The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-THURSDAY

A great number of petitions were again presented, chiefly
in favour of, and against the corn laws.

Lord J. RussEd having brought up the bill respecting
Canada, which was read a first time, on moving that it be
read a second time, said that he wished to correct a misap-
prehension which had taken place of something that had
fallen from him with regard to clergy reserves, and which
perhaps, if not corrected, might lead to serious misunder-
standings in Canada. It had been stated that he expressed
himself unfavourably to the general nature of the measure
which the legislature of Upper Canada had passed, and that
the Governor-General had proposed a measure totally op-
posed to the views of the government. This was far from
being the meaning of what he had said. What he had said
was, that it was a difficult thing to have a measure with re-
gard to the subject which would entirely coincide with one's
own abstract notions, or with what might have been feasible
forty years ago, but which was not practicable now. He
went no further in his observations, which applied generally
to the opinions held about church establishments. So far
from annulling what the Governor-General had done, they
entirely approved of the course, thinking it would be a means
of restoring peace to Upper Canada.
The bill was ordered to be read a second time on Monday
se'nnight.
Mr. MACRINNON gave notice of his intention of moving
for a committee to investigate the subject and provide legis-
lative enactments for the regulation of the emigration of la-
bourers from India to British Guiana.
A conversation ensued as to the appointment of the com-
mittee on the surrender of opium in China. Lord Sandon
objecting to the preponderance of fifteen ministerialists to
six conservatives.—The appointment was ultimately post-
poned.
Mr. HERRIES referring to the post-office returns as printed,
said in the estimate with regard to the post-office between the
time of its being laid on the table of the house and the time
of its being printed, a difference had been made of £BO,OOO.
That was a circumstance which he thought ought to be ex-
plained.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that there
bad been no concealment or fraud. The post-office had made
out an estimate and sent it in, but just as that estimate was
actually printed Ahe secretary of the post-office stated to him,
in a letter, that some mistake had been made in the calcula-
tion, and requested to be allowed to put in the altered esti-
mate.

Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he should move that
the order for the attendance of Mr. Sheriff Evans be put off
till the 4th of May.
Mr. HERRIES observed, that about eighteen 'months ago a
cargo of rough rice was brought from America, and when in-
troduced into this country it was charged with a duty of
2s. 6d. per bushel. The parties importing it claimed, under
the American treaty with this country, to be placed on a
footing with the most favoured nations in respect of the du-
ties on similar commodities. He wished to know whether it
had yet been decided that the cargo should be admitted on
the terms the claimants desired ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the proper
communication on this subject was between the American
minister and the treasury.
Mr. HERRIES gave notice that he would move for certain
papers connected with the case.
The law of evidence (Scotland) bill was brought up.
The adjourned debate on the corn laws was then resumed.
Mr. WODEHOUSE began in a very discursive speech, op-
posing Mr. Villier's motion, and combating at great length
the opinions expressed by Mr. Jones Loyd in his late pam-
phlet on the currency.
Mr. Rim H treated the question historically. From 1774 to
1790, under the free system, prices had been steady, and
500,000 additional acres had been brought into cultivation.
Under the present law the fluctuations had been extreme.
It was complicated with many steps, and these abrupt, espe-
cially in the very part of the scale where they ought to have
been easiest—where the prices exceeded 655. It was to have
produced moderate prices, steady supply, and prosperity to
at least the agricultural classes. All these anticipations had
been disappointed. It had been said, however, that so great
a nation as ours should grow her own corn. Would you
extend that argument to tea, to coffee, to cotton ? It was im-
possible for her, with her great population, to render herself
independent of foreign supplies. A fixed duty would give
not only a steady import, but a revenue which would pre-
clude the necessity for any new tax.
Captain HAMILTON deprecated the disturbance and the
distress which must follow from a repeal of the present law.
It was not for this densely-people,l country to throw all the
inferior lands out of cultivation, and render itself dependent
on the states of Germany. A great landholder in Hamp-
shire, now employing upwards of forty labourers, had in-
formed him 'that if the present law were repealed he should
be unable to employ more than fifteen. What, then, was to
be the refuge of all the remainder, displaced by the abandon-
ment of cultivation on the inferior lands ? The union work-
house, where they might expect, ere long, to be joined by
their former masters.
Lord MORPETH said that his persuasion of the impossi-
bility of forming a cabinet which would be united in the par-
ticular view entertained by himself had reconciled him to the
consideration that on this question the present ministry was
divided in opinion. Although he spoke not with the weight
which might have attached to him had he been representing
the sentiments of the government, yet he felt himself bound
to say a few words on behalf of his constituents, who took an
anxious interest on the subject. Even districts merely agri-
cultural in the riding which he represented had joined in pe-
titions for an alteration of the law ; and if he were not now
to concur with them, he knew not how he could put up our
common prayer for daily bread. He wished a general inter-
change of produce between all parts of the world. Monopoly
should be banished from the family of nations, like selfish-
ness from private life; and philanthropy and patriotism
should be synonymous terms. He did not deny the expe-
diency of some protecting duty, nor would he prejudge the
question whether it ought to be fixed or graduated, though
his own impression was in favour of the fixed, as promoting
uniformity of supply, and preventing sudden exportations of
bullion. The argument against agitation was in favour of the
side he espoused, for agitation could be stopped only by the
removal of the grievance. But gentlemen were like the vestry
in Oliver Twist, all struck with consternation, because the
hungry asked for more to eat. This motion might be nega-
tived ; but he was confident of eventual success. Having
lived to see freedom of religious opinions, and freedom from
personal slavery, he trusted also to see freedom of trade in
corn.
Mr. G. KNIGHT observed, that if mere modifications were
desired, it would be idle to make a comprehensive reference
to a committee, which could produce nothing but disappoint-
ment. But the people were beginning to understand the
subject, and to know that free trade in corn was not compati-
ble with high wages, and that its only effect would be that of
enabling the master manufacturers to increase their own
gains at the cost of the operatives, and the landlords, and to
grind their workmen still lower. No novelty had been pro-
duced since the rejection of this attempt in the last session,
except one which he much regretted—the exhibition of a ma-
jority of the cabinet ministers in hostility to the agricultural
interest, but sheltered under the high-minded expedient of
an open question. The present law, though of courseit could
not control the seasons, had much mitigated the evil arising
from their inequalities. He appealed for support more espe-
cially to the members for Ireland, whose staple was agricul-
ture.
Mr. PRYME proposed to add to the motion for a com-
mittee, by way of amendment, the words with a view to
the reduction of the average prices sptcified in the table an-
nexed to the act (the 9th of George IV.) according to which
the respective duties are imposed." He grounded his recom-
mendation on the argument that agriculture is entitled to a
protection in proportion to that which is given to other arti-
cles of general consumption. He supported his views by
extracts from Adam Smith and Ricardo. Agriculture, he
would remind the house, was subjected almost exclusively to
the burdens of tithe, and to a much larger proportion of
church, county, highway, and poor rate, than other branches
of industry were liable to bear. He contended, however,
that the present protection was too high, that it occasioned
frequent fluctuations, and that it injured our commerce and
manufactures, the prosperity of which was most important
to agriculture itself ; and his conclusion was, that the requi-
site protection would be grievously injurious in years of
scarcity. Such years, •he showed, had occurred not only
under the present law but under the system existing at the
close of the last century, which was practically a system of
free trade,
Mr. W. DUNcoMBE opposed the motion for a committee.
He was persuaded that neither a fixed duty nor even a repeal
of all duty whetever would satisfy the agitating parties. Their
object was a general abolition of all burdens, of which this
was only one. If the duty on foreign corn were to be re-
moved, you must remove the duty on all other foreign corn.
modities. Was government prepared to surrender these
sources of revenue ?
Mr. CLAY supported the original motion. The house,
though thin, was now inattentive and noisy, and called not
unfrequently for a division, while the hon. gentleman endea-
voured to enforce the necessity of conceding to what he de-
scribed as the general and still increasing desire of the nation
at large.
Mr. SnAw was solicitous to correct the error committed
by Mr. Villiers, in representing Ireland as a country whose
export of corn was not extensive.
Mr. VILLIERS had supposed that this export was dimi-
nishing.

