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

RICHMOND PARR.

In answer to a question from Lord DUNCAN,
Lord SEYMOUR said that the lust communication
which he had received from the late Duke of
Cambridge was to desire that the orders and regulations
of the Park might be modified, so as not to interfre with
the public convenience.—(Cheers.)
LANDLORD AND TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
In answer to Mr. BRIGHT,

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he proposed to take
some day in the next week but one for the second read-
ing. of this Bill.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—POST OF-
FICE INQUIRY.

On the motion that the louse, at its rising, aijourn
until Monday next,

Mr. FORSTER asked whether the inquiries respect-
ing the Post- office, had commenced, by whom it was
conducted, and how long it would last, and also whether
Government would take any steps before the report was
presented.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it had already
commenced, and that it was conducted by Lord Clan-
ricarde, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Grey. He did not ap-
prehend that it would take much time, and he did not
think it advisable to take any steps until their report was
presented.

- Mr. HUME was proceeding to put some questions re-
lative to the grant to the family of the late Duke of
Cambridge, when
The SPEAKER, informed the Hon. Gentleman
that he was speaking to an order of the day which was
not yet read.

The motion for adjournment was then carried.
QUEEN'S MESSAGE—GRANT TO THE FA-
MILY OF THE LATE DUKE OF CAM-
BRIDGE.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
the Queen's Message,
Mr. HUME wished to know what was intended
to he done when they got into Committee.
He wished the Noble Lord to state to the House gene-
rally what his views end intentions wore, and the con-
ditions upon which he proposed to make the grant. The
House was probably not aware that many years ago an
senility of 27,0001. per annum was voted to the late
Duke, 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 he 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
tho moment Hanover obtained an independent Sove-
reign. Now these were circumstances which ought to
ba looked to before they made any additional grants, nod
he had 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 ho 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 nailer 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 1778, 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 of that Act was, that
none of the younger sons should at any time be allowed
more than 15,000/. per annum, while the annuity which.
fell vacant by the death of one son was to pass to the
survivor. Under this Act 6,000/. was added to
the annuity of the Duke of Cambridge, and.
afterwards a further annuity of 6,0001. a year was
granted to hies. The whole sum paid to the late
Duke of Cambridge as an annuity was 27,000/., but.
by a subsequent Act, passed three years ago, ;an
annuity of 3,000/. was settled upon the
Princess Augusta, which was to come into opera-
tion at the death of the Princess Sophia..
The next mater 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 iu 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
inquire.
into his (Lord John Russell's) duty to
into this subject, because there were rumours that a.
very large amount of property, which was in possession
of the late Duke of Cambridge, had been left to his
children. Those rumours, he found, had been very
considerably exaggerated. The sum which the late Duke
had left 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 Meek-
lenburg-Strelite and Princess Mary; and Prince George
of Cambridge was charged with the payment s.
of annuities
to the amount of 1,6001. a yearduring the lives of the
persons to whom those annuities were left by the late
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 present Duke of
Cambridge was the sum of 1,200/. a year, which he,
would receive in the shape of rent from the
estate at Coombe-wood. The House was well.
aware that while it was true that the late,
Duke of Cambridge did not exceed 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;

which the late Duke of Cambridge bes'owed in chitrity
was always so munificent as to prevent his amassing I
any considerable fortune. The beat statement he (Lord
J. Russell) could make of the situation of the present
Duke of Cambridge was, that, be ides the income he
d..rived from the army, he had no other income exslept
the 1,200/. a yr..ar derivcd from the small property of tl,m
late i)ako of Cambridge. lle had income which he thrived
from his professional nerviccs in the army; but with m-
spect to the income der:ved from that source Peine.
