PROVISION FOR PRINCE ALBERT.

HC Deb 27 January 1840 vol 51 cc582-633

On the motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into a committee, to consider so much of her Majesty's Speech as related to a provision for Prince Albert.

Mr. Bernal in the chair.

The paragraph in the Queen's Speech was again read as follows:— The constant proofs which I have received of your attachment to my person and family, persuade me that you will enable me to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to the rank of the Prince, and the dignity of the Crown.

Question again proposed, That her Majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum not exceeding 50,000l. out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to his Serene Highness the Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, on his marriage to her Majesty, to commence from the day of the marriage, and to continue during the life of his said Serene Highness.

Mr. Hume

said, he rose with pain to move the amendment of which he had given notice. It was a matter of great regret to him that her Majesty should have been advised to come forward at this time to demand any establishment, or any grant of money for Prince Albert. He said any, because, from the tenor of the paragraph which had just been read, he was induced to suppose that some separate establishment was to be maintained. If so, he could not think it possible that the noble Lord and his colleagues, and all those who voted with him against any increase of allowance to the Duke of Sussex last Session, could act with such inconsistency of conduct as to propose so large, or even any grant to Prince Albert. But since the House had last sat, he had referred to the precedents quoted by the noble Lord, and it did not appear to him that any of them bore upon the question then under their consideration. All he could learn from the public records with respect to the allowance made to the Prince of Denmark was, that not one shilling was voted to him individually; but the grant was to be to him after the decease of Queen Anne, in case he should survive her. In the same manner he found the precedent in the case of Prince Leopold was merely a grant to the Prince after the death of Princess Charlotte. It appeared that 60,000l. a-year was granted, not to Prince Leopold, but to the Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold, for the establishment, and the Princess's privy purse; 50,000l. being for the household, and 10,000l. for the privy purse. When an objection was made, in a very mild and gentle way, that the amount was too large, an answer was given to this effect:—"It is a large amount; but bear in mind that the princess is now receiving 30,000l." An additional 30,000l. was voted to enable the prince and princess to maintain an establishment suitable to their rank and dignity, but not one shilling was given to Prince Leopold. If the noble Lord would look at the speech of the minister of that day, Lord Castlereagh, he would find it stated that the expenses of the Crown were invariably looked on with more jealousy in this country than in any other, and although the grant was voted unanimously, yet Mr. Tierney made an observation upon the in-expediency of it in the then state of the country, to support what was called the splendour and dignity of the Crown. No grant that had ever been made to any branch of the Royal family had been more objected to than the grant made to Prince Leopold. Looking at the manner in which the resolution was worded, granting the annuity to Prince Leopold, he thought there was no analogy between that case and the present. He believed that the grant, so far from rendering the Queen popular, loved, revered, and looked up to by her subjects, would have the contrary effect. Were he to follow his own opinion, he should object to the granting of a single shilling during the lifetime of her Majesty; but he found an almost unanimous opinion among those with whom he had conversed, that some grant should be made, and he had yielded more, there- fore, in the motion he was about to make, to what he believed to be the general wish, than to his own conviction. In the first place he would ask, was there any necessity for such a grant? The noble Lord was pressed the other night by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) to state what was to be done with the money; and the only expenditure the noble Lord could make out was, that there was to be an establishment for the Prince, at an expense of between 7,000l. and 8,000l. What was to become of the rest? Did the noble Lord know the danger of setting a young man down in London with so much money in his pocket [laughter]? It was no laughing matter. It was easy to imagine, not only what might be the possible result, but what might be the probable result of such a proceeding. He would appeal to the noble Lord, and to the House, whether the proposed grant was not more likely to interfere with the peace and happiness of her Majesty than any act that had yet been done. He thought nothing was more calculated to produce disunion between her and the Prince, than that of putting so large a sum of money into the hands of so young a man; a sum which no person could see how he could honestly and properly expend. So large a grant would promote disunion among the royal persons themselves, and it was brought forward under circumstances that the noble Lord himself could not defend. He recollected very well, when Mr. Canning made a brilliant oration against reform; he said that they might have reform; that they might make the Members more obedient to the will of the electors; they might submit the Members to the influence of various fanciful theories; but that the House, as then constituted, was sufficiently popular for all practical purposes, and that it bent itself to the circumstances of the times, not hastily, but gradually and cautiously, and were they sure that the reformed House would listen to the complaints of the people? And would the reformed House do less than was expected from it? The noble Lord had not acted wisely in bringing forward so large and excessive a grant. "True (the noble Lord said) that the state of the country, at present, did not warrant the grant," but then he added, "you ought not to provide with reference to the present, but the probable future." Would the noble Lord say, if the House of Commons should be prevailed upon to vote the 50,000l., how the money was to be paid? There was already a deficient revenue, already the expenditure exceeded the revenue of the country. Was it only a passing cloud? Was the deficiency only for a day? No; it had been so for the last three years. There had been a deficiency averaging at least a million. He asked, was there likely to be a less deficiency? As far as expenditure abroad went, there was no appearance of reduction, and at home he thought there was still less a prospect of diminished expenditure. He therefore asked whether the noble Lord ought not to have given the strongest and most overpowering reasons before he asked such a vote. The revenue had been deficient, not because the taxes had not been collected, for their produce this year was at least equal to what it had been on an average of the last five years, and those last five had been greater than the average of the preceding five years; but there had been a great increase of establishments and expenditure at home. They had gone on till there had been an increase of two or three millions in the expenditure of the last three years. Could the noble Lord tell him what new taxes he intended to propose for the payment of 50,000l.? Suppose a tax was placed on peers, baronets, and men having privileges. He, for one, would have no objection to it. But even if that were done, it would not remove his objection to giving so lavish and profuse an expenditure to any individual connected with royalty. Lord Castlereagh had stated on one occasion, and stated very properly, that the expenditure on the part of the royal family, or of every individual member of it, was viewed with greater jealousy by the people of this country than of any other; and when he had brought on a motion on a subject similar to the present, he was obliged to show that, for the honour and dignity of the Crown, it was necessary to pass the grant which he required. He would beg of the House to recollect that the salaries of almost every officer of the Crown had been of late years reduced, and the only reduction that had not taken place was in the civil list of her Majesty. Therefore it was that he objected to the vote, because it would be placing before the eyes of the people an addition to our already over-paid Royal establishment, and which ought to be reduced rather than increased. This grant would be placing Prince Albert before the Royal Dukes, who were sons of Kings, and the brothers of Kings; and why Prince Albert, because he was to be the husband of the Queen, should be placed so much above the royal Dukes in point of income, seemed to him impossible to be accounted for. In the time of George 3rd, the first settlement was only 10,000l. a year to each of the royal Dukes. By the act of 18 George 3rd. 60,000l. a year was granted, to be divided among the six sons, with benefit of survivorship, but that none should receive more than 15,000l. a-year. In 1806 the value of money having fallen, Lord Henry Petty proposed an addition of 6,000l. a yew to the income of each Prince. When he brought forward that proposition, on the 6th of July, 1806, he said, The provision for the younger sons of the King was fixed at 12,000l. per annum in 1778. This was judged at that lime to be a proper sum, and adequate to the due support of their rank. But he would leave it to the House to determine, when they looked at the increased expense attending every article of consumption, when they considered that most of them had doubled since that period, and some of them more than doubled, whether that sum could be regarded as any way adequate. He, therefore, proposed, that the 6,000l. should be made an addition to that which had been already voted. The only objection made to the grant was by the gallant Colonel the Member for Brecon (Colonel Wood), who complained loudly of the expenditure. Mr. Ridley Colborne, indeed, thought that the House should pause before they voted away such large sums of the public money, at a period of such pecuniary difficulty; but Lord Henry Petty answered that certain tables, and other allowances had been lately suppressed, which had cost the public nearly as much as their additional allowances would do. There, then, a reason was assigned why there should be an increase of 6,000l. to the royal income; but here there was no reason for the present grant to Prince Albeit. When the bill was brought in, on the 9th of July, Colonel Wood said, That such a proposition should have been submitted to Parliament, under the present circumstances of the country, was, to him, he confessed, no less a matter of regret than of astonishment. If the Lords and Commons were alone called upon for a contribution of this nature, he would most clearly assent to it; but feeling for the people, who were already so borne down, he could not consent to increase their burdens, particularly upon the grounds proposed by the mover. The Royal Family were exempt from taxes, which others paid. On the 11th of July, on the second reading, Colonel Wood added. That to make the people dissatisfied with the Government, as this would do, was bad. It had fallen to his (Mr. Hume's) own lot to propose that a less sum than 21,000l. a year should be granted to the royal Dukes; but those days of economy and retrenchment had gone by—they no longer existed. At that time the House listened to a proposal of retrenchment, and even hon. Gentlemen opposite were forced to yield to a large reduction of the incomes of many public offices; and, on the same grounds, he had thought that a reduction should be made in the incomes of the royal Dukes, and he had moved that the allowance of the Duke of Sussex should be reduced to 18,000l., although there was no man whom he (Mr. Hume) respected, as well in his private as in his public character, more than he did the illustrious Duke. In his opinion it did appear necessary that the same rule as had been applied to the minor offices ought to have been applied to those of the highest degree. The expenditure of the court being extravagant and profuse was most dangerous, for it led to the extravagance of those who visited the Court, and induced those difficulties which were seen every day. He (Mr. Hume) asserted that economy ought to begin at the head, with the Crown itself, and ought to extend to all branches depending on the Crown; for, if economy met with the sanction of the highest authority, the example would be generally followed. Was it possible for any one to look at the great difficulties and at the distress which now existed in the country, and to say that this grant was proper? Was it possible that her Majesty's Ministers, in recommending this grant, could be ignorant that from one end of the country to the other it would meet with nothing but dissatisfaction and grumbling. In his view it was not fair to give to Prince Albert a larger sum than had been given to the royal dukes. He had no house to support—no establishment to maintain—no servants to pay; and the House had granted 385,000l. a year to Queen Victoria to support her personal dignity. He had endeavoured, as well in the committee as in the House, to reduce the grant; but the House and the Committee had thought that the larger amount ought to be granted. The question now asked was, whether this was a larger or a less allowance than had been granted to William IV.? They had voted yearly to the Queen for her privy purse 60,000l.for the salaries of the household 131,260.; for tradesmen's bills 172,500l.; for royal bounty and charity (exclusive of pensions) 13,200l.; and for unappropriated monies the further sum of 8,040l.; making in round numbers the annual sum of 385,000l., more by 10,000l. a year than they had given to William IV. The civil list of William IV. was 510,000l. a year, but out of that they had to take the grant for the Queen's privy purse, of 50,000l.; 75,000l. for pensions now provided for from other sources; and 10,000l. for secret service money, making 135,000l. Taking then that sum from the510,000l., what remained to William IV. for the King's privy purse? 60,000l.; for the salaries of the household 130,000l.—less by nearly 1,000l. than the grant to the present Queen; for tradesmen's bills 171,500l., again 1,000l. less than the present civil list; and for royal bounties and charity 13,200l.; without any unappropriated moneys, which in the new list amounted to 8,040l. The total amount therefore, of William IV. 's civil list was as nearly as possible 10,000l. a year less than the present civil list. There was one feature, too, in the expenditure of William IV., and he mentioned it to his honour: the civil list that had been voted was sufficient for his whole reign, and when he died, after having received the three millions that had been voted, there was a sum of 14,000l. unexpended, and not one shilling of debt. It stood recorded in the report of the Committee, and it was so extraordinary an act, looking at the custom of all preceding kings, that he thought it merited every honour. He hoped that it would obtain honour, because he trusted that he should live, at the end of seven years of the expenditure of the civil list of Queen Victoria, to see it equally well applied, and to find that her Ministers would not connive at any proceeding in which her character might be involved; for involved it would be, if she should be advised to incur any expenditure beyond what Parliament had allowed. He for one did not fear that such would be the case. Her Majesty then had 10,000l. a year more than William IV. That King was enabled to conduct every part of his establishment without incurring any debt, and what warrant was there for the House granting any addition to that sum? He had in his possession three petitions, which stated distinctly that in the present state of the country 385,000l. was ample, if not too much. How many poor families would that amount keep! How many might be provided for out of the allowances to the royal family ! The petitioner said that 385,000l. would provide for 18,333 families; and that the 260,000l. bestowed on other branches of the royal family would provide for 12,380 families; and if they added the present proposal of 50,000l. not less than 33,000 families, with 142,943 souls, could be kept out of the sums which the royal family would then cost. During the last year of King William's reign, the sums granted for the other branches of the royal family reached only to 171,000l. a year: the allowances were for the King of Hanover, 21,000l.; for the Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge, 21,000l. each; for Prince George of Cumberland, 6,000l; for Prince George of Cambridge, 6,000l.; the Princesses Augusta, Mary of Gloucester, Elizabeth, and Sophia,13,000l. each; the Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria, 22,000l; Princess Sophia of Gloucester, 7,000l.; and the trustees of Prince Leopold, 50,000l.—making a total of 206,000l.: and deducting the 35,000l. a year repaid by Leopold's trustees, the actual amount would be 171,000l. Now, however, they had to add the allowance to the Queen Dowager 100,000l., and the increase to the Duchess of Kent, from 22,000l. to 30,000l. and there was chargeable on. the Consolidated Fund 295,000l, a year for the different branches of the royal family; and if they deducted Leopold's repayment of 35,000l. the balance actually paid was 260,000l. a year; and if they added this to the Queen's grant of 385,000l. a year, the whole amount now paid was 645,000l. a year, being more by 62,000l. this year than in the former reign. If they further added the proposed allowance of 50,000l. a year to Prince Albert, the whole amount would be 695,000l. a year. Was that a niggardly allowance? Was there not besides an income arising from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which if properly managed, would produce at least 30,000l. a year additional, but which was taken up at the present moment in paying sinecures? Then there was 17,000l. a year as pensions to old servants, and 98,000l. a year for what were formerly the civil list pensions; with expensive palaces and parks. Was this, the time when they wanted any new elements to stir up strife? Was this the time when they saw discontent raging, that they should propose a large grant? For himself, he would rather withhold any vote; but at any rate let it not exceed the vote for the Duke of Sussex and the other royal Dukes. If they were able to maintain their establishments with the sums yearly voted, surely Prince Albert could manage with that amount. He was told of necessary officers of his establishment; but he held in his hand a return, in which it was stated that the sums paid by William 4th. to the gentlemen in the Lord Chamberlain's department were not less than 30,000l. a-year; and when he had first heard of that amount, he had thought that many superfluities might be dispensed with without derogating from the dignity of the Crown or the comforts of the Sovereign. The salaries of the Lord Steward's department were 8,323l. a year; the salaries in the Master of the Horse's department were 12,415l.; and in that of the Master of the Robes 850l. He therefore said, that he could point out to the House where the attendances could be obtained without the grant of one farthing for the support of fresh officers. He found that in the Lord Chamberlain's department there were a lord chamberlain, a vice-chamberlain, eight lords in waiting, and eight grooms in waiting, with salaries exceeding 10,000l. a-year. Would any man tell him that these eighteen individuals were all required for attendance on her Majesty? Was it possible that sixteen lords and grooms in waiting could be necessary? They ought to be made useful in their vocation, and not to be left as mere matters of patronage for high families. If this were done, surely there might be found at least two out of the body to attend Prince Albert. He found also that 12,000l. a-year were given for the Corps of Gentlemen-at-arms, and for the Yeomen of the Guard. And there were besides salaries of officers which were to fall in at the death of the holders, in the Lord Chamberlain's department to the amount of 4,358,l., and in the Lord Steward's department of 3,871l. which ought long since to have ceased. With such an establishment, when multitudes were in want of food of the simplest kind, was it possible that comparisons would not be made by the people to the disadvantage of the Royal Family? If he turned to the department of the Master of the Horse, he found that there were, besides the chief, four equerries and four pages of honour, costing together, not much less than 7,000l. Were not the horses in her Majesty's stables sufficient for Prince Albert? That being, in his opinion, the case, he held that there was no necesity, as there was no precedent and no ex- ample, for this grant; and that whilst the country was overburdened with debt, and with the heavy amount of taxation and distress in the country, it was unwise to propose such a vote. If he rested for an account of the distress on the speech from the throne itself, he found that it had led to insubordination which had in some parts of the country broken out into open violence, which had been repressed by the firmness and energy of the magistrates, and by the steadiness and good conduct of the troops. He would rather that her Majesty had depended on the love and affection of the great mass of the people, for he did not like to see the military called in upon every slight dread; but whether they looked to what had taken place at Monmouth, in Yorkshire, at Sheffield, or even within this Metropolis, he could not refrain from asking if it were wise to add any element to the discord? And especially ought not the House, before it agreed that this sum should be paid, to consider how it could be paid, and how the public voice would receive it? If they had 50,000l. to spend, how many better ways could they find of disposing of it? Had there not been strong contrasts drawn between the grant of 30,000l. for education and 70,000l. for the royal stables? Had not this been a prominent topic at all the meetings of the lower classes? And if they now gave the the 50,000l. a-year to Prince Albert, would they not hear of it again and again? 50,000l. a-year would establish schools and museums and libraries in many large towns, to promote the improvement of the people; and it was only by promoting their improvement that they could hope to maintain peace. If such an opinion existed in this country, he would put it to the House whether it was politic to assent to so large a proposal, and whether they ought not rather to effect all possible reductions, particularly at the head to which all classes looked with regard? It was impossible for the Queen to be aware of what passed in the country; it was to her Ministers that she must look for information and advice, and it was upon the Ministers that the House must throw the blame. These were his reasons for opposing the proposed grant, and he would not detain the House longer than by saying that no precedent existed; and they ought, in his opinion, during her Majesty's life, to make no grant; but as he was at all times anxious to bow to the opinion of others, and as the general feeling was that a sum equal to that granted to the Duke of Sussex should be voted, he would propose that amount; and how, after the vote of the last Session, any man could assent to a larger vote than 21,000l. he was at a loss to conceive, although he had heard that if her Majesty's Ministers had proposed 25,000l. or 30,000l. a-year no objection would have been made. No man could vote for this grant of money without being prepared to lay taxes on the people; and if this were the case, he should like to know how the country could bear them? The hon. Member concluded with moving that a grant of 21,000l. be made to her Majesty for Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, instead of 50,000l.