Mr. SnAw, from the actual figures, showed, on the con-
trary, that the export of corn, flour included, was very largely
increased. Much complaint was made in England of the in-
flux of Irish labourers : if the corn law should be repealed,
there would be not merely an influx, but an inundation of
them.
At the conclusion of Mr. Shaw's speech the debate was
ther adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS-FRIDAY.

There were a great many petitions presented, chiefly on
the corn law question.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY asked whether the papers
would be produced, regarding which he had given notice, re-
lative to the affairs of Spain and the British legion ?

Lord MELBOURNE answered that, as they were connected
with negotiations still going on, he could not, in following
the invariable rule in such .cases, produce the documents at
the present time.
The metropolitan police courts bill was read the third time
and passed,
The Marquis of NORM ANBY stated that be was ready to
give and should on Monday offer explanation respecting the
recent temperance procession in Carlow on St. Patricks day,
—processions, which had been alleged to have assumed a
political appearance.
The Earl of WICKLOW said he trusted an explanation would
be offered as to similar processions in Dublin on the same
day.
Their lordships adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAY.

After the presentation of numerous petitions on the subject
of the corn laws, church extension, &c,
_ _

Mr. PAKINGTON asked Lord John ilussellwhether he, had
applied to the law officers of the crown for their opinion as
to whether the thirty days required by the constitutional act
of Canada, during which the clergy reserves bill should re-
main on the table of both houses of Parliament, wouldinclude
the time during the holidays.
Lord J. RUSSELL answered that he had not made such
application, but the opinion of the government was that the
thirty days comprised any time during which the house might
be sitting, or might be adjourned by a resolution of them-
selves. He intended however, to allow the fortnight, during
which it was probable the house might be adjourned, and
also the thirty days required by the act, and then to take the
opinion of the law officers of the crown before he advised
the crown to give its consent to the bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON asked whether the government was in
possession of any further information with regard to the
ordinance of the Governor-General of Canada, with respect
to the incorporation of the monks of St. Sulpice, and whether
that ordinance would receive assent. He wished to know
whether memorials bad not been presented by the landowners
in and about Montreal, in opposition to the proposed ar-
rangement.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Governor-General had
acted under the provisions of the act of parliament.
Lord SANDON inquired whether the ordinance would be
allowed or disallowed by government.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed that there was no objection to
it, but that it had not yet received consideration.
The order of the day for the attendance of Mr. Sheriff
Evans on the 6th of April (Monday) having been read,

. ,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he trusted that he should not have
to' renew the discussion on this subject. He hoped the other
house of parliament would give their assent to the bill which
had been sent up to them. Its second reading was fixed for
Monday. He should move, therefore, that the order be
discharged, and that Mr. Sheriff Evans be ordered to attend
the house on the 6th May, by which time he anticipated that
the bill would have passed into law.
The motion was then agreed to, and the sheriff continues
" at large" until the 6th of the next month.
During the evening the committee on the subject of the
affairs of China, with regard to the trade in opium, was
nominated. _ _

The debate on Mr. Villiers' motion respecting the " corn
laws" was again resumed, Mr. Brotherton opening the third
night's debate.
The house was eventually adjourned until Monday, after
considerable confusion, and amidst loud laughter, as the
question now will be, how to resume the debate, as this was
not adjourned.

THE "DUCHESS OF INVERNESS ?"