George of Cambridge had always done his duty as a
soldkr— (Cheers) —and (gist income was as fairly
his right as the income of any oflieer in the army.—
(Cheers.) He (Lord John Russell) therefore catne 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 as to what that provision should be ;
and the precedent to which the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hume) 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 111. was enabled to grant to the son
of the Duke of Gloucester (the late Duke) an annuity
not exceeding 8,0004 a year. In the year 1806 that sum
was augmented by 6,0001. a year, making an income of
14,0001. a year which the late Duke of 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 dater-
mine the sum 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 lll.—no 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-
tion 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 bo 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 time, and who is not the son of the reigning
Sovereign. That is the position of the present Duke of
Cambridge. Ho 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, cf 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, lam sure, consider
that this must. make a difference with respect to the
claims that will be made upon him—that he cannot
well say, " 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 that, considering these things and the position in
which he is placed, an annuity of 12,000/. a year—being
2,oooi.iless than that which was granted to the Duke of
Gloucester by the Act of 180 G, 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
enable him to maintain his present rank, and that it is
not at all beyond that which wo 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 HOMO
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 6,0001, the jointure of the Duchess of Cambridge,
3,000/. a year payable to the Duchess of Moeklenburgh,
and 3,000/. a.year to be payable to the Princess Mary,
snaking 12,0001. a year, and 12,000/. a year proposed to
be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge, would
make altogether 24,0001. The sum that was payable to
the late Duke of Cambridge was 27,0001. a year, and
the sum, therefore, that I propose now will be 3,0001. a
year less than that amount. It is unnecessary to enter
into any further details with respect to this subject.
Whatever any Hee. Member has 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,
❑ow the Duke of Cambridge, who has deserved the con-
sideration 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 grants. The Noble Lord
then moved the resolution, which he handed 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 12,00C1., to make suitable provision for his
Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
On the question being put,
Mr. HU ME 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
economical management of his affairs, or to testify to the
affability and kind-heartedness which had ever distin-
guished that Royal Duke. The Noble Lord, however,
had not stated the whole of the facts with re-
(Yard to George HI. George 111. was allowed
60,0001. to divide amongst ten sons. That
was 6,0001. a year to each, and it was pro-
vided that on the death of one his annuity was to be di-
vided amongst the survivors, with the stipulation, how-
ever, that none should receive more than 16,0004, for
without some such stipulation the last survivor would
have received 60,0001. a year. He found that
8,0001. a year was all that was granted for
many years to the late Duke of Gloucester. The Noble
Lord had omitted to state that 6,000/ a year was
granted to the Duke of Cambridge for his son, at
the same time thai a similar amount was granted to the
Duke of Cumberlo,ud for his son; so that in fact the
present Duke had for many years been receiving 6,0001.
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 8,000/.? In 1806 the state of the cur-
rency led to an increase of all official salaries, 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 wo were in a state of
perfect peace, ansi now, if ever, was the period for making
retrenchment. He 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. Ho thought it would
be desirable that there should be au inquiry into the
arrangement of the civil list for life on the accession of
a new monarch, and whether an and should not be put
to the allowance of the King 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 below(' by tt e army. If his (Mr
Hume's) proposition were acceded to, he would have an
annuity of 8,000/. a year; he would also have whatever
allowance might arise from his military command; and
be would have the oce-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 should be substituted
for 12,000/., and ho should t Ike the sense of the Com-

mitten upon it.
Mr. DISRAELI agreed with the Noble Lord, that the
proposition ought to be considered on its own merits,
and should not be mixed up with the arrangements pre-
viously wade 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
uponithe point that the illustrious individual for whom
they were now called upon to make provision, was one for
whom Parliament w,is 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-
liament. The Prince was in a position which permitted
of his favourably impressing his claims on the consi-
deration of Parliament. It was, for instance, the con-
institutional jealousy of Parliament which had virtually
deprived 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 under 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 tho blood from assisting or in-
creasing his fortune in any of the Ways which were
open to other subjects, and when also they considered
how much the House of Commons bad 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 great effect. But with regard to the
illustrious prince, there were other considerations.
The marriage of the late lamented Duke of
Cambridge was ono that was very much destbd
by the country; for on the occurrence of a most lament-
able catastrophe it was desired that the sons of
George 111. should lose 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 interests, nor was it ipossible they
should be insensible to tho claims and character of the
illustrious individual himself. He only expressed what
everybody felt, thst the conduct of the present Duke of
Cambridge had endeared; him to the best feelings of
the country—(Hear, hear)—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 be made, there cculd be no want of unani-
mity en the part of the House. To the second question—
the amount of that provision—the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hume) had addressed himself, It, was certainly impos-

_
tible to ebut their eyes to great distress which existed
in this country, and though he was rather surprised that
the complaint of distress should come from hat-
esh elleizterial side of the House, still,
er were h)ts feeling; under other e."'""0.
stances, he could net consider the Present! Yereir
position without some reference to the state ."