Mr. William Williams

, seconded the motion. Under any other circumstances in the country, he should have considered it to be his duty to oppose such a lavish grant as that of 50,000l. a year, because it was not only uncalled for, but because it was an extreme waste of the public money; but if they looked to the state of distress prevailing throughout the country, and the miserable situation to which millions of the population were placed, and the reduced condition of the merchants, manufacturers, and traders, and the embarrassing state of the finances, he trusted that the House would not sanction such a vote. Before the House proceeded to any vote, he thought that it should have some satisfactory explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how the money was to be raised. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to borrow the money, and add it to the enormously heavy debt that pressed upon the country at present, or did he mean to raise the amount by additional taxes? If he meant to plunge the country deeper into debt by borrowing the amount he should at once say so; but if he meant to impose fresh taxes, he should at once inform the House upon what articles he intended to lay them. If such a tax was to be imposed upon au article of consumption used by the poor as well as by the rich, he did not anticipate any very serious objection on the part of that House; but if it was to be raised by means of a tax on property, there would be a very different feeling manifested on the part of the House, and the outcry would be general. He trusted that full and satisfactory explanations would be given on these points, before the House was called upon to vote away 50,000l. a year. His hon. Friend (the Member fur Kilkenny) had adverted to the enormous expense of the Royal Family to this country; but he believed that his hon. Friend had underrated the charge, and had omitted several important items. He would advert to one which had not been mentioned; namely, the average expense of the parks and palaces, which amounted to 85,000l. a year. His hon. Friend had also forgotten to mention the large sums paid in the shape of pensions to the servants of deceased kings and queens, and also the large grants that had been made for the repairs of the several royal castles and palaces. An hon. Member opposite asked on a former night what was the income of Prince Albert, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies did not give an answer; but, if public reports were true, it was not very large. He must, be a person of a very strong intellect indeed who could bear an expenditure of 350,000l. a year with his consort, together with the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, together with 50,000l. a year for pocket money, and a number of palaces and castles, which were sufficient to affect the understanding of any young man. The noble Lord, as well as every one else, admitted that great distress existed throughout the country at the present time, but he said that he did not think that that was a sufficient excuse for delaying the making a satisfactory settlement on Prince Albert. He thought that these were reasons which should weigh with the House and with the Government. The noble Lord said, that he believed that the distress was only temporary. He (Mr. Williams) should be glad to hear the reasons for such an assumption. If this opinion was just, and was founded on anything like a good ground, it would gladden the hearts of millions of the people of this country, who now saw no immediate or speedy prospect of improvement. He believed that there was nothing to justify such an inference, and that nothing but an interposition of Providence could remedy the present state of distress. He would ask the noble Lord whether the famous Reform Bill, which he had introduced, and which was to lead to such beneficial results, had not been chiefly supported on the belief that it would lead to an economical and better Government? but really the present proposition was quite as bad a one as any that could be proposed to an unreformed Parliament. The people supported the Reform Bill in the belief that they would have a cheaper Government; but so far from that having been the case, they were endeavouring to carry votes which the unreformed Parliament, however extravagant, would hardly ever have sanctioned. They had been told that great disaffection prevailed throughout the country, and what was the cause of this?—it was that the people were overtaxed, and their burdens were so heavy that they could not bear them, as they had taken from them, by one way or other, more than one-half the fruits of their labour and industry. The noble Lord was much deceived if he thought that acts of extravagance like that now proposed could satisfy the people; on the contrary, they would only regard it as a mocking of their distress. Such a proceeding as the present engendered disaffection, and made it spread throughout the country. He believed that the people of this country were warmly attached to monarchical institutions; but such conduct as had been pursued with regard to the present subject had tended much to alienate the feelings of the community. He trusted before the House sanctioned such an extravagant vote as the present, that it would, however, pay attention to the distress which prevailed throughout the country.