(From the Morning Herald.)

In our paper of yesterday, we Inserted some brief com-
ments on a very astounding announcement which had
ap-
peared in the London Gazette of the preceding evening.
That announcement apprised the British people that her
Majesty had been pleased to grant the dignity of a duchess
" to the right hon. Lady Cecilia Letitia Underwood (eldest
surviving daughter of Arthur Saunders, second Earl of
Arran. by Elizabeth, his third wife, daughter of Richard
Underwood, late of the city of Dublin, Esq.), and the heirs
male of her body, lawfully begotten by the name, style, and
title of Duchess of Inverness." We will not stop to quarrel
with the oddity of a patent of nobility, which, in express
terms grants to any future " Master Saunders," who shall
be entitled as legitimate heir male, the said dignity of a
duchess (!) and we repeat that we desire " not to question
her Majesty's right to elevate to the dignity of the peerage
whomsoever her Majesty pleases." And this is constitu-
tional doctrine. "The Crown is the fountain of honour,"
said the sages of the English law before the days even of
Bracton or of Meta; and it is a maxim as true in English
jurisprudence as it is dear to English loyalty.
The principle of loyalty has, down to our times, retained
so much of strength and freshness, that it has sometimes
seemed too active and flourishing, when crown-descended
honours have been diverted into worthless channels, or
poured into polluted courses. If, however, it has not
" withered, drooped, and died" over these occasional aber-
rations of the Sovereign's grace, its permanency and health-
fulness may be ascribed to its own deep-seated conviction
that such cases were but unhappy exceptions to the general
principle which had formerly regulated the distribution of the
waters of so noble a source. English loyalty was ever full of
faith, and amidst the corruption and venal patronage pro-
fusely encouraged and distributed by the profligate Jameses
and Charleses, it looked forward to better times and juster
and more upright princes. It found them in the reigns and
the persons of William 111., and of the second, third, and
the fourth William. In some of these reigns do we remem-
ber that the bad precedent of George 1., in the creation of
his mistress to be Duchess of Kingston, was followed. The
next notable creation of this kind was that of a late reign—
the Duchess of Sutherland. That was a case in which it
was little possible for the prerogative of the Crown to add to
the hereditary rank and station of one of the noblest of Bri-
tish matrons. The good and venerable " Duchess Coun-
tess" boasted a descent from the noblest houses of Scotland
and England, through an unbroken lineage of 800 years.
Her own fortune was regal, independently of-the enormous
wealth of her excellent lord ; and both of them, not less by
the unsullied purity of their private characters, their high
attainments, their virtues, and their munificence, than by the
lustre of their public position (eminent as this was in every
attribute of title, influence, and the respect of all classes),
did honour to the station which they filled. The third coin-
age of a new duchess, to which we shall advert, is this of the
Lady Cecilia Letitia Underwood.
If these creations are so rare in the annals of our peerage,
we may, without the slightest imaginable disrespect to the
sovereign, be allowed to speculate a little as to what can have
been the reasons which have guided the grace of the throne
in so remarkable a visitation upon the person of her ladyship.
" Remarkable," in truth, is but a weak term. It is almost
miraculous. If it was the glory of the " Divine Cecilia,"
according to the legend, " to draw down an angel from the
skies," to listen to her organ playing, what organs must this
Cecilia (Letitia) have possessed to drawn down upon herself
the ecstasy of a tangible duchess-ship ! Now, in these for-
tunate days of whig. ascendancy, in this bright age of liberal
opinions, it can not only be improper in us, or derogatory to
the lady, or offensive to the crown, to enter into the consi-
deration of the probable reasons which may have dictated
this selection of an object for the highest exercise of grace
and favour which it was in the power of the Queen to bestow
on any female subject ; but we should expect to be taunted
with the charge of having deserted our duty by the organs of
that ascendancy, and of these opinions, if we did not endea-
vour to elicit the facts. Besides, the crown itself, and the
powers nearest to the crown, must be anxious that the mo-
tives of such especial distinctions should be known ; and,
indeed, in modern times these motives generally are either
distinctly proclaimed, or permitted to be inferred from data,
not very likely to be mistaken. That was but a sorry reign
for this country (and we hope never to live to hear its autho-
rity quoted in the way of precedents for royal patents,) when
the sovereign, being assured that he need give no reasons to
the world for the most extravagant acts of his favour, created
one mistress a " Duchess" of Portsmouth, and another a
Duchess of Richmond. We have fallen upon other days.
Public opinion has, to a vast extent, usurped prerogative
royal. This change in many instances, under many phases
of circumstances, may be a change of uncertain tendencies.