was
constituents. The proposition of the Noble Lord wt'a
tainded upon the case of the Duke cf Gloucesteer,,cet'e'd,
upon the weole a more just one could not be s-1' rot
But, above tilt, her Majesty's Ministers bad with g oa
t tscretion, pru ilenes, and wisdm poposd an atne.he
much reduced from that whicho r
had been given 10
_t
_t
Duke of Gloucester. He (elr. Disraeli)
the reduction had been in consequence of the site
other
circumstances of the country; he could see no -dae.
reason for it, and he thought therefore that that
irecum,
tion ought to have been made. Under all the &tool-
ettieces of the case, then, taking every point into
tree.
deration, and considering the state ef the country; 41,,
understoq Teid
cially those classes with whom they wore parti 11_700;
connected in that House, it was a fair and by na °jested,
immoderate proposition.—(Hear, hear.) Ito
!00,
then, that although the Hon. Member (Meer d ea
faithful to his traditionary office, had suggs test
amendment, he would not eel it his duty to Prese wee
amendment to a division, but would rather sgre sidea
the House that under all circumstances the ProP° wo-
of the Government et as a just, fair, aad moderate r
position. d at the
Mr. BRIGHT said he was rather disappointeSe un.
statement of the Noble Lord in one particular, ef
derstood the Noble Lord to say that the lateen in:, lee
Cambridge had divided his property equally ;' cis
children; but that he had attached to the share oftbste
son certain annuities which entirely eat away Lie late
—equal to 1.600/. a year. The daughter of tus soot
Duke of Cambridge, on her marriage some ears
bad an allowance from Parliament of 3,000 k Yl3.see')
life.—(Several voices, " From the death of bar
lilit'striees
It was unfortunate that the property lefs by the
father was left in such a manner that the whole 0 to be
now handed over to country.rties leaving bis son. oti
provided for by the He (Mr. Brigktc? eoet
not say one word against the late Duke of Catnbri Lord
looking to the statements of the Noble Lord, it aPareerf-
that since 1778 he had been in the receipt :f7,tosolocatoo)3l.oi
ing, from his share in 60,0001. a year,
21,0001., and latterly, for many years,
was not aware of his receipts as the Vieoe Out
Hanover; but Parliament was bound nett t gee
out altogether from its consideration tbat 11,1
owe a duty to their family in "they 5111
as well as in the other degrees, and that
airbe of
bound to act by them so as not to throw the he-ibis to
maintenance upon the public when it was Passsheeldt
avoid it. That the late Duke of Cambrideon ont
therefore, have made some provision for his child
_eood
of the large income he derived from the countryt; tees
have been but fair, and not to have cast tbeeltd vet
manner upon the public. The past, bowaver. eelbt) tees,
be remedied, but the future could. He (gr. nr:gpolte s';
not opposed to some provision for the presens
otfiejent
Cambridge in case his private property was in'jthe case
for his station; bat the advantages predicated in eteeotis
might be purchased at too dear a rate, and all the_'ideeint
of the monarchy should, in his opinime so arrang_ eye of
of this nature as not to let them come under ttie.:l;tene
the public in an unpleasant manner for tha igyper,4o
He looked at thefact in this light. The present
eo 100 g
of this country had a numerous family, and fortind; le
time provision would, no doubt, have to [nee Ws; tee oft o
children of the Queen. Would the Prime Ivlinis"-eeera
day propose, or the Parliament grant, 12,000 k i_kether
each of them? He (Mr. Bright) doubted pv'tilte of
even_ a Prime Minister would proposo it. Tbehe Queeth
Canadmbridge, however, was only first cousin to t. g
would Parliament be justified in graeteint r
sum greater than that which would be herea-7000";
to her Majesty's own off,pring? If, therefliteren
a year each was considered too much forth e her ga..
the reigning
jesty's offspringS o Sovereign, egi
miive tth.