Lord Eliot

felt that as the House had already assured her Majesty, in answer to her gracious speech from the throne, that it would provide for such an establishment as might appear suitable to the rank of the Prince and the dignity of the Crown, the only question was, whether the proposition of the noble Lord was an adequate provision for the purpose proposed. The hon. Member for Kilkenny thought that it was too much, and had proposed to reduce it from 50,000l. to 21,000l. a-year. It would be for the noble Lord to answer the statement made by that hon. Gentleman; for his own part, he did not agree in the arguments that were adduced, and he could not support the amendment of the hon. Member. But while he admitted this, he felt that he was called upon to deal with this subject fairly and openly. It had been stated, and as he thought shewn, by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the civil list of her Majesty was 10,000l. a-year more than the civil list during the last reign. In dealing with the present question, he thought that it should be re- garded in two points of view: first, as the proposed income to Prince Albert while Consort to her Majesty: and secondly, his income if he should happen to survive her Majesty. The noble Lord had drawn a parallel between the position of the husband of the Queen, and of the Queen Consort. Now he thought that this parallel would not hold good. He believed that the Queen Consort had a constitutional status, and if not by law, at least by usage, she was bound to maintain a considerable number of great officers; such, for instance, as those of her Attorney and Solicitor-general, the Lord Chamberlain, her ladies of the bed-chamber, and other similar appointments, the salaries for which amounted to upwards of 24,000l. a-year; and there was also a charge of nearly 10,000l. a-year for the Queen's stables—making together the charge of 34,000l., and which deducted from the allowance to the Queen Consort of 50,000l. a-year, left a fund at the Queen's disposal of from 15,000l. to 16,000l. The noble Lord, as he understood, said that out of this grant of 50,000l. a-year to Prince Albert, deductions to the amount of 8,000l. should be made for salaries to his household; allowing 7,000l more for his stables, there was left an income at the disposal of the Prince, amounting to 35,000l. a-year. Far be it from him to suppose that any improper use would be made of this income; but he recollected that a late distinguished leader of the party to which the noble Lord belonged, namely, Mr. Whitbread, stated that it was the duty of that House to make such grants that it was not possible that an improper use should be made of them, such as he had alluded to. It was impossible for him to speak of the Prince who was the subject of this grant, from any personal knowledge; and from all he heard, he believed it was impossible to speak too highly of him, but he would seriously ask, whether the sum now required was requisite for the station that he would have to fill in this country? He wished not to indulge in any ad captandum expressions of loyalty, or affection to the Throne; for he believed that these feelings of attachment and respect to the Sovereign were entertained by all of them; nor would he, on the other hand, make any appeal to the distress that prevailed in the country, with the view of reducing the grant; but he could not help feeling that, as regarded the situation of the Prince during the joint lives of her Majesty and himself, it was a matter of great dan- ger and difficulty that the Prince should have a large separate income. They should look at this matter as they would look at any other marriage settlement, where it was necessary to consult all the probable circumstances that might arise. If, then, it should happen that it should please God to deprive the country of its Queen, and the Prince of his Consort, and that there should, unhappily, be no offspring, the ties and associations which bound the Prince to the country would be very much relaxed, and he might naturally desire to return to the land which gave him birth; thus the country might be burdened with a charge of 50,000l. a-year for a long period, which would be expended abroad. This was also a ground which would operate with him to prevent his acceding to the noble Lord's resolution, as it was then proposed, but he trusted that in doing so, his conduct-would not be open to misconstruction. The noble Lord should not forget that his friends had opposed the grant which had enabled the Duke of Kent to contract the marriage of which her Majesty was the issue. He did not object to a liberal and handsome income being settled on the Consort of her Majesty, and looking to the status of the Prince in the country, and the difference there was between his position and that of the Queen Consort, he thought that they might safely give less to him than was proposed. With these feelings he thought that the amendment which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Lincoln, seemed to meet the case entirely, that amendment having the effect of giving to the Prince 10,000l. less in amount, than the privy purse of the Queen Consort, instead of 10,000l. a-year more, as proposed by the noble Lord: and, therefore, when the hon. and gallant Member proposed it, he should give it his support. In the meantime he should vote against the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was understood to state, that before he proceeded to allude to the speech of the noble Lord, he would advert to one or two points that had been dwelt on by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. His hon. Friend slid, that he never heard of an instance of a grant being made to the consort of a Queen regnant in this country. His hon. Friend, however, overlooked the grant made to the consort of Queen Anne of 50,000l. a-year. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if a grant of this kind was then voted in the civil list, but he was sure that the majority of the House must be aware that the revenue of the Crown was then formed of the hereditary revenues, and the Parliament made other grants in addition for each reign, which were derived from certain taxes. This was before the Crown surrendered its hereditary revenues, and accepted in lieu thereof, a civil list. It was quite true that her Majesty was in a very different situation from that of Queen Anne, as she had given up all her hereditary revenues at the commencement of her reign, and came to that House to request that a liberal provision should be made in such a peculiar case as the present. This was the proper and constitutional mode of proceeding, and he would appeal to any hon. Gentleman whether any party, high or low, ever wished for the command of these incomes more strongly than when about to make provision for a party with whom an attachment had been formed. He trusted, therefore, that the fact that Queen Anne made the provision for her consort out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown would not be made an argument against the present proposition. With respect, then, to the statements made by his hon. Friend who proposed the amendment, and by the hon. Member who seconded it, he would only call their attention to the case which he considered a precedent of this, as the grant was made under nearly similar circumstances. He alluded to the case of Prince George of Denmark, who had an annuity settled on him of 50,000l. a-year, independent of the will of the Crown; and by an act of Parliament of that day, it was enacted that if the Prince should survive her majesty Queen Anne, that he should have a pension of 100,000l. a-year, and her palaces for life. Again, in the case of Queen Caroline, the Queen of George II., the same course was pursued, and a grant was made to her of 50,000l. a-year during the life of George II., and a revenue of 100,000l. if she should survive that monarch. In the case also of Queen Charlotte, the Queen of George III., there was a grant of 40,000l. for the first year, which was shortly afterwards increased to 50,000l. a-year, and a few years afterwards an additional grant of 8,000l. was made, making together 58,000l. a-year. In the case of Queen Adelaide, the sum of 50,000l. a-year was granted during the life of the late Sovereign, and 100,000l. a-year in case of survivorship. He had forgotten to mention that the Queen of George IV. had also a grant of 50,000l. a-year. It was, therefore, evident that the proposal now made for a grant was less than had been made in the former similar case to the present, and also than the grants to each Queen in circumstances analogous to the present. But the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord had stated that the civil list of her present Majesty was 10,000l. a-year more than was voted in the last reign: there was no doubt that 10,000l. was charged on the civil list which was formerly not there, but the charge previous to the present reign was made on the consolidated fund This, then, was not an additional charge on the civil list, but merely the transference of a charge to it, which was paid from another source. It was taking a very superficial view of the case to suppose that any surplus that might arise from the civil list in former times, was at the disposal of Parliament; on the contrary, if there was any saving under one head it was left at the disposal of the Crown; and if the large pension list which was formerly voted was not filled up, the amount was expended at the will and pleasure of the Crown. The House would also recollect, that when the civil list was restricted as regarded the granting of pensions, that many claims for allowance and compensation were made to the Crown, which could no longer be supplied from this fund; it therefore threw some additional burden on the other items, and particularly the privy purse. He did not mean for one moment to say that there was anything improper in restricting the civil list in the manner in which it had been restricted, but the circumstances which he had mentioned, made it necessary that relief should be afforded by the private benevolence of her Majesty instead of out of the fund. He would not go into anything like a statement of the claims on the privy purse, but he might be permitted to say, that they were not only large in themselves, but had been increased by the alterations which the House had very properly made in the constitution of the pension list. Allusion had been made to the revenues of the duchies of Corn wall and Lancaster, but these were received by the Crown during the last reign as well as during the present reign. And if it should happen that an heir to the Crown should be born, the Crown would instantly be divested of the revenue from this source, and until the heir was of age the income would be paid into the hands of trustees, and the Crown would cease to have any control in the matter. Praise had very properly been bestowed on his late Majesty William IV., for having left a surplus of income derivable from the civil list, there being also no debt or charge on that fund. He believed that nothing was more degrading to the Crown, than the incurring an accumulation of debt on the civil list, which in former reigns the House had often been called upon to find means to liquidate. He was: satisfied, if they wished to prevent the Crown from being involved in debt, the best course that could be pursued was to place those who were charged in the civil list in such a situation, as to render them independent, and not likely to incur debts. He thought, therefore, they should at once freely make a liberal grant to the sovereign, and thus take care that there was no necessity to make those constant applications to the generosity of Parliament which were formerly so repeatedly made. They should declare at once what they; were prepared to give, and declare that they would not alter that amount. With respect to the allowance proposed for Prince Albert, he thought that the House might be satisfied that he would keep within that income. The noble Lord said that 30,000l. would be nearer the proper sum to grant to the Prince Consort, and that the expenditure for state purposes, which would be chargeable on the Prince's income would be comparatively small. He did not believe that it would be possible to state what would be the actual expenditure that would fall on Prince Albert on this ground, but so far as precedents furnish an example, and as far as they had experience from former analogous settlements, he did not think that the House would be induced to consider the amount of income proposed for Prince Albert was too much at present. He did not believe that the expenses of the Prince Consort would be very different, or the charges less than those to which the Queen Consort was liable. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would agree to the proposition of his noble Friend.

Lord Eliot

afterwards observed, that he had omitted to say, that if the Prince should be left the father of the sovereign and of a royal family, the case would be quite different, and that 50,000l. a-year might be not only not an exorbitant, but an inadequate income. His necessary expenditure would thus be large; but he felt sure, that under such circumstances, the Parliament of the day would make ample provision for the maintenance of his dignity.

Mr. Liddell said

, he was anxious not to give a silent vote on this question. He wished to express his full concurrence with what fell from his noble Friend, and to declare that he was willing to vote in accordance with the Address of the House for a liberal allowance to the Crown. He was ready to confess, that he believed the Government thought they had proposed a grant which was not too liberal, and which would not be regarded by the country as an extravagant one. While, on the one hand he was as desirous as any man to show his attachment to the Crown, on the other he felt compelled to have regard to the necessities of the people, and to take care not to vote away the public money with too liberal a hand, unless a case of necessity should be made out for extended gifts. It, therefore, appeared to him that the motion intended to be submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was one which would put the grant at the proper amount. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad failed lo show that the larger sum of 50,000l. was the proper amount, and that the cases which he had quoted were not analogous to that before the committee. With re-respect to the case of a Queen-Consort, for instance, there was no analogy, for a Queen-Consort would be subjected to expenses from which Prince Albert would be entirely exempt. The noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonies, had shown that the state expenses of the prince would not amount to much above 8,000l. a year, so that with a less allowance than that now proposed, there could be no danger of his being involved in debt, a condition which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deprecated as distressing to the Crown, and disgraceful to the country. Seeing that the royal Dukes themselves received no more than 21,000l. a year, it was not too much to say that 30,000l. a year would be a liberal and adequate allowance to the Prince. A good deal had been said of late upon the privileges of that House, and he had heard of an hon. Member, in the exercise of his privilege as a Member say, in rather strong terms, "if you wish to sow dissention between the Queen and Prince Albert, make the provision so large that it will be difficult for them to find the way to spend it." He was hardly prepared to go so far as that, but this much he would say that it required very little knowledge of human nature to see how likely it was that unbounded wealth, with little or no responsibility, would lead to great excesses. That was a sentiment by no means novel, but had been embodied by Pope in the couplet, But Satan now is wiser than of yore, And tempts by making rich, not making poor. But he would not attempt to draw a dark picture, he would rather turn to a brighter prospect. Whatever the amount granted, whether smaller or larger than that now proposed, he would say to Prince Albert—The people will look with much more anxiety to the manner in which the grant will be expended, than to the extent of the grant itself. It might be—and he hoped it would prove to be—that the young prince who was now about to set foot on these shores, with so high a destiny before him, had considered somewhat of our political, and local, and ecclesiastical distinctions; that he had informed himself of the spiritual and ecclesiastic wants of the people of this country; and that he was disposed to assist the efforts that were made to provide the people with a system of sound learning and religious education. He hoped that the young prince would direct his thoughts to the condition of those who were steeped in poverty and ignorance in this country, and that he might be prepared to contribute to the support of the various hospitals and institutions which were opened for the relief of disease and distress, as well as to the promotion of those arts and scientific pursuits which embellish and sustain civilization. Above all, he trusted that he would support those institutions which at this moment were the glory of our Protestant constitution. If the prince would do that, and he hoped he would, the people would not grudge what they gave, but they would welcome the day that brought him to our shores. In conclusion he would say, he trusted that this union, which had been sanctioned by policy, and, as he understood, had been commenced in affection, would produce happiness and peace.