It may be for good or for evil. But, be it for evil or for
good, to this extent it is omnipotent—it will not permit even
the personal prepossessions of the sovereign to compromise
the interests of public safety or of public morality.
We feel, we know, how unnecessary it is for us to renew,
at this time, the expression of our unfeigned, devoted, and
affectionate attachment to the youthful and intelligent pos-
sessor of the crown of these realms. But the reflections to
which the recent " creation" has given rise in our minds,
are heightened in their character of solicitude and earnest-
ness by the very intensity of that devotion. Shall we not,
then, proceed to discover, first, the possible effect of this
creation ; secondly, the possible identity of the party en-
nobled? Wherefore should we abstain in performing this
duty to the public ?
And first, as to the possible effect of this creation. If it
had been determined upon with a view to do honour to some
bright exercise of those female virtues of which our lovely
Queen presents in her own person so signal an example—if it
have been bestowed as a tribute to that maternal solicitude
for the pure, and careful, and enlightened education of off-
spring, which her Majesty's illustrious mother has so suc-
cessfully exhibited in the superintendence and direction of
her Majesty's own studies—if it have been granted as an ac-
knowledgment of that touching devotion to the last hours,
and the solace of the last pangs of a fond and confiding hus-
band, which Englishwomen, like Lady Dover, or princesses,
like Queen Adelaide, have manifested under circumstances
worthy of higher honours than courts or crowns can give,—
in any of these cases the creation may reflect even greater
lustre on the Sovereign, than the Sovereign can confer, by
her own act of grace upon the object of it.
But, in order to judge of the possible effect of the creation
just announced, subject, as it thus appears, to such conside-
rations, we must proceed to look at,
Secondly, the possible identity of the party ennobled.
And we assume, for the reasons adduced by us yesterday,
that the modern Cecilia (Letitia) is no other than " the
daughter of the late Earl of Arran, whose family name was
Gore ; whose mother's name was Underwood ; that, in 1815,
Lady Cecilia Gore espoused (forgive us, Clio !) Sir George
Buggin, Knight!' and, under the latter name, was subse-
quently known in the fashionable world, at a period when her
ladyship's acquaintance with his Royal Highness the Duke
of 'Sussex became matter of some notoriety." If this be so,
and no other circumstances of a later date have altered the
legal status of the lady, we must condemn the creation of
duchess in her favour as a most Stuart-like, most unaccount-
able, most capricious exercise of the Royal favour.
If other circumstances have since occurred to alter her legal
status, why are not these set out in the Gazette, to account
for the transformation of Lady Cecilia Letitia Gore Buggin
into Lady C. G. (no Buggin) Underwoou ? Did Lady Bug-
gin (her Grace of Inverness will forgive us) ever marry, at
ail,
marry George
~
Underwood"—so Buggin
n d e' sr
wd
oe
oa tdh
aii,
so as to have legally
sunk in that kindred shelter the horrid memory of (the name
(ftesrheS ir
of) her husband, the attorney knight?
If neither of these events really happened, and she has
ceased to be " Lady Buggdin,"
'Whom id she marry ?
With happy taste—as a compliment to the most decorous
people in the world—the title created for her is a proud and
an eminently Scotch title, Duchess of Inverness.
The Duke of Sussex is Earl of Inverness.
of a legal
derwood in consideration of any claim arising out
Is the duchy attributed to Lady Cecilia Gore Buggin Un.
or quasi legal connection with his Royal Highness ?os rislt a
his mere compliment to a long-accustomed inmate of Royal
Highness's bower at Kensington ? Doubtless, in reference
to the wording of the giant, the connection is legal or quasi
legal ; but the " heirs male of her body, lawfully begotten ?"
Heyday ! who, what, where, how many—are these ?Be they
young Bugginses, or little Underwoods, or grandson Saun-
derses, or ---
But we cannot put the other alternative without graver
and more foreboding feelings. We have lived to hear liberal
peers and members talk of the rapid and widely-spreading
progress of the democratic principle among us, as reducing
the chances of the perpetuation of monarchy to the duration
of three lives, or 21 years. God forbid, say we, from the
bottom of our souls! " Esto perpetua," we cry to the mo-
narchy. But tamper not with the sacred questions of prior
rights and legitimate descents. In an old established mo-
narchy, and a magnificent and immeasurable dominion like
that of Britain—by the side of certainty, right, and legitimate
'title, all the personal curiosity or interest attaching to all the
Duchesses of Buggins Inverness that ever existed, are as the
mere office dust and .sweepings of a city attorney's office.
Let us ask,• then, only two questions. If they can be replied
to in the negative, all other interrogatories, and all reasoning
upon them, are " leather and prunella."
Is the Duke of Sussex married to the new Duchess of In-
verness (Buggins) ?
Are there male issue of this marriage (such issue, of course,
if existing, are lawfully begotten) ?

