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

THE SUN,

Mr. V. SMITH approved of the stationery being sup-
! plied from one offi •.e. It was also to be observed that
the vote had been decreased this year, and that a saving
might be effected in printing Parliamentary papers.
Many things were printed which ought net to be printed.
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, the increase for printing the
papers of Commissions had greatly diminished. The
item for the Railway-office was only an estimate, and
might be less.
After a few words from Mr. BROWNE concerning
agricultural statistics,
Mr. REYNOLDS said he 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 deiucted'from the expense of printing them.
Mr. CO 3DEN 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 ts the question put by his
Right lion. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin, with re-
gard to the printing being done for 20 per cent. less than
was now paid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
disposed to pay any attention to voluntary offers of that
description; but if a contract were made it would be
very different.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Mr. Gore-
MURN, 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 vari-
ous blue books presented to the House.
Colonel DUNNE complained, that 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.
13,0001. for defraying, for 1850, the expense of build-
ing, &c., the Edinburgh National Gallery.
Mr. BRIGHT protested against the vote. If Edin-
burgh bad 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 fine 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, for that reason, he certainly enter-
tained some suspicion of the utility of the vote.
Mr. V. SMITH 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 for 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
;his Bill, it was proposed to fill up the blank with 12,0001.
Mr. HUME said he bad given notice of his intention
,0 propose that the blank should be filled up with 8,0001.,
..hat 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 10,0001. would be more likely to
receive general support, be 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 bad. Why should he have 10,0001.
—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 ho 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
24,000/.
Mr. HUME.-27,0001.
Mr. ROEBUCK—WeII, 27,000/. His two daughters
were to have 3,0001. each, and his son 12,000/, 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 one 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 sort. 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 bard earnings of the industrinas 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 purpose? 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 bo 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
" 5,0001"—(11ear, hear.)
The question was then put that " 5,0001. should be in-
serted."
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 12,000/. 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. He did not wish any indignity to be mani-
fested towards his Royal Highness. He wished him to
be provided for as an honest English gentleman, and
he thought 5,000/. quite sufficient for 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 sum, 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 Hon. Member for Sheffield
divided on the proposition for 5,000/. 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 5,0001 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.) lie 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 Soveregn or any colla-
teral relations out of the income belonging to the
Crown. 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 s,oool.—(Hear.)
Mr. V. SNIITH considered the precedent in the Duke
of Gloucester's case ought to be followed, and that
8,000/. was a reasonable sum.—(ilcar.) 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 10,0001., 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 fur economy—
(Hear, hear.) Ho 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.) He 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 Crown without any application for the aid of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) But the question did not come
into controversy, 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. He confessed he 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, 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, heir)—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 Ins rank.

