheffield
divided on the proposition for 5,0001. he should certainly
vote with him, but he would rather take the sense cf the
House on the 10,0001.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was difficult to settle by
argument whether 5,000/. or 12,000/. was a proper sum.
Gentlemen must judge f a. themselves what they thought
a Prince of the Royal Family required for the honour-
able maintenance of his dignity and to meet those de-
mands which came on the Royal Family more than on
those who possessed four or five times the amount it was
now proposed to grant.—(Hear.) He did not think it
was fair to say that there was a distinction between
those who were for royalty and those who were for eco-
nomy—(Hear, hear)—because both sides might desire
that what was best for the country should be done, some
considering the smaller sum deficient, and others believ-
ing that it would not be creditable to the country to see
the pecuniary means of a Prince of the Royal Family
very much reduced.—(Hear.) It should be considered,
according to the arrangement of the civil list, that it was
intended for the support of the Sovereign, and the So-
vereign only. In former times, when there was a con-
siderable annual sum derived from the property of the
Crown, the Crown had the means of supporting the sons
and daughters of the reigning Soverega or any colla-
teral relations out of the income belonging to the
Crowe. These revenues, however, had been devoted
to the public service, and therefore some grant was ne-
cessary, and he considered 12,0001. a far more fitting
sum than 5,000/.—(flear.)
Mr. V. SMITH considered the precedent in the Duke
of Gloucester's case ought to be followed, and that
8,000/. was a reasonable sum.—(flear.) If 5,0001. only
should be granted, the Duke would be in a worse posi-
sition than before, for the sum of 6,0001. was previously
paid for his maintenance. He would support the propo-
sition for 8,000/. or 10,000/., but could not vote for the
sum proposed by the Hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. DISRAELI having supported the original mo-
tion of the Government, felt bound, in justice to him-
self and the Hon. Gentlemen who voted with him, to
deny the observation that, in so doing, they were influ-
enced with feelings for royalty and not for economy.—
(Hear, hear.) He regretted that any Prince of the
blood should be placed in the position of the Duke of
Cambridge, and that it should be necessary to make an
application to the House on this subject.—(Hear.)
And he must beg the House to remember that princes
of the blood were placed in this position by Act of Par-
liament.—(Hear, hear.) Ho did not want to enter into
any controversy as to what would have been the rental
of the estate of the Crown, if the Crown had been left
in the enjoyment of that estate; but he believed that, if
it had been properly managed, it would have been suffi-
cient to support the necessary splendour and dignity of
the Croatia without any application for the aid of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) But the question did not come
into ycontroversy, because Parliament interfered and con-
sidered they had achieved a result favourable to their
liberty in depriving the Sovereign of the real possession
of her estate. Ile confessed ho was very much influenced
upon this occasion by the opinion of the Government, who
had given the subject that due consideration which its
importance deserved. He must remind the House that
when they entered on this criticism of the expenditure of
a Prince,i
they must not forget the position in which they
had placed him, irrespective of the considerations to
which he had referred with respect to the Royal Family
generally. If they took the peerage of England, and
cast their eyes over the wealthier patrician houses, they
would find that they had been created in the course
of centuries by marrying heiresses—(Hear, he (r)—and
this to an extent of which few were aware who had
not examined the subject. A poor peer in one genera-
tion would probably not be a poor peer in a subsequent
generation, in consequence of the influence of his rank,