Unless his royal highness could show a written despensa-
tion from the crown, such a marriage is clearly invalid, be-
cause it was, ab initio, illegal, against an express statute.
Hear what Blackstone says of the I2th Geo. iii.—
" And now, by statute 12 Geo. iii. c. 11, no descendant
of the body of king George iii. (other than the issue of prin-
cesses married into foreign families) is capable of contracting
matrimony without the previous consent of the king, signified
under the great seal ; and any marriage- contracte without
such consent is void."—Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i,
p. 226. . .

We are pretty safe in broadly affirming that no such certi-
ficate of consent has ever passed the great seal. Then the
marriage would be illegal. Then the public will be prone to
ask why so extravagant a grant should emanate from the
throne, in fear of any already, or here after to be, horn
Bugginses, or Invernesses ? If the lady be not the rightful
wife of the Duke of Sussex, this is a sort of sacrifice to the
lucky genius of the house of Buggins which even the house of
Saxe Coburg might envy !
Take the other alternative. Is the Duchess of Inverness
the lawful wife of the Duke of Sussex ? Why in that case,
these enormous honours to the widow of the Hatton-garden
attorney, which were denied to the high-born exemplary wo-
man, Lady Augusta Murray, whose marriage with the Duke
of Sussex, duly celebrated by a protestant clergyman at
Rome, was clearly, qouad the effect upon it of the 12th Geo.
iii. legal ; because the purview of that statute does not ex-
tend to marriages celebrated dehors the British dominions ?
That marriage was further confirmed by a repetition of so-
lemnisation according to the forms of the English established
church, in England, at a subsequent period, though it may
be doubted, on the highest authorities of the ecclesiastical
courts, whether such marriage, being in all other respects le-
gal according to the forms or dispensations of the foreign state
in which it was first celebrateed, needed this additional solem •
nity. If the marriage with the beautiful and accomplished
Lady Augusta was legal, why are the honours now destined
for the Bugginses (for aught that appears) withheld from the
admirable, the excellent issue of that marriage, the accom-
plished gentleman and soldier, Sir Augustus D'Este, and his
virtuous and high minded sister, Lady Augusta ?
If the Duke of Sussex be married to Lady Cecilia Letitia
G. U. 8., Duchess of Inverness, and the defect of any such
consent of the sovereign, signified under the great seal, as is
required by the Royal Marriage Act, had not invalidated the
marriage, how can the legality of his royal highness's prior
marriage with Lady Augusta Murray be disputed ?
If the marriage with. Lady Augusta was valid, what pre-
tence, what reason, what explanation, can be assigned to the
British public for this inexplicable preference of the Bug-
ginses over the D'Estes ?
Truly it excites some misgivings in our mind when we
collate with this astounding patent to Lady Cecilia, the al-
most over-acted, impetuous affection and profound reverence
of his royal highness fAr and to the sovereign of these realms,
on the three memorable occasions of her majesty's first
meeting her parliament, her majesty's coronation, and her
majesty's marriage. A lively hope of " grace to come" is a
wondrous gout-curer !