Mr. Ward said

, that it was evident that a very strong feeling prevailed on this subject, on both sides of the House; therefore he thought it incumbent upon every hon. Member to state his reasons for the vote he intended to give. Some hon. Gentlemen might indeed be contented if they gave a silent vote; but that could not be the case with him. He thought the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to make out a case in support of his motion. He quite entered into the feelings which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed as to the wish which might be entertained, that so high a person in these realms should be most liberally provided for. But the cases advanced by the right hon. Gentleman were not in point. The circumstances of the country had been much changed since the time of Queen Anne, and the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman had the great fault of proving too much, because they were as conclusively in favour of granting 100,000l. as 50,000l. Then as to the precedent of Prince George of Denmark, that was a precedent against the right hon. Gentleman, because no separate establishment at all was voted for that prince. In the first instance, the sum of 32,000l, was voted, and it was subsequently raised to 50,000l.; but no independent establishment was provided for the prince, though there was a provision made for him, in case he should survive the Queen. He much wished that the House could have come to an unanimous vote on this question; and if unanimity had been possible, he should certainly not have taken any course which would disturb it. He had a strong feeling that 30,000l. should be the maximum of the grant. Considering that Prince Albert would share every comfort and luxury in this country with the Queen, he could see nothing to justify the House in adding 50,000l. for his private establishment. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had told the House that his personal expenses would barely exceed 8,000l. a year. He could not tell why they should exceed 1,000l. But, supposing the statement of the noble Lord to be true, still there would remain much more for the state expenses of the prince than any Queen-Consort had received; for it was stated, that in the last instance, after paying personal expenses, the Queen Consort had just 18,000l. at her disposal, whereas the balance in favour of Prince Albert would be 42,000l. He was opposed to so large a grant, because he feared it would prepare the way for greater extra- vagance. He did not think a free expenditure of the public money necessary to uphold the dignity of the Queen and the Prince: their greatness would depend rather upon the affection and attachment of the people, than upon the tinsel and trappings of royalty. He should vote, then, for the amendment. If that were not carried, he should vote for the other, which he understood would be proposed by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, because he was convinced that 30,000l. rather than 50,000l. ought to be the sum. He only wished that the House could avoid the apparently ungracious task of refusing the grant proposed by her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. Palmer

admitted that there was some difficulty in saying what precise amount would be granted under the circumstances, but he believed it was pretty generally felt, that a grant of 50,000l. would be extravagant. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies had alluded to the case of the Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold: but he thought that was not a case much in point, inasmuch as they had 60,000l. a year, and with that they provided two establishments, one in the country and the other in town, as well as all the comforts and luxuries proper for their high station. But for Prince Albert, every thing appeared to be ready provided in the way of domestic accommodation and attention. The noble Lord had estimated the private expenses of the prince at about 8,000l.; therefore 30,000l. would be a sufficient allowance. He had heard, in conversing with others in and out of doors, that 50,000l. was considered a very large sum, and he was determined to vote for a grant of 30,000l.

Sir R. H. Inglis

could not agree with the view taken of the question by the hon. Member for Durham, and as he was unable to join him in opposition to the motion, he would briefly state the grounds of his vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he would not enter into the details of the expenses which might be incurred in charities or acts of benevolence, or what might be the additional expense incurred by her Majesty's union with Prince Albert. In this he fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; for he thought it hardly fair to the Sovereign, that any such details should be gone into, after the money had been voted in the civil list. The argument of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was a strange one, and his suggestion not less so. He said, that as we had an admitted deficiency in our revenue, the expense incurred on the present occasion should be raised by a tax on Peers and Baronets. He would say rather, that it should be borne by those who had voted for the new penny postage. As to the objection that there was a deficiency in the revenue, it would apply as much in principle to a grant of 21,000l., as it would to either of the two other sums mentioned. The grounds on which he would go in supporting the sum of 50,000l. proposed by the noble Lord were—that the Crown had made a very improvident bargain with the country, in the exchange of its hereditary revenues for the sums voted in the civil list; and when that fact was stated to the House, he thought he had a right to call on them to pause before they refused the grant now proposed by the Ministers of the Crown—considering the great advantage which the country had gained by the bargain to which he had adverted. He repeated, that the bargain made with the Crown, in 1760, in the transfer of its hereditary revenues in lieu of the civil list, was advantageous to the country. The returns which had been made to the House on the subject would put this beyond all doubt. It would be seen by those returns, that the amount of the hereditary revenues from the year 1760 to 1837, was not less than 116,000,000l., and that the whole of the sums voted as civil list in the same period, did not exceed 65,000,000l., shewing a saving to the nation in that period of 51,000,000l.; and if this sum were divided by the seventy-seven years during which the bargain had continued, it would show an annual saving to the public of 662,323l. by the effect of the several civil list acts since passed. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, that the grant now proposed would give bread or food to a certain number of poor persons. That he must call a sophistical as well as a dangerous argument. It was sophistical, because it was well known that the sums voted for the Princes of the Blood were also the means of giving bread to many poor persons. It was a dangerous argument, because the same principle would apply to every Gentleman in or out of the House. He would now say a word as to the precedent which had been mentioned—that of the case of Prince George of Denmark, the consort of Queen Anne. Let it be borne in mind, that that was a grant of 50,000l. a year made by Queen Anne to the Prince, she being then in possession of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; and let him ask, did any one doubt, that if her present Majesty were now in possession of the hereditary revenues, she would make a similar grant to Prince Albert? He would not say, that the House was necessarily bound to this grant because of the bargain that had been made with the Crown, but considering the advantage which the country had gained by that bargain, he thought when the Crown asked the grant it ought not to be refused. Under all the circumstances, seeing that he differed from the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and could not concur in that of which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) had given notice, he had no alternative but to vote for the original motion of the noble Lord.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that as he had asked the noble Lord to allow some short interval to intervene between the announcement of the amount of this grant and its actual proposition for the adoption of the House, he considered himself bound to state the effect which that proposition had upon his mind, and to explain his reasons for the vote he should find himself compelled to give. The grant, he considered, which that House ought to make, should be measured by what, under the circumstances, would add to the dignity of the Crown, and so far he thought that the noble Lord had justly laid down the principle on which the House ought to proceed. The noble Lord had also laid down another principle in which he agreed—viz., that we could form no better measure, with regard to this question, than by looking at the amount which was given to the consort of the King in the preceding reign. A discussion of this nature was, of course, one in which they were precluded from going into all unnecessary details, such as those relating to the private expenses of the Royal Family. Such was the plan which had been followed on former occasions. In arranging the civil list with reference to Prince George, the Government of Queen Anne took into consideration that of King William and Queen Mary, and that arrangement was made without the sanction of Parliament, and within the walls of the palace itself. If they had now been called upon to provide a civil list, the question was, would they give an amount equal to the existing civil list, together with the sum of 50,000l.? He did not think they would—he did not think that the House would ever consent to such a proposition. At the close of the reign of King William the Fourth, this whole subject was thoroughly examined, and it was then agreed on all hands that the grant which had been made to King William, and his consort Queen Adelaide, was amply sufficient, not only for the maintenance of the Royal comfort and dignity, but for the purpose of Royal hospitality. So completely sufficient was it, indeed, that not only was there no debt occasioned by the Royal establishment, but, on the contrary, there remained a surplus over the expenditure of several thousand pounds. He must say that if they looked at the precedents and circumstances of past reigns, and gave an amount that would be equal to the double civil list of William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide, they would do all that either justice or liberality could require of them—they would do all that was necessary to uphold the Royal comfort and dignity, and even splendour, and the reasonableness of such a course was, he submitted, apparent on the face of it. Now, he should take the liberty to compare the two civil lists, the civil list of her present Majesty and that of her immediate predecessor, William the Fourth. It was notorious that the civil list of William the Fourth was fixed at 510,000l. From this amount, however, they were to deduct pensions to the amount of 75,000l., and a sum of 10,000l. for secret service money. These two sums, then, made together 85,000l.; and if that amount were deducted from the 510,000l., it would leave 425,000l. as the sum available for the double civil list of King William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide. In the first place, they had made to her present Majesty Queen Victoria, a grant of 385,000l., and if they were now to give 50,000l. for the separate establishment of Prince Albert, in addition to the present civil list, the consequence would be that the present double civil list would amount to 435,000l, whereas that of William the Fourth was only 425,000l. Here, then, was an increase of 10,000l.; but the House would be in error if they supposed that the double civil list of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert would exceed that of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide only by a sum of 10,000l. He was pre- pared to show that the excess would be 10,000l. beyond what he had stated. The advance of the civil list of Queen Victoria was a positive excess of 10,000l., and a further sum of 10,000l. in money was gained by her Majesty in consequence of the diminution which had taken place in the charges on the civil list. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that the committee who had sat upon this subject, thought that, although it would not be then expedient to reduce the income of her Majesty, conceiving that it was not more than adequate to the maintenance of the comfort, dignity, and splendour of the Crown, they yet considered that some reductions might be effected in the salaries of the great officers of State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, Lord Monteagle, announced to the House that the Government were prepared to reduce the salaries of the great officers of State, so as to effect a saving to the civil list of 10,000l. The right hon. Gentleman then said— It will be in the recollection of the House that, on the occasion of the reference of this subject to a committee up stairs in 1830–31, certain reductions were recommended on the salaries of the great officers of the Crown. They did not amount to any very considerable sum. I believe they amounted to 10,000l, This is a comparatively small sum, but they were considered to be important in point of principle. After a deliberate discussion, and upon the best view that could be taken of the subject by the Government of the day, it was not considered expedient to carry those reductions into effect, and the total sum was voted. Sir, I shall not go back to the arguments that were used on that occasion, but I consider the present affords a fitting opportunity of reconsidering the salaries of these great officers of State. Sir, I was a member of that committee, and the recommendations which were then given with respect to the salaries of the great officers of State were recommendations which at that period met with my assent, although it was not considered expedient to carry them into effect on that occasion. But I have now to announce to the House, that with respect to those reductions in the salaries of the higher officers of State, the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, the Lord Steward, it is my intention to propose a reduction in the amount of those salaries to the full extent which was recommended on that occasion by the committee up stairs. Sir, we have had angry discussions in the House on this subject, both at the time and since; but I hope those Gentlemen who differed with me on that occasion, and who endeavoured to persuade us to carry the recommendations of the committee into effect, will now be satisfied with the course adopted. There are other reductions which we propose to make in respect to some of the lesser officers of State, in reference to whom we shall accomplish nearly the same object, though not in the same way. In their case we propose a reduction by numbers instead of in the amount of their salaries. As to the great officers of state, we propose to make a reduction of 1,085l. in the salary of the Lord Chamberlain; 436l. in the salary of the Lord Steward; 850l. in the salary of the Master of the Horse. The office of the Groom of the Stole is to be abolished. A reduction in the salaries of the Lords in Waiting will be made to the aggregate extent of 2,808l.; and these, with reductions in the salaries of the Master of the Robes and some minor officers, will make a total of 9,829l. So that, without infringing on the comfort or dignity of the Crown, a reduction to the extent of 10,000l. was effected. What prevented the public from obtaining the benefit of this reduction? It was a reduction to the advantage of which the public had a clear right, and the reason they did not get it was, because it was deemed neceesary for the change which had taken place in the establishment of the Queen. He had, therefore, a right to say, that they gave to Queen Victoria 20,000l. more than the civil list granted to King William IV. and Queen Adelaide; and what he now contended for was, that the present civil list should be commensurate with the former, and should not exceed it. Under these circumstances, he did not see how he could do otherwise than support the motion which he understood his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) was about to submit to the House, because, if they made a provision of 30,000l. for Prince Albert, it would have the effect of equalising the present double civil list with that enjoyed by her Majesty's predecessor and his Royal consort. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that they could not consider the civil list without recurring to the subject of pensions, because, he said, there had been a saving on the head of pensions, which went in aid of the civil list, and caused a diminution in it as compared with the civil list of William IV. This, however, was not stated either in the committee of 1831 or 1838, when the whole subject was under consideration. No statement of the kind was then made, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that the surplus at the end of the reign of William IV. had been carried to her Majesty's account; and, if it had not, ought not that circumstance to be taken into consideration when the two civil lists were compared? He had, therefore, a right to say, that the one exceeded the other by 20,000l., and hence it was that he felt himself fully justified in voting that the civil list of Queen Victoria and her consort should be placed on the same footing as that granted to King William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide. Having said thus much with respect to the grant, he had only further to state, that he wished it had been possible for the noble Lord to have abstained from drawing any distinction between the income which Prince Albert was to enjoy during the life of her Majesty and that to which he was afterwards to be entitled. Nothing was more painful than a reference to contingent events of this kind; but, then, he knew how difficult it was to avoid such discussion without the Government taking upon themselves, as they ought to do, to guide the judgment of that House. Under some circumstances, the provision might be too great, but under others it might be too small; and, therefore, he wished this part of the subject had been altogether confided to the Government. The question of a jointure was a separate question, and should be so treated; but, without dwelling on this part of the subject, he would conclude by saying, that although he entertained every possible respect for her Majesty, and had the highest regard for the illustrious Prince who was to be her future consort, he still felt bound to pursue the course which had been adopted on former occasions, being convinced that in so doing he was acting according to the principles of liberality and justice, and with a due regard to the comfort, dignity, and splendour of the Crown.