awtouslodmh et
011:0;es:tc;e_esnintait:tiltia:
Queen. He (Mr. Bright) iglatbe taunted withtoy; 19 0
ug certain opinions on the subject of the Wire friend itet
he was quite satisfied that the Minister was nee"o ropes
the monarchical Institutions of the country
a vote on such a subject to the House that 01000;
commend itself al consideration at once by its, t
tion and by its economy. The impression 0,50 goes°
be made on the country by the vote before t'bisatil
was an unfavourable one in respect to tne,„ ° 'groans
aga the monarchical system on tu° not ente
o
expense. Though the question was soden;
so much cf precedent as of principle, still r Glovese,
were important. The vote to the Duke of 6 OP'
at first was only 5000/., which was increased hY,O',/etele
'
—it was said for party purposes—by the Virbig
tbe to
went of the day. If that was the case,: then
Lord should have been the last man in that !lode
ereo:
bring such a precedent forward; and of all otbsr;eigb7
dents that was the last which should have anir 5,00"
with Parliament. In his (Mr. Bright's) oPini°°'° 1)01‘e
a year was an income sufficiently ample for tilo
of Cambridge, and more ought not to be grand on
that. House. Locking to these circumstances, an
,let to
sidering that the late Duke of Cambridge had arvr
make some provision for his family out of thej-eneing
years' income he received from the state; and ),e,here"
that to grant 12,000/. a year would be to prejuo,c' to
after the children of her Majesty when they came ,
providedTh for, he s!nould support the sunendment. ; that
e Marquis of GRANI3Y said every Mall tee
house- was anxious, he was sure, to do honour 1° or
late Duke of Cs ,mbridge—(Hear)—and the ,nose the;
vious and natunil mode, therefore, of testifying sea
respect was to grant such an allowance to his Ban, tea
successor as would suffice to maintain, unimpaireat 4
dignity and con ty of his high station. The elon:0
would, morever, :he was assured, be only too desirous
encourage in the present illustrious prince the numeet'i
the virtues of his illustrious father, and to encourage r,
to transmit that e awe and the memory of those virt
unimpaired, to the latest posterity. With respect te;es
addition to the income of the Duke of Gloucester, o_loo
made not for par ty purposes, but because the pre'
income was insufficient. or otos°
Sir. R. INGLIiS said the Hon. Member for eti.°,o for
had alluded to the bargain made with the erg; the
life of her Majesty as a bad bargain '; oon'
country ; but he (Sir R. Inglis), on the contrar•it
sidered it to be a bad bargain for the Crown. tW O;
peered from returns on the table of the House t"enwea
the beginning of the reign of George 111. to th:),;Thols:
that of William IV. the sums receivable b)' t"- hat
oamyethare
aPluonsto-)o,ffiacoed, foorthtehre
sources,
dst:tiwe:s(to-.0-
03:1:61
reign from
than 116,000,00 W, while the sum grantedurce by I),sarivliiing •
in that period amounted only to 69 000 000/. le
a°
tri'
balance of 47,000,000/, clear in favour of the e lel" ttbs
If that sum were in the hands of the Soverelg' pro
would have no need to apply to Parliament far P
vision for her chAdren. View
Colonel RAWDON rose amidst loud cries of "
orate
and so much confusion that he could not be 11°.en brik°
_heard. He had known the late Duke of Caet'refen,u,'
from his earliest years—in Hanover and in P"d le"
and he bore the fullest testimony to his unbound°, 00'
berality and Me great charity. He should, the.° a
support the motion of tho Noble Lord. for
Colonel OEM TTERTON, amidst loud erhsieed a'
division and still louder confusion, was and
say that the present Duke of Cambridge P°sso-e teal
thorough knowledge of the military service; at
-libel(
the income Rropo:ed by the Noble Lord was of °
enough. He suggested the same sum as the -
Gloucester—viz., 14,000/. a year. red
The Committee then divided, when the apPes
For the amendment ... ••• 9'o-6
Against it
' Majority •.•fe
The emendment was therefore lost.
Mr. HUME then moved that the sum pti-e
10,600/. a year.—(Cries of "Oh, oh;") This wa-sof 1°
twice the amount of the salary of the First Lone 01 ttif
Treasury, who had the whole business of the °nee° oe °
attend to.—(lltaar, hear.) For the e- to'
George 111. did not receive so much, yearsrbe i1°13.413:°14
net (Sir R. Inglis) had alleged that. the Crow° ;t3 dt it
have been better with the Woods I Forests at
posal than with the present arrangementtiu of tierores;
list, He (Mr. Hume) begged to refer the gen't f
to the debtor and creditor side of the accenn not 1-84
Woods and Forests, as contained is the repoir:
Committee, of which the Noble Member for 13st---
Duncan) was chairman—(hear, hear)—and frnlP coutl'
it appeared that for the last twenty-five airs sour ee<
try had derived little or nothing from that heo6:l
(Hear, hear.) He was not so hardhearted as th"-Teor
Baronet. He was not at all disposed to place t'ele
Family on so precarious a fund.—(Lau hter.) e
Sir H. 'WILLOUGHBY said thehthatgberlhoarpesi eettolr,
Lord replied to the Hon. Me
state to the Committee whether, in perhaps
ofttese eaf
ring° of the Duke of Cambridge, he should prof
addition to the 12,000/.?