Again, what did Mr. Gillon's motion portend, at the close
of a former session, when he expatiated on his royal high-
ness's ill-paid state; and after showing how he had got in-
volved, from sheer disinterestedness, in the discharge of the
duties of President of the Royal Society, prayed the house
to levy countervailing " duties" on the people to the tune
0fX6,000 or £B,OOO a-year, in the shape of an addition to
the duke's income? Is this proposition, then, repudiated
very unequivocally by the House of Commons, to be brought
on again under the more insulting suggestion tithe expediency
of providing for the descendants of the relict of the knighted
attorney ? And if this ever be done, can any man guarantee
us against a similar application, some fine morning, on be-
half of a sister connection—of which fame speaks odd things ?
What pass are matters now come to? How far does our
" socialist" premier mean to shock the ancient purity of Eng-
lish society ? With what further sacrifice of the decorums
and decencies of life, after presenting Owen to his Queen,
will this reckless lord be satisfied ?

We bid him to beware. It is a dangerous experiment
which we apprehend. On the one hand, however, we shall
never cease to suggest that justice, generosity, and honour,
are first to be satisfied to the D'Estes ; and that hitherto
we know of no such case made out for the Bugginses. On
the other hand, we solemnly and with deep respect submit
to that high tribunal, from which on earth such honours
flow, that had they been devoted in a divided appropriation
to the two D'Estes, and the reparation of the insulted cha-
racter and sacrificed life of Lady Flora Hastings, by the dis-
tinction of her next female representative, the fearful possi-
bility of all questions of a doubtful succession hereafter, and
the hazard of public disgust at present, might have been
avoided or overcome.

STATIONS OF THE BRITISH ARMY,

ON THE IsT OF APRIL, 1840

(From the United Service Journal.)

[Where two places are mentioned, the last-named is that at which
the DepOt of the Regiment is stationed.]

Ist Life Guards—Hyde Park 40th Foot—Bombay ; Chatham
2d—Windsor 41st—Madras; Chatham
Royal Horse Guards—Reg. Park 42d—Templemore
Ist Dragn Gds.—Canada ;, York 43d—Canada ; Naas
2d—Glasgow 44th—Bengal ; Chatham
3d—Edinburgh 45th—Newport
4th—Birmingham
sth—Nottingham 46th—Gibraltar; Jersey
47th—Malta, Inniskillen
6th—Manchester . 48th—Gibraltar ; Fernioy
7th—Leeds 49th—Bengal ; Chatham
Ist Dragoons—Sheffield 50th—N.S.Wales ; Chatham
2d—Ballincollig 51st—V. D. Land; Chatham
3d—Bengal 52d—West Indies ; Armagh
4th—Bombay 53d*—Ionian Isles; Plymouth
6th—Dublin 54th—Madras; Chatham
7th Hussars—Canada; York 55th—Madras ; Chatham
Bth—Leeds 56tht—Jamaica ; Belfast
9th Lancers—lpswich 57th—Madras ; Chatham ,
10th Hussars—Dorchester 58th—Portsmouth
11th Light Dragoons—Cantrbry 59th—Malta; Tralee
12th Lancers—Brighton 69th*(1st battalti.)—lonian Isles;
13th Light Dragoons—Madras Birr
14th—Hounslow (2d batt.)—lon. Isles; Clonmel
15th Hussars—Bombay 61st—Winchester
16th Lancers—Bengal 62d—Madras ; Chatham
17th Lancers—Dundalk 63d—Madras ; Chatham
Grenadier Guards (Ist batt.) 64th—Jamaica; Boyle
Port man Barracks 65th—Canada ; Clare Castle
(2d batt.)—Canada 66th—Canada ; Kinsale
(3d batt.)—Wellington Barracks 67tht—West Indies; Cork
Coldstream Guards—(lst batt.) 68th—Jamaica ; Cork
-_ . . __