The House divided on Mr. Hume's amendment: Ayes, 38; Noes, 305: Majority, 267.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Feilden, W.
Ainsworth, P.	Fielden, J.
Alsager, Captain	Finch, F.
Brabazon, Sir W.	Godson, R.
Broadley, H.	Grimsditch, T.
Brotherton, J.	Hamilton, C. J. B.
Copeland, Alderman	Hector, C. J.
Darby, G.	Hindley, C.
Duncombe, hon. W.	Hughes, W. B.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Humphery, J,
Ewart, W.	Irton, S.

Jervis, S.	Turner, W.
Leader, J. T.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Morris, D.	Wakley, T,
Parker, R. T.	Walker, R.
Plumptre, J. P.	Ward, H. G.
Protheroe, E.	Wood, B.
Richards, It.
Salwey, Colonel	TELLERS.
Sinclair Sir G.	Hume, J.
Tollemache, F. J.	Williams, W.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Christopher, R. A.
A'Court, Captain	Clay, W.
Adam, Admiral	Clerk, Sir G.
Anson, hon. Colonel	Cole, Viscount
Anson, Sir G.	Collier, J.
Ashley, Lord	Colquhoun, J. C.
Attwood, W.	Conolly, E.
Attwood, M.	Corry, hon. H.
Bailey, J.	Courtenay, P.
Bailey, J. jun.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Baillie, Colonel	Craig, W. G.
Baines, E.	Crawford, W.
Baker, E.	Cripps, J.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Crompton, Sir S.
Barnard, E. G.	Curry, Sergeant
Barrington, Viscount	Dalmeny, Lord
Bellew, R. M.	Dalrymple, Sir A.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Davenport, J.
Berkeley, hon. G.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. T. C.
Berkeley, hon. C.
Bewes, T.	Dick, Q.
Blake, W. J.	D'Israeli, B.
Blennerhassett, A.	Donkin, Sir R. S.
Blewitt, R. J.	Duff, J.
Bodkin, J. J.	Duffield, T.
Bolling, W.	Duke, Sir J.
Bowes, J.	Dundas, F.
Bradshaw, J.	Easthope, J.
Bramston, T. W.	Eastnor, Viscount
Bridgeman, H.	Egerton, Sir P.
Briscoe, J. I.	Eliot, Lord
Broadwood, H.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Brodie, W. B.	Ellis, J.
Browne, R. D.	Ellis, W.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Evans, Sir de L.
Buck, L. W.	Fellowes, E.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Fenton, J.
Bulwer, Sir L.	Fitzalan, Lord
Busfield, W.	Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Butler, hon. Colonel	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Byng, G.	Fitzsimon, N.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Calcraft, J. H.	Fort, J.
Campbell, Sir J.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Campbell, W. F.	French, F.
Cantalupe, Viscount	Freshfield, J. W.
Cartwright, W. R.	Gaskell, J. M.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Gisborne, T.
Cavendish, hon. C.	Gordon, R.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Gordon, hon. Captain
Chapman, Sir M. L. C.	Gore, O. J. R.
Chapman, A.	Goring, H. D.
Chester, H.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Chetwynd, Major	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Chichester, J. P. B.	Grant, hon. Colonel

Grattan, H.	Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Greene, T.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Greg, R. H.	Morpeth, Viscount
Greig, D.	Murray, A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.	Muskett, G. A.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Nagle, Sir R.
Grimston, Viscount	Neeld, J.
Grimston, hon. E. H.	Neeld, J.
Halford, H.	Nicholl, J.
Hall, Sir B.	Norreys, Lord
Hamilton, Lord C.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Harcourt, G. G.	O'Brien, W. S.
Harcourt, G. S.	O'Connell, D.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H,	O'Connell, J.
Harland, W. C.	O'Connell, M. J.
Hawes, B.	O'Conor Don
Hawkins, J. H.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Hayter, W. G.	Packe, C. W.
Heathcoat, J.	Paget, Lord A.
Heneage, G. W,	Packington, J. S.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Palmer, R.
Hill, Lord A. M. C.	Palmerston, Visct
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Parker, J.
Hodges, T. L.	Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.
Hope, G. W.	Patten, J. W.
Hoskins, K.	Pease, J.
Hotham, Lord	Pechell, Captain
Houldsworth, T.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Howard, F. J.	Peel, J.
Howard, P. H.	Pemberton, T.
Howick, Viscount	Perceval, Colonel
Hutton, R.	Philipps, Sir R.
Ingham, R.	Phillpots, J.
Ingles, Sir R. H.	Pigot, D. R.
Jackson, Sergeant	Pigot, R.
James, W.	Pinney, W.
Jenkins, Sir R.	Planta, rt. hon. J.
Kemble, H.	Polhill, F.
Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.	Pollen, Sir J. W.
	Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.
Knight, H. G.	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Knox, hon. T.	Powell, Colonel
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Power, J.
Langdale, hon. C.	Powerscourt, Viscount
Langton, W. G.	Price, Sir R.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Pringle, A.
Law, hon. C. E.	Pryme, G.
Lefroy, rt. hon. T.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Lemon, Sir C.	Ramsbottom, J.
Leveson, Lord	Redington, T. N.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Rice, hon. E. R.
Lister, E. C.	Rich, H.
Litton, E.	Rickford, W.
Lockhart, A, M.	Roche, E. B.
Lucas, E.	Roche, W.
Lushington, rt. hon. S.	Round, C. G.
Lygon, hon. General	Round, J.
Macauley, rt. hn. T. B.	Rumbold, C. E.
Mackenzie, T.	Rundle, J.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Mackinnon, W. A.	Russell, Lord J.
Macnamara, Major	Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.
M'Taggart, J.	St. Paul, H.
Mahon, Viscount	Sandon, Viscount
Martin, G.	Sanford, E. A.
Maule, hon. F.	Scrope, G. P.
Maunsell, T. P.	Seale, Sir J. H.

Seymour, Lord	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.	Tufnell, H.
Shelburne, Earl of	Turner, E,
Sheppard, T.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Sibthorp, Colonel	Vere, Sir C. B.
Smith, R. V.	Vigors, N. A.
Smyth, Sir G. H.	Villiers, Viscount
Somers, J. P.	Vivian, Major C.
Somerset, Lord G.	Vivian, J. E.
Somerville, Sir W. M.	Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Standish, C.	Waddington, H. S.
Stanley, Lord	Wall, C. B.
Stanley, hon. W. O.	Warburton, H.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Staunton, Sir G. T.	Westenra, hon. J. C.
Stewart, J.	White, A.
Stuart, Lord J.	Wilbraham, G.
Stuart, W. V.	Wilde, Serjeant
Stock, Dr.	Williams, R.
Stormont, Viscount	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Strickland, Sir G.	Wilshere, W.
Strutt, E.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Sturt, H. C.	Wood, C.
Style, Sir C.	Wood, Colonel
Surrey, Earl of	Wood, G. W.
Sutton, hn. J. H. T. M.	Wood, Colonel T.
Talbot, J. H.	Worsley, Lord
Talfourd, Serjeant	Wrightson, W. B.
Tancred, H. W.	Wyse, T.
Tavistock, Marq. of	Yates, J. A.
Teignmouth, Lord	TELLERS.
Thornely, T.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Trench, Sir F.	Steuart, R.

Colonel Sibthorp

, on the original question being again proposed, rose to move an amendment. The course which had been pursued by her Majesty's Ministers, he said, had imposed upon him a most ungracious and, at the same time, a most painful task. He, however, merely performed his duty; and although it might perhaps be alleged against him that he was the personal enemy of the Queen, he must deny the justice of any such accusation, and appeal to the years which he had spent in defence of his country and the rights of the Crown in his own vindication. He defied any one to say that he had ever been guilty of disrespect to her Majesty, or that any expression had ever escaped from his lips which was derogatory to the dignity of the Crown or anything connected with the throne. He had, however, a duty to perform, and, as one of the representatives of the people, he could not shrink from discharging that duty. He had been relieved by what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and from his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, from the necessity of entering into the details of the subject, and he could only say that such a relief was most grateful to him. Now, with regard to the statement of the noble Lord, he must say that he thought the noble Lord had signally failed in all his arguments, and that a more unfortunate instance could not have been adduced than that which the noble Lord had taken from the reign of Queen Anne. He was rather surprised to find that an ancestor of his had, in 1714, taken a similar course to that which he now pursued; and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid great stress on her Majesty being unable to avail herself of the hereditary revenues of the Crown under certain circumstances, still, when that event occurred, it was time enough to consider the matter; and then he had no doubt the country would not be backward in doing all that was right and proper to ensure the comfort and dignity, both of her Majesty and her Royal consort. Considering the circumstances under which the Prince was situated, with reference to the establishment of the Queen, he was of opinion that the sum proposed was more than necessary; and he should therefore move, "That her Majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum, not exceeding 30,000l., out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to his Serene Highness the Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, on his marriage to her Majesty; to commence from the day of the marriage, and to continue during the life of his said Serene Highness."