Lord J. RUSSELL. would rather not ausfr
question at present; he would observe, howe'h-r'reP"
the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester, ull'erlei6ll/elet'a
unlwas 14,0001., and he did not at present coten testi
ee; any circumstances a greater alloweac't 00"
k
14,000/. per, annum to the Duke of Cambridge•--ee tio
hear.) IV ith reference to the proposition °f tmeas°ll
Member for Montrose, he had already stated tbe eonnien
which induced him to consider that 12,0001. Perpfllo;
was not more than a proper allowance to the ;it; We°
Cambridge, and he would not detain the Ceran3-eo
repetition of his views. Ho would, however, take ter
of expressing his appreciation of the I'sl
and moderation with which his Hon. Fried 011 V
forwards the views which he entertained on e"-
ject.—(Hear, hear.) tier"
Mr. V. SMITH thought it would be highlYestsol4;
tory to the country if the Noble Lord wool" to she
clause in the Act grautiug the 12,0001. per annnTef
Duke of Cambridge, providing that in the even" fill"
illustrious Duke acceding at any time to the ell; '.lll°
Hanover the allowance should COBSP —(fleart dies
large sum which the present King. of Icianevee.tvas
every year from the public revenue of EngisnetlearJe
source of much dissatisfaction to the country'( to bee
Mr. HEY WORTH called upon the Conalnittrele- Wa-
in mind that all this money was- to come out 11)1 t
earnings of the labouring man. • Oen'
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said that if Fosrel,lloo/0f
had not robbed the Crown of its property--e eesor
the Queen would at this moment be the 10°."-onav'
such east landed estates as would render it 4:lite °lit.°
cessary
to apply to the House fur any gra° at
the Rot al Fit 1• ).
The Committee divided. The numbers evcr.e/
r the motion ••• 17i
For the amendmen.t.. f 122
The resolutionMea'ajsority he °' •
was t 50
then agree to,
resolution to authorise the payment oafs
num to the Princess Mary, Mr. HUME stating s
DE PA
should not oppose the grant. PA
CLERKS
IN THE MONEY ORDER ,--- „se
MENT 01? THE POST- OFFIG'9• 00',
Mr. ANSTEY rose to cull the attention of th depOr''
to the petition of 133 clerks in the moncY-Qraor
3,000 t

:est (presented on Friday, the 7th of June), and to
to be m this House is of opinion
.that imiuir_y_.o3tulignhtt.
salue made into the grounds upon which the mei. ii_
Aofehief clerk of that department has been, i,tti_
I,' frons the officer who, as it is alleged
1146„t5, would in official artier have sacee3d„.e.lileetoPirte."_
irese9rostnaaster-General hod dena il the pstaioners 0 and they now came 1,0 the Ilouse to look into the
sottg,?cl grievance. They did not come ton tah;e House to
flaked to iuerease their miserable etipe d
tlti" lue HOUse to see that the rule ol'protn.iheoytioeiiii—lY
te. Perquisite of office, as it had been termed—which
i ,ht not
t;lt were entitled to, as well as their salary,
e tThsiten from them by the arbitrary condurnct6 of the
of the
i'et—a%ter-General, or rather of the secret
thebleAlce, blr. Rowland Hill. It had been faoruynad that
Wtrebast waY Of economising the public money
.nd re-
tisk .g Public service was to establish the principle of
1044 43 the proper claim to any of the higher posts
ea, Mlle offices as they fell vacant.. _ The Post-office
PieZeePoSed to act on that principle, at least the
Yest)i'l Was adopted and acted upone (until last
atserltile InuneY-order office. The present Postmaster-
tie
(ill! had broken through that rule in heseteacassseteori
tlettl.lef clerk of the money-order office, and it was
teniVcausstance which had led to the present appeal
here
aeati'laraent. The Hon. and Learned
Yora„,ll,,te a Minute history of the grievanceU ofem the peti-
ts 1.4' Foul which it appeared that the complaint took
°1k,.111 1849, in consequence of an altertkee-ri made
Iltk.a,,itowland Hill in what was called the sic und or
Net"„t19110. (The Hon. and Learned MemberG'snsvteartne--
fetnellt b.:1:1334de solely to Hon. Members on the
"uees "Ques, there not being a single Member on the
House.)