But in what position did they place a Prince of the
Royal house? They had passed a law which prevented
his ever founding a family by those means by which
other noble families were established; and that was a
point which ought not to be lost sight of.—(Hear,
hear.) He would take a familiar instance of the posi-
tion in which a prince of the blood was placed. Tto
Duke of Cambridge was an English Duke. He was the
first of English Dukes—the first of the English nobility.
He was a few weeks ago the eldest son of an English
Duke. Was he allowed to address the electors of West-
minster? Was ho permitted as a commoner to enter that
House and exercise the abilities he possessed to improve
his position? It had been said that he was paid more
than a Secretary of State. But was a man in his posi-
tion allowed to try to obtain such a position? He was
shut out from any of these means of honourable ambi-
tion. He could not be Governor-General of India.:These
were :the sort of restrictions placed on a member of the
Royal Family. Let the House place him in the same
position as other persons, and then there would be some
foundation for criticism; but as they did not choose to
follow that course, they must consider his position
as a Prince of the blood.—(Hear, hear.) They ought
to recollect, also, that they were voting on this
occasion not half that to the present Duke of Csmbridge
which the former Duke:possessed. Besides, when they
proposed to atop the income of the Duke, in case he
should become King of Hanover, they ought to remem-
ber that these were times when a man might be King of
Hanover one day, and without a kingdom the next.
They ought to make provision for such a contingency.
After due consideration be felt bound to support that
proposition which had originated with the Government.
Mr. ROEBUCK believed that the Hon. Gentleman
was under a mistake in point of law when he said that
the present Duke could not, when Prince George of
Cambridge, have canvassed the electors of Westminster,
and if elected by them, be a Member of that House.
Mr. BRIGHT was not surprised that the Noble Lord
found it difficift to argue this question. A considera-
ble number of Members in that House thought the vote
too much, and out of doors there was but one unani-
mous opinion respecting it—namely, that it was extra-
vagant.—(Hear.) As to the Marriages Act to which
the Hon. Member for Buckingham referred, and who
would, he supposed, have voted for 14,0001., be must
declare that it was no argument with him, for it was an
Act of which he did'not approve, and for which he could
not be responsible. He thought it one of the most wicked
and miscbievous Acts that had ever passed. Notwithstand-
ing that Act, he doubted extremely, if the Duke of Cam-
bridge proposed to marry some person with a large
fortune, that it would be considered advisable on the part
of the Crown to refuse its assent to such a marriage.—
(Hear.) If the late Duke of Cambridge, out of the
many hundreds of thousands of pounds of the public
money he had received, had thought proper to provide
for his children this discussion need not have taken place.
The present Duke of Cambridge had a private fortune of
his own, he was a general officer, and he had a large
official salary as a colonel of a regiment, some twelve
hundred or fifteen hundred a year, and these with those
other matters that were always given to a person in his
position, The vote mow proposed by the Government
he believed would be the must unpopular of the whole
session.—(Hear.) It was the first step in a bad course,
and it would lead to great embarrassment hereafter.
Mr. DISRAELI explained. The Hon. Member had
no right to assume that he would have voted for the
14,0001, It was quite an unauthorised assumption, for
ho had on a former occasion alluded to the late Duke of
Gloucester having that sum, and he had said that ho was
glad the reduction had been made, considering the re-
duction of prices, the consequence of that injurious law
to which he was opposed, and that had been supported
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress. Be did so on the ground that an attempt was
about to be made by the Government to sacrifice their
privileges. The question for them now to consider was
this—the question of privilege before the supply, a re-
dress of grievances before they granted the public
money.—(Hear.) An attempt was made to get through
the supplies before the resolutions affecting those privi-
leges were disclosed. The attempt he was determined
to resist ; and therefore, without meaning anything hos-
tile to the Duke of Cambridge, he moved that the Chair-
man report progress.
This motion was, after a brief discussion, withdrawn,
Lord J. RUSSELL promising the resolutions should
be submitted to the House: upon the Speaker resuming
the chair.
The amendment of 5,0001. was then negatived without
a division.
The Committee divided on Mr. Home's amendment
for 10,0001.
For the amendment ... 76
Against it ..• ... 105
Majority ..• ... —29
Mr. HUME put it to the Noble Lord whether it
would be proper for him, after this division, to persist
in the vote et 12,000/., for, taking from the Noble Lord
those who were obliged to vote with him, the opponents
to so large a grant were in the majority. There
were some Members, too, on the other side who did not
approve of the vote, but who voted for it from peculiar
circumstances.—(Laughter.) He did not like to ana-
lyse the motives of individuals, but there were in that
llouse two classes of expectants—those who were in
office, and those who were out but expected to be in.
Mr. BRIGHT asked the Secretary at War to answer
a question which he had to put to the Noble Lord, but
that he was unable to answer, and that was as to the
fact of the vacant regiment being given to the Duke of
Cambridge. He hoped there would be no quibble in the
answer to so plain a question.
Mr. F. MAULE replied, that he had happened to put
the question to the Military Secretary two days since, ss
to whether any arrangement had been made as to the
disposal of the regiment of Guards. The answer he
received was, that there was no appointment to that
reeiment.
Mr. BRIGHT asked the Secretary at War whether
he did not know that the Duke of Cambridge was the
person that it was decided upon should have that
regiment?
Mr. F. MAULE replied not that he had heard of.
Mr. STANFORD would not have risen upon this oc-
casion but for the imputation cast upon Hon. Members
sitting upon his side of the House.
Mr. HUME assured the Hon. Gentleman he did not
allude to him.
Mr. STANFORD continued by saying that he was
very glad no improper motive was attributed to him;
but such an imputation should not be cast upon any
of the Honourable Members who had supported this
rote. They who supported it were actuated by prin-
ciple. He could discover no principle amongst its
opponents,
who were shifting about from 8,0001. to
5,0001., and then to 10,0001., and who, not having any
principle, merely showed their animosity against the
Royal Family.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh, ob.") In
giving his vcre he was sure ho bad done that which
would be popular. for the people of this country desired
to maintain the Royal Family with proper dignity.—
(Hear, hear.) The people of this country saw that the
late Duke of Cambridge, though possessing a large in-
come, bad died a poor man, and this solely because he
was so benevolent, so generous, and so gracious in his
patronage and support of their several charities.—
(Hear.) He had a right to express his reasons for
giving the vote he had done on this occasion; and in
addition to the other arguments that had been brought
forward in supporting it, he could not avoid adverting to
the fact that their aristocracy had large fortunes, that
their merchants had large fortunes, and even their
tradesmen were able to clear from 12,000/. to 1.1,000/. ;
and that therefore 12,000/. a year to a Prince of the
blood, with large demands upon him, such as none of
those persons had, could not be considered too large a
sum to grant him. It certainly could not be called ex-
travagant, and in supporting such a vote he certainly
could not be called an expectant, for be did not partici-
pate in the Royal Family entertainments—(Hear)—and
he believed his constituency would consider that be had
given a right vote.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that as to the imputation upon
those who opposed the vote, that they were animated
with animosity to the Royal Family, it was unworthy of
the Hon. Gentleman to make, and it would be unworthy
of him (Mr. Roebuck) to answer it.
After a few words from Lord C. HAMILTON, which