Lord John Russell

said: I am unable to agree with the proposition of the lion. and gallant Member opposite. I own that nothing I have heard in the debate has in the least convinced me, that it was not the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to bring down the proposition which I have made to the House, or that it is not equally their duty to take the sense of the Committee on the subject. Ii is no doubt the privilege and the prerogative of this House to decide on any such vote of money, to decide according as they shall think fit, with a view, not only to the dignity of royalty, but to the general interests of the Crown and the people. But that opinion, whatever it may be, cannot exonerate me from the performance of my duty, having formed a very strong opinion that the proposition which I have made is the one most consistent with those great objects. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, explain the motive for his vote; and I certainly should be inclined to say that a description given in the early part of the evening by my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, of a speech on another subject, which he described as a specimen of special pleading, would be perfectly applicable to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The precedents are very plain—the immediate precedent exceedingly plain; but the right hon. Gentleman's sole object was to explain those precedents away, and to make out that the facts are not what they appear to be on the face of the matter. In the first place, with regard to the grant by Queen Anne, the only way of getting rid of that precedent was, by saying that the grant of 50,000l. was not made by Parliament, but by the Crown, and therefore was an act of Queen Anne herself. No doubt that was the case, because it was then the policy of Parliament to leave to the Crown means by which such grants could be made. Not only was a specified sum devoted to specified objects, but an additional revenue was given—the Post-office income itself, out of which the Queen was enabled to grant that 50,000l. Therefore whether it was granted directly by Parliament, according to the present practice, or whether at the beginning of the reign, without insisting or knowing how it was applied, Parliament voted a revenue of a certain amount, and allowed the Crown to have the benefit of it, the effect was the same, only that in the time of Queen Anne greater power was given to the Crown, and greater effect to the declared pleasure of the Crown than can be done at the present moment. It is a mere evasion to explain such a case away by saying that it was a grant of the Crown, and it does not in the least touch the value or defect of the precedent. Then we have those other precedents to which the right hon. Gentleman did not allude, which show a great uniformity of principle, and which bear a strong analogy to the present case. There was 50,000l., to Queen Caroline, with 100,000l. in case she survived George 2nd. There was 50,000l. granted to Queen Charlotte, and afterwards 58,000l., which was to be increased to 100,000l. if she survived George 3rd. There was 50,000l. to the Princess Dowager of Wales, the mother of George 3rd, and 50,000l. to Prince Leopold if he survived the Princess Charlotte of Wales, and all these prece- dents, of which the right hon. Gentleman did not take notice, but all to the same point, show that at different times and with different Parliaments, when different parties prevailed, and in different states of the country, during war and peace, and with one regard to one family or another, it has been a uniform opinion that some such sum as this should be granted for similar purposes. Then comes the fact which I referred to the other evening, namely, that when you had the civil list of King William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide before you, you proposed that the privy purse for King William should be 60,000l. a year, and that for Queen Adelaide 50,000l. a year, making altogether 110,000l. If you now grant the sum which the hon. and gallant Officer proposes, the Queen will have 60,000l., and Prince Albert 30,000l., making together 90,000l., being 20,000l. less than the privy purse of William the Fourth and Queen Adelaide. These facts are plain and undeniable. I cannot conceive how the right hon. Gentleman has bewildered this question, by connecting it with another which has nothing to do with it. The right hon. Gentleman says, and says very truly, that reductions in the salaries of certain great officers—lords in waiting and grooms of the stole—have been made to the amount of 10,000l.; but this happened because it was thought better that a part of the civil list, to the amount of 10,000l., instead of being devoted to the salaries of these officers, should be reserved for the purpose of being devoted to different branches in the Lord Chamberlain's and the Lord Steward's departments, I believe, wherever it might seem to be particularly required. It was an arrangement of convenience, which neither affected King William 4th, nor Queen Victoria. King William 4th wished that the great officers about his person should have no reason to complain, and Queen Victoria desired that regard should be had to the order and regularity of the civil list and the Crown. The arrangement did not make the least difference with regard to the personal expenses of the Monarch, and therefore the whole explanations of the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with the question which the House is now called on to decide. I do not know that I can say much more on the subject, but the proposal is this:—The Queen succeeded, at a very early age, at the age of eighteen, to the possession of the Crown, and a privy purse was voted to her, and to her alone. It is now necessary to vote a sum for the privy purse of the Prince to whom her Majesty is about to be allied in marriage. I cannot conceive that Parliament can do better—that it can show its respect to her Majesty in a better mode than by voting a sum equal to what it has usually voted. As for pretending to explain the different expenses which may occur, I certainly shall not attempt to do it; although some statements made by lion. Gentlemen opposite would show the reasonableness of the propositions we make. One expense mentioned by the noble Lord was 10,000l. a year for stables for Queen Adelaide. It might easily happen, with an individual of the rank of the Prince, that the expense of stables would be much greater, particularly if he were at all attached to those sports which are so common and so popular with Englishmen, and this would cause an increase of the expense of Prince Albert's establishment, as compared with the establishment of a queen consort. I do not wish to go into this matter. I do not think it possible that a subject of this kind can be determined in any other way than by the general feeling of the House of Commons. But I am so convinced that this is a proper proposal to make, that I have no doubt, if it had not been for some accident which happened last year, and prevented the right hon. Gentlemen opposite from getting into power, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge would, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have proposed the same sum for Prince Albert which we now propose. I cannot believe that any other proposition would have been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The noble Lord who stated at the beginning of the debate that he would support the proposition for reduction, made great professions of respect for her Majesty, and of his wishes for her Majesty's domestic comfort. I certainly am bound to give every credit to the noble Lord who made those professions, and I wish that such conduct had not been confined to him, or to the speeches of this night, but had been general among those who maintain the same opinion with himself, and that it had not been reserved for the beginning of the Session, but had been continued ever since Parliament separated last year. I feel bound to say so, because the noble Lord, in supporting the reduction, laid be was doing so with every respect for her Majesty. It appears to roe that any Member of this House may vote 30,000l. a year, or he may vote 50,000l., with the same respect to her Majesty. But, when professions of ex. traordinary respect are made, I cannot forget that no Sovereign of this country has been insulted in such a manner as her present Majesty has been. The extraordinary professions of respect that have been uttered, have made it necessary for me to say a word upon the subject. This is not a question of respect or of want of respect for the Sovereign. Hon. Gentlemen upon this side have voted for a smaller sum, and they have done so in accordance with their notions of economy. They are for reducing every vote, and in doing so they follow a course that is perfectly consistent in them; but I cannot come to the same conclusion as that they have adopted.

Lord Eliot

, after the personal allusion that had been made to him, appealed even to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if any expression used by him could justify the attack made upon him. He distinctly declared he had given expression to no feeling which was not perfectly consistent with the most perfect loyalty.

Sir J. Graham

had, he said, contended for some time past with the noble Lord upon the privileges of that House; but he now rose, he had almost said with feelings of indignation, because a minister of the Crown should make an insinuation, for the noble Lord dared not directly to make the charge, that in the vote which they were about to give for a smaller sum—that a minister of the Crown should insinuate that such a vote was influenced by their want of respect for the Sovereign. The noble Lord—for he had marked him well—had measured his expressions—he avoided stating that distinctly; but he appealed to the committee whether the insinuation could be misunderstood. He rose, then to repel that insinuation so conveyed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had, he repeated it, distinctly conveyed the insinuation that a vote for the smaller sum would be inconsistent with the respect that was due to their Sovereign. He, then, for one repudiated any such insinuation. He felt towards her Majesty the respect which, as a loyal subject, he owed to her, but feeling that respect, he also felt that he was sent there as a representative of the people. It was, then, in performing his duty to her Majesty, and as a guardian of the public purse, that he was not to be induced to give one farthing more than the necessity of the case required. Although the noble Lord was an adviser of the Crown, and professed, he presumed, a more than ordinary attachment to the Crown, yet he must take the liberty of reminding the noble Lord, that in the time in which they lived, the safety and the honour of the Crown were best consulted by avoiding to press upon the liberality of Parliament, or he might say its generosity, for that which the absolute necessity of the case did not require. The noble Lord had been pleased to rely upon the precedent afford ed by the case of Prince George of Denmark; but then the very moment that the noble Lord contended for and asserted that, the analogy was complete, why, it might be asked of him, if he so relied on it, why not follow it? The noble Lord relied upon the case of Prince George of Denmark and on the practice concerning Queen consorts. In the first there was a grant for the life of a Sovereign of 50,000l.; which, in case of survivorship, was to be increased to 100,000l. If then, the noble Lord felt that the precedent sustained him, why not follow it? Why not make a demand for 50,000l., and with 100,000l. in case of survivorship. He answered for the noble Lord, that though he contended for the analogy, yet he felt it to be incomplete. As to the case of Queen consorts, he repudiated it. The status of Queen consort was recognized by the constitution of England. She had an independent station; she had independent officers; and, from her sex, it was indispensably necessary that a large female establishment should be maintatned by her. There could be no doubt on this matter. Queen Adelaide had her master of the horse, and for the payment of her pages and other officers 25,000l. a year were given, for the stables 10,000l. The remainder for her privy purse was only 15,000l. a year. If they tried, then, the case by this list, it would be found that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was a fair proposal, a just proposal, and one that met the necessity of the case. The really available privy purse of the Queen Consort, independent of the stables, did not exceed 25,000l. a year. If they were to make, as it was proposed, an estimate of what was granted to the Prince of Wales, they would find that the privy purse of the Prince of Wales had not exceeded 21,000l. a year. According to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln an equally liberal allowance should be made here. The case of the Duke of Sussex was one that had been deliberately brought before the House last session, and yet they refused to increase the grant to him. Let them look at the condition of the Duke of Cambridge, who they all knew supported an establishment, and had a son now nearly of age, and who maintained his family with no more than 21,000l. a year. [Mr. Hume. The Duke of Cambridge is allowed 6,000l. a year for Prince George.] Last year it was proposed to increase the income of the mother of the reigning Sovereign—and yet to the Duchess of Kent but 30,000l. a year were allowed. They did this, because they sanctioned the grant, in accordance with the necessity of the case. He considered the precedent of Prince George of Denmark as beside the case. There the grant was an act of grace and favour from Queen Anne, out of her own income, assigned to her for her life. But in the warrant there was a special restraining clause, that it was made of the hereditary revenues granted for her own life. He was not aware that the warrant made any grant in case of survivorship. The grant made in the warrant was not analogous to that proposed to be made in this case. Queen Anne was in full possession of a fixed income during her life, out of which she made a grant to Prince George to that extent; but that was placed at the entire disposal of Prince George. The noble Lord now argued as if a further grant were made to her Majesty, when the fact was, that it was a specific grant to Prince Albert independent of the Queen. Then, as to the sum proposed by the hon. and gallant Member to be granted to Prince Albert, he considered it to be sufficient to support his dignity and station, along with the large emoluments of the Crown and the privy purse. He considered, it then, to be a generous and a large disposition of the public money to give to Prince Albert 9,000l. for his establishment, more than the 21,000l. enjoyed by the royal family in a direct line of succession to the throne. He did not vote with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because he did not consider the grant of 21,000l. was sufficient, but he had not the slightest hesitation in voting with the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, even though he, and those who sat on the same side of the House with him, might, in doing so, be accused of a want of loyalty. Perhaps, in the critical times in which they lived, that loyalty might be brought to the test. Something better than words might be necessary, and when that time did come, the noble Lord should then say that the loyalty that existed on the one side was to be found also on the other, and that the party of Gentlemen with whom he had the honour to act had not forgotten the duty that they owed to her Majesty.

Mr. Leader

wished to explain the reason why he voted first for 21,000l., and now intended to vote for 30.000l. He did so, not because he thought that either ought to be granted; for he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny that nothing should have been demanded from the country. He thought that her Majesty had an abundant civil list, both for sup. porting the dignity of the Crown and the maintenance of him whom she had chosen for her husband. They were called upon by the noble Lord to attend to the precedents that had been cited to them. First, he did not think them applicable to the present case; and next, he wanted to know, why they were to be at all guided by precedents. Those who talked of precedents did not recollect how different was the state of the country now, from what it was in the reign of Queen Anne. For to one man that was able to read and write in the reign of Queen Anne, there were a hundred thousand able to read and write now; and for the one man that in Queen Anne's reign considered politics, there were a hundred thousand men that now considered them; and for the one man that would condemn an extravagant grant in the reign of Queen Anne, there were hundreds of thousands, even millions, he might say, who would discuss and condemn the vote that it was probable that the House of Commons would come to that evening. It had been said, that in proposing such a grant they ought not to look to the state of the country, nor of its finances. He did not consider that there could be a better argument applied to such a subject—it was on such a subject being proposed that they ought to look and tee what was the state of their finances, what the condition of their trade, and whether their commerce was thriving. These, in his opinion, were the things for them to consider, when they were granting the public money. They ought to look to what would be the effect produced out of doors. People would say that there was economy in the cottage and extravagance in the palace; that they were very economical in their management of union poor-houses, but that they were very extravagant when they had to make a grant for the palace. He agreed in that opinion. He regretted that so large a grant was proposed by the Government, and as the smaller evil he chose to vote for 30,000l. The noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies had taunted the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that if he were in office he would not have hesitated in proposing 50,000l. That was a remark which he assured the noble Lord would not be lost on the country. It showed that Whigs and Tories, when in power, were the same—equally extravagant and equally forgetful of the interests of the people. The only difference was this, that when the Whigs got on the Treasury benches, they forgot all their former professions—they forgot all their promises of economy; but they only remembered them for the purpose of taunting hon. Gentlemen on the opposition benches, that they had become economists themselves.

Mr. O'Connell

was sure that, in opposing this grant, the hon. Member for Westminster was not animated with the same views which actuated those upon the other side. He would not himself now trespass upon the House, but that this was the first occasion on which he had ever voted for a larger sum in preference to a smaller. He wished now to give his reason for voting along with the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The precedents which had been objected to showed a particular line of conduct upon former occasions. The value of precedents was this—that it afforded evidence of what, from time to time, was necessary for the dignity of the person married to the monarch. In that way the precedent here cited was of value. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had in vain endeavoured to weaken that precedent, by talking of a voluntary grant. The revenues at the time were under the management of the Monarch principally—the revenue then was little more than 3,000,000l., and 50.000l. out of that was more than one-thirtieth of the entire sum. If such a sum were necessary at that period, 50,000l. were not too much now to be proposed. He would just address one single reflection to the House. Suppose at the time of the decease of the late Monarch that 60,000l. had been enjoyed by him, and 50,000l. granted by him to the Queen Consort, and suppose that he had been succeeded by a married Sovereign, was there a man in that House who would oppose the continuance of the grant? He was not to be told that Queen consorts had a regular establishment. Why so? Because it had usually happened that the Monarch of the country was a King, and all the instances they had of consorts to the Queen was the case of the unhappy Mary, whose husband Philip assumed the throne and regal power. They had, then, but the single case of Prince George of Denmark, who was the husband of the reigning monarch. They saw what had been the grant made in that case. He then supported this grant, and he had an additional reason for taking the part he did; he was instructed by his constituents to do so. They had too instructed him to give his support to the Sovereign in every way. Yes, they had instructed him to vote for this grant, and they felt too that if the Tories had prevailed at court they would offer no opposition to the grant.