The ihative side, from which he addressed the
lleeln.dividual who had been passed over, and who,e on
14,1141 of seniority, was entitled to be predsensedetee
tkhlteatit post of chief clerk to the money-or er otffigc,
1;444,014s claim disregarded because he refused o
t-1
jellkelloZte having signed a memorial which contained
ee declared The person put in office, who had previouslym
,°lOl. ea unqualified, was taken from the oney-
elelie‘"mee of the post-office at Edinburgh. He 40a charged a Public ' in calling the attention of the
, le tc, „.. Pu ic duty
'Y kre" buts Matter, and now left it to the House to
utir iikrught to be done.
iilltt a i:"IA.US seconded the motion, and conteadedsteni
seatedli,,,,irY ought to take place into the system
sy
4ers)e '' tue ost-office, and more especial
asserted
;ettleroffice ho books of which it had been
t't,tilseettaha most slovenly and objectionable manner.
ett*r a,' ell submitted to Mr. Rowland Hill for the
k'lhtete geraent of this department, and a better
0k °E
keeping the accounts, but nothing had been
110 ea
e'erews.I4ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
'‘,,t ho le) great inconvenience in not having any officer
Ate i'l.°lB° to represent the Post-office department,
We altoteee raatters asP the present came before them.
roI,
,414110je true that that. senioritY.alone was the ground of p
eke I)o'g:cording to seniority a person might
of
frise
salary,to a
4,tif hasn't:en and receive a certain increase
.tic;inirwrottlL'svhere. to be made the sole ground of pro-
.. 44 est; tly er i m possible
)t o conduct taht
ee publiceah
.lei
sehr
_-_
fq tit ben ta7( lear, hear.
eke 4iteatioestY Persons were.wented, those best fitted
and the same principle
kat IY applite s. were selected.
ta ea,
tb e
.to
.pnblic establishments. In the pre-
itt
e,ll,sasia7_ individual alluded to was selected by
tleittstsnete. to regulate t e
.office in Dublin
i4Fet, fa, C of the manner in which he discharigerekd
t, .ehe ' Was Promoted to the office of chief c.
14,itilleti-"ttgi and a considered fully qualified
k7,ri lation to which he had been promoted.
ewt„te;te'veriATT understoodie that although every one
whohad been passed over in a
:1444,4 tleusgeetleinen had been reported as duly
,tretee, the -- manner
ch4l,, in man who had been selected out of his
I te et 'he Year 1844, been reported unfit to clis-
Iti(4llo,leXpZiltOs of his office. Such a charge required
kite%htegul-eattioleas Although it might not be an estab-
departments that every
;1)4
ip ran ?,n the pil
4 uh,,,,,,' e,. by senioritbyl,le he believed it was acted
1116 • (;lits? few exceptious.7(llear, hear.)
eel matte t' tt protested ainst the House interfer-
-iy wra , •. inasmuch as it was not per-
elk ; tba to of this kind,
111,`.tsata—tis3.11.dge of. the qualifications of persons hold-
5t,1,11 ecrtit!is.puelic offices.
Nt Iletee te)zthY protested against the doctrine laid
lb tht It' u•uh• Member, and expressed his conviction
ttse," ease, 4„
was quite justified in instituting inquiries
ought to be ex.
I,totti,;_s eith
ne,' Such power, however,
st Nit e'ea, carame. At the present time he did
(14,Cki nt4ete Was
;..,‘,4e
eseentin suhfficienottinenv,idence to warrant the
si, a f
.og o t e to_
__u
placation e. rds from alr. 11. ME and Mr. ANSTEY,
111 , , the motion was withdrawn.
1/4 eke SUPPLY.
Oashe . ete thee went into Committee of Supply, Mr.
k 'Ttl the chair.