were inaudible in the gallery,
The vote for 12 000/. was agreed to without a division.
The House having resumed,
BARON L. ROTHSCHILD.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, with per-
mission of the House, he begged, before any other order
of the day was proceeded with, to give notice that on
Monday he should move the two following rasolutionss—
" That the Baron Lionel Nathan do Rothschild is not
entitled to vote in this House, or to sit i❑ this House,
during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abju-
ration in the form appointed by law.
" That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in
the next session of Parliament, take into its serious con-
sideration the form of the oath of abjuration with a
view to relieve her Majesty's subjects professing the

Jewish religion."
—(Laughter, and cries of " 06, oh".)
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he proposed to
adopt the Lords' amendments to this Bill rather than lose
this session, and should fix Tuesday, at Twelve o'clock,
for further proceedings on the Bill.
The Grand Jury Cess (Ireland) Bill, went through
Committee, as also that of the Fees Court of Common

Pleas (No. 2) Bill.
tioTnhceoSnhtieneupatainodn CBialtltlwea Cs orneatadgaiosuescoDisorders Preven-
COPY OF DESIGNS ACTS AMENDMENTS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of
this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP wished to know how far this
Bill was to extend. Ho took the opportunity of calling
attention to the discrepancy in the opinions of the late
and of the present Attorney-General, as to the right of
the public to the parks; and gave notice that he should
at the earliest period take the sense of the House not
only against the salaries of the Commissioners of Woods
aril Forests, butn(taullsiBovagainst the salary of the First
tl‘ol
Mr'
euGrx:h(t)ißorbtoiGitiii
j'A,',Cie,Nroawsnk;d if the Bill bad any reference
thejhticbti.ted at It related
ex
ht
bdi Mr.
d
nr
its object the protection o
L et
Boi
os;
fa
ii
nsndue
e gtxhhet enyaeßrertaai nri
eoabsa
dadbsyi
tma
igothalsohoeutrbb
bpl
aoeud
beofrxobi
exhibitions.

After a few words from Mr. SPOONER and Colonel
DUNNE,

Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the object of the Bill
was totally inconsistent with the advantages attached to
the exhibition of 1851, which was said to be the im-
provements of our own designs and manufactures.
- The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that unless per-
sons were secured their inventions they would be chary
of exhibiting them. The Bill, therefore, would promote