Mr. C. B. Hamilton

said, that he should not have taken part in this debate had it not been for the observations that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member fur the city of Dublin. He should have rested satisfied with merely giving his vote, but he plainly perceived, if he did not offer some explanation, he should afford a tacit consent to the imputations that had been thrown out by that hon. Member and the noble Lord opposite. The hon. Member for Westminster had thought it necessary to explain his vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, how greatly more, then, was he (Mr. Hamilton) called upon to explain why he (forming one of four Conservatives only) was found in that minority? He had not had the advantage of the hon. and learned Member in having long been known for his unshaken loyalty to the Throne—a loyalty not of recent date, he was bound to suppose, or in any way owing to his change of place in that House; but though the hon. and learned Member might have had the advantage of him in this respect, he would bend to no man, either in that House or out of it, in loyalty to the Throne and attachment to her Majesty; and no one could more cordially rejoice in the selection her Majesty had made in Prince Albert; but it was one thing to entertain these sentiments, and another to act fairly towards his country and his constituents. He considered that as one of 658 trustees of the public purse he was bound to vote according to his conscience. He dared not more particularly allude to the subject of loyalty for fear of being taxed by the noble Lord opposite with disloyalty, but no threats should deter him from his duty. He had on several occasions voted on measures of finance with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and he should do so on every occasion when one shilling of the public money was demanded that he thought uncalled for, let that demand come from whichever side of the House it might.

Mr. J. Jones

said, that on the occasion of the marriage of Prince Leopold to the Princess Charlotte, 30,000l. was the sum proposed by the then Ministry to be granted to the Prince. Mr. Tierney, however, the leader of the Whigs, got up in his place and proposed 50,000l., which was agreed to on that occasion; therefore the less sum had been proposed by the Tories, but was not assented to by the Whigs. So much for the extravagance of Toryism!

Mr. Hutton

was very unwilling to intrude himself upon the House at that time, but as his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had said, he had been instructed by his constituents to oppose the larger grant, he thought it right to say, that he believed nothing would be more agreeable to his constituents than that he should support the grant, and if, as he believed, from what he had heard of the prince's character and acquirements, a considerable portion of it was likely to be applied to promote the literary and scientific institutions of the country, he could not conceive a sum of money more advantageously expended, or more for the benefit of the country.

Sir Robert Peel

said, he never would shrink from giving his vote upon this, or upon any other occasion; but he did not know that he should have risen to address the House, if it were not for the insinuation of the noble Lord—an insinuation introduced so unnecessarily, so unjustly, and go contrary to all parliamentary rules and principles—so unworthy too, as he thought, of the situation which the noble Lord occupied, both as a minister of the Crown, and as leader of the House of Commons. What right had the noble Lord to make the insinuation that he had done? Supposing that he had said, that the noble Lord's motive in proposing such a grant as 50,000l. was owing to his base subserviency towards the Crown—supposing he had said that which was perfectly irregular, and which would be perfectly unjust, he thought, he would have been told at once by the Speaker, that he had no right to go on imputing motives. Thus, he thought, that it would be base and unworthy of him to be influenced at all by the events of last May; but he also said it would be as unworthy as it would be unworthy in him to shrink from the performance of his duty, from the fear that such a motive would be imputed to him. He said that it would be puling, effeminate delicacy in him, if he acquiesced in a vote which he felt to be wrong, because he feared some hon. Gentlemen opposite might have said, "you are acting from a spiteful recollection of the events of last May." He did not vote for the smaller sum, on the ground that had been taken by hon. Gentlemen—he did not adopt now a course which he had constantly rejected—namely, in considering the grant, taking into his calculation how many families might be supported by it. He did not give his vote on account of the temporary distress that prevailed; nor because financial difficulties were felt, for he believed that this great country was rich enough, and powerful enough, to make a proper allowance for the consort of the sovereign. He introduced none of these invidious topics—he felt that what he did might cause temporary displeasure; but he was conscious that he consulted the permanent interest of the Crown, and that the vote he gave was consistent with liberality towards the Crown, and with justice towards the people. He who acquiesced in a vote which he felt could not be vindicated, was not a true friend to the Crown. He was a much greater Friend to the Crown, who saved it from the unpopularity of an extravagant vote. So much then for his duty towards the Crown, and now, as to the position of the House of Commons, and the position of parties. He said, that the great political interest of parties was to be maintained, and nothing in the present state of public feeling could be so ruinous to both parties, as if there were a contest between as to which of them would show the greatest liberality in such a vote. It might promote the temporary interest of a party; but any fear, or any shrinking from that which they believed to be their duty would do more than anything else to ruin the character of the House of Commons. His hon. Friend was not to be provoked by the example of the noble Lord. His hon. Friend had given notice without the slightest communication with him. He had heard the speech of the noble Lord's explanation of the expenses of Prince Albert before he intimated how he intended to vote. He did not exactly understand what was the motion of his hon. Friend; but he thought that 30,000l. during the life of her Majesty, by way of a privy purse, would be a just and a liberal grant. He thought, also, that 30,000l. to Prince Albert, in case of his Surviving her Majesty, and there being no issue, would be a just and liberal provision. But he thought, that if Prince Albert survived her Majesty, and that there were heirs to the Crown, the grant ought to be 50,000l.; but then he also said, that if Prince Albert were the father of a numerous family, and expenses thus fell upon the Prince, he for one would vote that which would be becoming to the father of the royal family. He did not know that his hon. Friend proposed so to limit the vote; but then he should not be ready to increase the vote until Prince Albert had given a guarantee to the people of his permanent residence in, and attachment to the country. He grounded his vote upon a consideration of the reasons of the case. The noble Lord had insinuated that some disrespect would be shown to the Crown unless he and others acquiesced in the proposal of Ministers. Supposing that the noble Lord said, that he called upon them to act upon precedents, and that he considered the precedent of Queen's Consort to be strictly in point, why, then, did not the noble Lord propose 50,000l. a-year and 100,000l. afterwards? Why not appeal to their respect to precedent, as binding on them in this case as in that? Supposing that the noble Lord made that proposal, and that they should pursue the course adopted with respect to Queen Adelaide—that is 50,000l. first and 100,000l. afterwards—would they not bare a right to oppose such a proposal without any disrespect to the Crown. The cases of precedent then failed. They were not bound by precedent—not by strict and literal analogy; but then an appeal was made to the reasonable analogy of the cases cited by the noble Lord. Could the noble Lord deny, that, as far as the public money was concerned, no provision was made for Prince George during the lifetime of the Queen? The noble Lord said that there was special pleading upon this point; but he mentioned, on the contrary, that it was strictly correct and proper argument. The Queen (Anne) came into possession of the hereditary revenues, the same that had been enjoyed by Queen Mary and King William. The marriage had taken place before she ascended the throne. Parliament made no increase, but a provision was made by the Queen out of those revenues, to which the Queen was unquestionably entitled, supposing that no marriage had taken place. Parliament provided for the case of Prince George surviving the Queen, merely at the close of his life, and when there was little chance of his surviving her, and then in case he did survive her, it granted to him 100,000l. out of the public revenue. Let the House bear this in mind. 30,000l. granted now, payable for life to the Queen and Prince Albert, in case of his surviving the Queen, was equivalent to the grant of 100,000l., payable only in case of survivorship. If they took the value of annuities, 30,000l. granted now for life to Prince Albert, was equivalent not to the 100,000l. granted to Prince George, but to the sum of 200,000l. or 300,000l. This would be the equivalent in the contingency of survivorship. He would take the case of Prince Leopold and the Princess Charlotte. They had had a grant of 60,000l. to maintain the whole of their establishment. The 30,000l. which the Princess Charlotte had before, ceased, and they received 60,000l. for the maintenance of their whole establishment, and 50,000l. in the event of Prince Leopold surviving. Could any man deny, that the universal voice of the country was, that that grant was too great? Could any man deny that, in the case of Prince Leopold going abroad, severing his connection with this country, 50,000l. would not have been too much? The almost universal feeling of the country at the time was, that that grant was too great, and in point of fact, Prince Leopold practically proved it, by his relinquishment—his liberal, generous, handsome relinquishment—of a considerable portion of his income. He felt, that' the amount was against the opinion of the' country. The case of the Royal Family, where 21,000l. a-year was granted to each of its members to support the whole of their establishments, was a proof that, 30,000l. was a liberal allowance, such an allowance as he wished to make.' He would come, then, to the case of William and Adelaide, which the noble Lord said, he relied upon. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) had maintained, that, in making a grant of 30,000l. a-year j to Prince Albert, they were substantially making the same allowance to the Queen and Prince Albert which had been made to King William and Adelaide. Surely, there was no special pleading in this? If they gave in effect the same amount available for the same purpose, surely it was not special pleading to ask the House to be bound by that fact. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said, that there was a difference in the present case, on account of the pension list, as formerly the surplus of that fund might have been applied to persons that properly fell upon the civil list. That was a perfectly novel argument. When Parliament constituted the pension list and reduced it to 1,200l. a-year, that being the whole fund upon which the Crown could draw for personal services, and the reward of literary merit, Parliament never contemplated that the surplus should be made available for other purposes. He must say, after that arrangement with respect to the limitation of the pension list to 1,200l. that it was a great abuse of power, if indeed the power existed, to transfer the surplus to defray ordinary expenses. Such a thing ought not to have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to say, that he did not mean that—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: by the new arrangement, the power was taken entirely away.] How, then, could it any way apply to the marriage of Prince Albert? In guarding against the inference which the right hon. Gentleman drew, he had completely proved, that his argument was worth nothing. If Parliament, before the marriage, had, by an act, taken away the power of applying this money, what a miserable stress for argument must the right hon. Gentleman be in, to come to that House, and contend, that it was a disadvantage to the Crown that it could not now apply the surplus portion of this fund to the civil list. What had the allowance to Prince Albert to do with it, if the legislature had already taken away that surplus from the Crown? and how could the right hon. Gentleman contend for an increase of the grant on that ground? What his right hon. Friend contended for was, that the portion of the civil list, applicable to the personal expenses of the Queen and Prince Albert would, with the grant of 30,000l. amount to the same sum as was granted in the case of King William and Queen Adelaide. The amount of the privy purse was, no doubt, different. 60,000l. to the Queen, and 30,000l. to Prince Albert, was less than the sum granted to William and Adelaide by 20,000l.; but if they took the whole amount of that portion of the civil list which was applied to the establishment, and which went to diminish the expenses of Prince Albert, who would find an establishment provided for him, that he would say would be a legitimate comparison between the amount of the civil list applicable to personal expenses in the one reign and in the other; and he would say, that 30,000l. would render the amount equal. The onus of proving, that more was necessary was thrown on the other side. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, said, that the Crown could not apply the surplus upon one head of the civil list to the privy purse. That was a singular contrast to what had been said by the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. gentleman had contended, that the Crown had before the power of applying the surplus of the pension fund. That argument, it appeared, was perfectly inapplicable, as the Crown had no such power; but the Crown had the power of applying the savings in those heads of the civil list which referred to household expenses to the privy purse. Consequently the comparison between the total amount of the civil list under the head of the Lord Chamberlain's and the Lord Steward's departments, would not be applicable; and, in his opinion, the sum of 30,000l. would give for each reign the same amount. It would also be recollected that the provision for the consort of a King and for the consort of a Queen was necessarily very different. A great establishment, a lord chamberlain, a steward, must be maintained by the consort of the King, as well as by the King himself; but in the case of a Queen Regnant, there was absolutely no necessity for his keeping any establishment at all. The expenses of the stabling department were also much heavier upon a Queen Consort, inasmuch as the establishment must be much larger on account of the necessity of providing carriages and horses for the females of her establishment. On these grounds, having been perfectly unwilling to enter into minute details, thinking that a reference of the subject to a committee, as in 1830, would be a wrong course—forming his calculations on the grounds that had been stated by the noble Lord himself, that 9,000l. only would be required for Prince Albert's establishment, he had come to the conclusion that 30,000l. a-year was a just and liberal allowance; and having come to this conclusion, and being perfectly resolved, notwithstanding the unjust imputations which the noble Lord had thrown out, disregarding any consideration as to whether he was giving a politic vote or not, he was perfectly resolved not to enter into any unseemly contest about vying in an unjust liberality; he would give the Crown what he believed a liberal and just allowance; but his duty as a representative of the people, and as a loyal subject of the Crown, could not permit him to counsel the House to make an extravagant grant. I will not (continued the right hon. Baronet) condescend to rebut the charge of want of respect or loyalty. I have no compunctions of conscience on that ground. I never made a concurrence of political sentiment on the part of the Sovereign a condition of my loyalty. I never have been otherwise than loyal and respectful towards my Sovereign. Not one breath of disloyalty—not one word of disrespect towards the Crown, or any members of the Royal Family, however adverse their political sentiments were to mine, has ever escaped my lips; and when performing what I believe to be my duty to this House, and my duty towards the Crown, I should think myself unworthy of the position which I hold, of my station as a Member of the House of Commons, if I thought that I could not take a straightforward course without needless professions of loyalty, or without a defence against accusations which I believe to be utterly unfounded.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