--- —St. John's Wood 69th—America; Youghall
(2d batt.)—Canada 70th—W. Indies ; Fermoy
Scotch Fusileer Guards—(l st hatt) 71 st —Canada ; Stirling
St. George's Barracks 72d*—Cape of G. Hope ; Dundee
(2d batt.)—Tower 73d—Canada ; Sheerness
Ist Foot (Ist batt.)—Gibraltar 74th—West Indies; Fermoy
(2d batt.)—Canada 75th—C. of G. Hope ; Plymouth
2d Foot—Bombay; Chatham 76th—West Indies, Enniskillen
3d—Bengal; Chatham 77th—Malta; Hull
4th—Madras ; Chatham 78th—Edinburgh
sth—lonian Isles ; Galway 79th—Manchester
6th—Bombay; Chatham 80th—N. S. Wales; Chatham
7th—Gibraltar; Cork 81st—BarbAdoes ; Hull
Bth—America; Guernsey 82d—Jamaica; Portsmouth
9th—Bengal ; Chatham 83d—Canada ; Belfast
10th—Burnley 84th—Kilkenny
11 th—Canada ; Gosport 85th— Canada ; Plymouth
12th—Mauritius; Brecon 86th—Bolton
13th—Bengal; Chatham 87th—Mauritius; Dublin
14th—West Indies ; Chester 88th—Dublin
15th—Canada; Plymouth 89th—West Indies ; Gosport
16th—Bengal; Chatham' 90th—Ceylon ; Dover
I 7th—Bombay ; Chatham glst—Cape&St.Helena; Aberdeen
18th—Bombay ; Chatham 92d—Malta; Birr
I gth—Bristol 93d—America; Fort St. George
20th—Stockport 94th—Madras ; Chatham
21st—Bengal; Chatham 95th—Ceylon; Carlisle
22d—Dublin 96th!—Manchester
23d—America; Castlebar 97th—Dublin
24th—Canada; Cork 98th—Newcastle.on-Tyne
25th—C. Good Hope; Devonport 99th—Athlone
26th—Bengal; Chatham Rifle Brigade (Ist batt)—Weedon
27th—C. Good Hope ; Wexford (2d batt.)—Windsor
28th—N. S. Wales; Chatham Royal Staff Corps—Hythe
29th—Woolwich Ist W. Ind. Regt.—Demerara, &c.
30th—Bermuda ; Newry 2d—New Providence & Honduras
31st—Bengal; Chatham Ceylon Rifle Regiment—Ceylon
32d—Canada; Cork Cape Mounted Riflemen—Cape of
33d—Gibraltar; Tynemouth Good Hope
34th—Canada ; Chatham Royal African Colonial Corps-
35th—Mauritius ; Chatham Sierra Leone
36th—America; Limerick Royal Newfd. Veteran Company-
37th—America ; Waterford • Newfoundland
38th—Limerick Royal Malta Fencibles—Malta
39th=Madras ; Chatham
* Ordered home. f The 56th and 67th are to go to Canada
I Ordered to New South Wales.