St7t4 kg f;pII4LIS said that as the Museum estimatewsehnadd
ar-sttelite qtletttlY explained to the Committee, he 1
Rte'tt,tiotre,btilea on the present occasion with any ob-
k Ito in at once propose that a sum of 45,322/.be
Nte, words defraying the expenses of the British
4ksN'' 411Aue
tiotilldeee fn Wished to know whether anything h.ad.
1'44111 thellsteensequence of the report of the Commis
tt , all alter4te of that important establishment, in
Itel'ipatlittiou in the administration of affairs was
ha take He trusted that some effectual. measures
14tirt' tele" ler expediting the publication of theeecnaa--
r had tee the great delay in which many
ty
titl 4. qittels made.
411atell %el, 1. said, that no steps had yet been taken
N Oaf
red
with respect to that report, but the
liseAtee .e Museum had taken it into. consideration,
The vote a'everal plans founded upon it.
east seat "43 agreed to.
ttrh.t Of lEl4' Proposed was 24,0301., to defray the
betle 5 eivil establishment on the western coast
sere4l.' eatt
tie) Ilr the X trusted some explanation . would be
t 4 lie te vet' Rrounds on which the Committee were
tf t Pee t° t,his sum. He observed that 10,000 i
pt,ol(llll,,(heta°tee Danish Government for the purchase
t vottet eud stores at the Danish settlement at the
tito,bestio.: oti their transfer to British authorities.
I°,4tiltta!ns ;lly", whether we ought to extend our ter-
Ntit eke e coast of Africa. His opinion was that
VeNvei 04' tssessions were already too extensive, h and
li4 Nr tile t4t to ext d our sovereignty. W a
4trir,g'outda on ." .
ft t,,,,:ry in 4frio which it was proposed to increase
Oh t.'"erld 0.... a? . The first object appeared to
Ntiariktie, kelt' operations for the suppressihnofetbie.
iflNtitt oe I,'o the next an endeavour to diffuse. iv
tle° to to ;!e continent of Africa. Now, was it de-
bN' tiavetr au
onreated outlay for the suppression
felPre tacie n that coast? Many doubts had
%1i0.4e r" as tk ' 40 to whether we ought to continue our
t tie: that
Purpose but here was a project to em-.
N Litv°lll'to Pclati° n.' shore—to build forts, and A.44(1 f 1 Pet down: single-handede landthat which
l'egee ailed es; with
on
..
-et '-e(te --tee on the sea in conjunction t
kik! 6„theaelr, ear.) The case had been fairly phu
Sylaiit ;lilt° of Lords by Lieutenant Winnietawo
k'eth, Ivita Is opinion slavery would never be donef
math, 4(1 btu4.eePt by blockading the Bight of
tee sal , 11ding forts alone the coast—that it
tifhtes4lllllllsgikltallss blockade by seaward as, not to allow
iiVal e Ikes •1,1: and the erection of foxes every ten or.
.4;(0e.fa11,e4. the‘ martello towers on the coast of
Ott it 'erver,„seee Some fresh plan was continually
,p‘leaf'lnws,a to tnno extinguish the slave trade. At 0110
the
39at eatte 4 effeeted in two or three years by the.
teed tle-then came the Niger expedition, which
half'thie eti withtabilYa:rettlav4t3eltlO)tobaelleiri a horrible loss of life—and now
accomplished in two years. and a
1„ set. he ,; wers and forts.—(klear, near.) He
n4k Ject PPortunity of examining Earl Grey on
Gee •4
e; Cis the eviden 'n by the Noble Earl
she sedo eet rev , ce given
'etle'aed rsea the 9 ter delaying the vote. Earl
h l' °pi ,Of the .'' opmiou of Lieutenant Winniett, and
`it'ke Illee P'en of extendinie forts along the coast.
4Qt
ti tp, L, eXpressed b E '
tlati'tg IsZoe a Cabin by Earl Grey was very alarming,
ete t'elly ! the cone t Minister, he was doubtless
la ell'e.. ce had c rr9zice of his colleagues, and un-
tOtleet'4 to ab7l, enctiened this project far extending
;Ott eer /110 hai )B.lrh the slave t He (Mr. Cobden)
'4l't Nsc. teadY Made too many sacrifices for
%is by ss . if we
the 4.,,„e, it e,,,„
_,could net prevent the transport of
e eete_eltee, sa7 austirrd to suppose we could
.dowsaos
ti Ir, usioti )ter,
rile next object prh.fessed__ w 11814, tertz•ht the trade on the coast of Africa. No
tha rlotttery ; 1 cum/lees
of that House to per-
:4 beee prey 4,kfree, in order to promote trade, and
f3t4 thefroetttutewelth he petitions on this subject
.which,..