begged to be allowed to say a word in explana- tion. The right hon. Baronet had not understood him when he attacked him. With respect to the comparison of the civil list of the late King with that of the Queen and Prince Albeit, it should be recollected that, although in the late reign, certain reductions in the salaries of the household were contemplated, and an additional sum of 10,000l. was granted to the late King in consequence of such contemplated reductions, yet it was very well known that such reductions never took place. The right hon. Gentleman had also argued that, by the new arrangement of pensions, no loss was incurred by the Crown. Now he would venture to state, that a loss was incurred in two ways. In the first place, any surplus that arose in the pension list heretofore, was transferred to defray other expenses. The Crown was cut off from this in consequence of the new arrangement. In the second place, by the resolution which had passed that House, they had limited the granting of pensions to a particular class, by which means a large additional charge was thrown upon the privy purse in the shape of compassionate allowances. He might further add, that the House would recollect that certain sums were derivable from the Duchy of Cornwall during the reign of the late Sovereign, which were not likely to pass to a Prince of Wales; but should a Prince of Wales be born, those revenues would immediately cease. He had only risen to explain, and would add that nothing had fallen from the right hon. Baronet to shake him in the opinion he had expressed.

Mr. Villiers

said, he had listened with attention to the argument in favour of this vote. He owned he could hear none. It was very difficult to discover any rule to guide one upon such matters. But after listening to the debate on both motions, the only principle he could collect was, either for a sum that they ought to vote which was actually necessary for the purpose, or to vote that which had been customary on similar occasions. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had proposed that which met the actual exigencies of the case, while the Government had proposed that which had been usual in such cases in this country. Now, between these two, everything seemed to him arbitrary and capricious, and he did not see much difference in principle between the motion proposed by the Government and that by the gallant Member. He wanted to be guided by some rule or principle. But the hon. Gentleman proposed, he understood, 50,000l. in case of survivorship; the Government proposed 50.000l. at once. He considered both votes excessive, and he could not understand the difference between the two. Both votes went beyond what was necessary, and, both being excessive, he could not see the difference between them. He thought them both alike departures from principle; he was indifferent to both, and should vote for neither.

The House divided on the amendment, Aves262; Noes 158: Majority, 104.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Chapman, A.
Acland, T. D.	Christopher, R. A.
A'Court, Captain	Clerk, Sir G.
Adare, Viscount	Cole, Viscount
Aglionby, H. A.	Collins, W.
Ainsworth, P.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Alsager, Captain	Compton, H. C.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Conolly, E.
Archdall, M.	Copeland, Alderman
Ashley, hon. H.	Corry, hon. H.
Attwood, W.	Courtenay, P.
Attwood, M.	Cresswell,C.
Bagot, hon. W.	Cripps, J.
Bailey, J.	Dalrymple, Sir A.
Bailey, J., jun.	Darby, G.
Baillie, Colonel	Davenport, J.
Baines, E.	Dick, Q.
Baker, E.	D'Israeli, B.
Baring, hon. F.	Duffield, T.
Baring, H. B.	Dugdale, W. S.
Barrington, Viscount	Duke, Sir J.
Bell, M.	Dunbar, G.
Blackstone, W. S.	Duncombe, hon. W.
Blake, M. J.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Blake, W. J.	Du Pré, G.
Blakemore, R.	Easthope, J.
Blennerhassett, A.	Eaton, R. J.
Bolling, W.	Egerton, Sir P.
Bowes, J.	Ellis, J.
Bradshaw, J.	Ellis, W.
Bramston, T. W.	Erle, W.
Briscoe, J. I.	Ewart, W.
Broadley, H.	Feilden, W.
Broadwood, H.	Feilden, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Fellowes, E.
Brotherton, J.	Fenton, J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Finch, F.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Buck, L. W.	Forester, hon. G.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Burroughes, H. N.	Freshfield, J. W.
Busfeild, W.	Gaskell, J. M.
Calcraft, J. H.	Gisborne, T.
Cartwright, W. R.	Gladstone, W. E.
Castlereagh, Lord	Glynne, Sir S. R.
Chapman, Sir M. L. C	Goddard, A.

Godson, R.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Gordon, hon. Captain	Maclean, D.
Gore, O.	Mahon, Viscount
Goring, H. D.	Martin, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Marton, G.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Mathew, G. B.
Grant, hon. Colonel	Maunsell, T. P.
Grant, F. W.	Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Greene, T.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Greg, R. H.	Morris, D.
Grimsditch, T.	Muskett, G. A.
Grimston, Viscount	Neeld, J.
Grimston, hon. E. H.	Neeld, J.
Hale, R. B.	Nicholl, J.
Halford, H.	Norreys, Lord
Hall, Sir B.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Packe, C. W.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Pakington, J. S.
Harcourt, G. G.	Palmer, R.
Harcourt, G. F.	Palmer, G.
Hardinge, rt. h. Sir H.	Parker, M.
Hector, C. J.	Parker, R. T.
Heneage, G. W.	Patten, J. W.
Herbert, hon. S.	Pattison, J.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Pease, J.
Hindley, C.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hodgson, F.	Peel, J.
Hogg, J. W.	Pemberton, T.
Holmes, W.	Perceval, Colonel
Hope, hon. C.	Phillpotts, J.
Hope, H. T.	Pigot, R.
Hope, G. W.	Pinney, W.
Hotham, Lord	Planta, right hon. J.
Houldsworth, T.	Plumptre, J. P.
Hughes, W. B.	Polhill, F.
Hume, J.	Pollen, Sir J. W.
Humphery, J.	Powell, Colonel
Irton, S.	Powerscourt, Lord
Irving, J.	Praed, W. T.
Jackson, Sergeant	Pringle, A.
James, Sir W. C.	Protheroe, E.
Jenkins, Sir R.	Rae, right hon. Sir W.
Jervis, J.	Redington, T. N.
Jervis, S.	Reid, Sir J. R.
Jones, J.	Richards, R.
Jones, Captain	Rickford, W.
Kemble, H.	Round, C. G.
Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.	Round, J.
	Rundle, J.
Knight, H. G.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Knightley, Sir C.	Rushout, G.
Knox, hon. T.	St. Paul, H.
Langdale, hon, C.	Salwey, Colonel
Langton, W. G.	Sanderson, R.
Law, hon. C. E.	Sandon, Viscount
Leader, J. T.	Sheppard, T.
Lefroy, right hon. T.	Shirley, E. J.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Lincoln, Earl of	Smyth, Sir G. H.
Lister, E. C.	Somerset, Lord G.
Litton, E.	Spry, Sir S. T.
Lockhart, A. M.	Stanley, Lord
Lowther, J. H.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lucas, E.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Lygon, hon. General	Stuart, Lord J.
Mackenzie, T.	Stormont, Viscount
Mackenzie, W. F.	Strickland, Sir G.

Strutt, E.	Wakley, T.
Sturt, H. C.	Walker, R.
Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.	Wallace, R.
Sutton, hn. J. H. T. M.	Warburton, H.
Talfourd, Sergeant	Ward, H. G.
Teignmouth, Lord	White, A.
Tennent, J. E.	Williams, R.
Thomas, Colonel H.	Williams, W.
Thompson, Alderman	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Thornely, T.	Wodehouse, E.
Tollemache, F. J.	Wood, Sir M.
Trench, Sir F.	Wood, Colonel
Turner, E.	Wood, G. W.
Turner, W.	Wood, Colonel T.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.	Wood, B.
Vere, Sir C. B.	Young, J.
Verner, Colonel	Young, Sir W.
Villiers, Viscount	TELLERS.
Vivian, J. E.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Waddington, H. S.	Eliot, Lord

List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Alston, R.	Ellice, right hon. E.
Anson, hon. Colonel	Euston, Earl of
Anson, Sir G,	Evans, Sir De L.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Fitzalan, Lord
Barnard, E. G.	Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Barry. G. S.	Fitzroy, Lord C.
Beamish, F. B.	Fitzsimon, N.
Bellew, R. M.	Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Berkeley, hon. H.	French, F.
Berkeley, hon. G.	Gordon, R.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Grattan, H.
Bewes, T.	Greig, D.
Blewitt, R. J.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.
Bodkin, J. J.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bridgeman, H.	Harland, W. C.
Brodie, W. B.	Hawes, B.
Browne, R. D.	Hawkins, J. H.
Bulwer, Sir L.	Hayter, W. G.
Butler, hon. Colonel	Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Byng, G.	Hobhouse, rt. hn, Sir J.
Byng, right hon. G. S.	Hodges, T. L.
Campbell, Sir J.	Hoskins, K.
Campbell, W. F.	Howard, F. J.
Cavendish, hon. C.	Howard, P. H.
Chester, H.	Howick, Viscount
Chetwynd, Major	Hutton, R.
Chichester, J.P.	Ingham, R.
Clay, W.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Clayton, Sir W. R.	James, W.
Collier, J.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Lemon, Sir C.
Craig, W. G.	Leveson, Lord
Crawford, W.	Loch, J.
Crompton, Sir S.	Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Curry, Sergeant	Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.
Dalmeney, Lord	Macnamara, Major
D'Eyncourt, right hn. C. T.	M'Taggart, J.
	Maule, hon. F.
Divett, E.	Morpeth, Viscount
Donkin, Sir R. S.	Murray, A.
Duff. J.	Nagle, Sir R.
Dundas, F.	O'Brien, C.
Dundas, hon. J. C.	O'Brien, W. S.
Dundas, Sir R.	O'Callaghan, hon. C.

O'Connell, D.	Smith, R. V.
O'Connell, J.	Somers, J. P.
O'Connell, M. J.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
O'Connell, M.	Speirs, A.
O'Conor Don	Standish, C.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Oswald, J.	Stewart, J.
Paget, Lord A.	Stuart, W. V.
Palmerston, Viscount	Stock, Dr.
Parker, J.	Strangways, hon. J.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.	Style, Sir C.
Pechell, Captain	Surrey, Earl of
Pendarves, E. W. W.	Talbot, J. H.
Phillips, Sir R.	Tancred, H. W.
Pigot, D. R.	Tavistock, Marquis of
Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Ponsonby, hon. J.	Tufnell, H.
Power, J.	Vigors, N. A.
Price, Sir R.	Vivian, Major C.
Pryme, G.	Vivian, rt. hon. Sir R.
Ramsbottom, J.	Wall, C. B.
Rice, E. R.	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Rich, H.	Westenra, hon. J. C.
Roche, E. B.	Wilbraham, G.
Roche, W.	Wilde, Sergeant
Rumbold, C. E.	Wilshere, W.
Russell, Lord J.	Winnington, T. E.
Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.	Winnington, H. J.
Sanford, E. A.	Wood, C.
Scrope, G. P.	Worsley, Lord
Seale, Sir J. H.	Wrightson, W. B.
Seymour, Lord	Wyse, T.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.	Yates, J. A.
Shelburne, Earl of	TELLERS.
Smith, G. R.	Stanley, E. J.
Smith, J. A.	Steuart, R.

The House resumed, the report to be brought up on the following day.