)pathtl'artieut Of ?„,,i. re Manchester and Liverpool. -L el. t
ter th4:,11%014,44.111ent to consider, not the interest
, aea .}. were ab", but the general interests; and Iv "41 WWI th (1111 to vote money on sound prin-
-I,Ni 44id te e coes
at large.
'tit give ;at the tof the taxpayers t
ti 141vIly
a'teereasee of these Danish for:
fla,,,tee „,, U teat
n,,,facilities to the wrowth of cotton
.
q ss-rtion
os ' ttele not been produced before, when
4'4a "Ctle the 0, 1 i keel b a fore 41% hear., ( ' Coast was under our in-
lkitie4e, e,tewell adapts The soil and climateef British
tie e,trlee, the obstacle 'of' cotton,
for the cultivation
‘iiiieiltile
v!tt ,oup,_ tnrown in the w e,
nby the Colo-
growtiess, Nest&
,:liry Would grow. cotto...enough for
lihOtti" Of the L i'v nen we have in Br!tash. Guiana,
C4oesti be iePttee, ha" I.4clieS, sufficient territories for the
eli Nei et , e did not see why the public money
alas] eat •el la
tio,l es tps.Wisee, a new territory.—(Hear.) If the
e the
tt4„' kid „ ulth „::' to assist trade, let them reesov-
xa..
044 e ilokiht eoit'yW existed—let them diminish ta
tlat:lle eo w, seithu the Custorn-house officers and excise-
yo.
tii, tad e ritlit of AP:anect to the extension of civilization
ta Area (1.
, ~,k,i tett nry c'eha, Sir C. Trevelyan, in a letter
spirlee;
tie euriv 1 ambers, Dec. 12, 1842," and a, cl,-
t) lett a•clettiet Ear148,,...3q., said, "I am to request that
the 1 'lttl 1, tire th t
Ittrithittic,,el,l4,etzle;til
sress?ssethi
aes oasen his torti e. Y a. my Lords concur 111
patand Viscount Palmerston as
may be expected from such
prov this ii tta
tk_spects the suppression of the slave
tl, e' "11-art (,fue, probable extension of our trade
thiettdicte,,ll,24ion
of.t!'icit: in consequence of the ina-
ateees,l7 coutari;s:nehi.nhabitants of the coast and
may be anticipated from
litthitti;,,ll3,ia,ll;:
wirilit,a I:v.tteirellfrom Mr. Merivale to Sir
ti 1131itleide„ tieaace`„?_ ln the name of Earl Grey, he
eiei,,e gte.Vable ;111:eerYtt to point out to their Lordships
teetiemi_eeual dife_?rt nee of these results with a view
that' ekte.) . over the en of the light of Christianity and
14kxttehlits.tecitilliostzi :frte:eatenrcoreannetirisneheen;ft of Africa, and to
le eae • esritieh
but I am to observe
es.,11:01t1 44114, the apher,s
ov orts would not only,
4 British. influence, spread over
1147' but'ace the be'
erts with which it bas been at-
leedPelity ;71911d furiatlae give inc.eased efficiency to
4)*eaatieet itch
our leFen pursued in the territory al-
, sieb to .1, r Jurisdiction."
mkt eilti, vote 1), sum The House was
11„ N 4111,8 in a „este of 1.1:900/. for the purpose
7.4 e berst'ut oe esaicaue to civilize and examine the
~,N0t5,,,,,, e esabarT,ini : But they ought to look at
(Iht_4.o
w!ie etraost
!lAittlihtiek‘4tltsc'W there tt
'titilll such a scheme, for within
as
mass of the population
^el:talsezinseand care.
—(Hear hear.)
Wa; • Whars,:tiother
to it Lite/el-cell.° we goio on deserving of consideria
airy mules. to pa,eheletom buy from the Danes?
HI their r.... er the forts with the
'Lige' or ©aten.tive dependencies?