30,000l. for education and 70,000l. for the royal stables This had been a prominent topic at all the meetings of the lower classes. 50,000l. a-year would establish schools and museums and libraries in many of the large towns, and promote the improvement of the people.

The chancellor of the exchequer replied to the member for Kilkenny, and maintained, that in the case of prince George of Denmark the most analogous case to the present, the grant had been 50,000l. a-year, and the precedents of all the queen's consorts were in favour of such a sum as that proposed by lord John Russell. Several members spoke in opposition to the grant, some supporting Mr. Hume's amendment, and others an amendment proposed by colonel Sibthorp, that 30,000l. should be the extent of the annuity. Sir Robert Inglis alone of his party expressed himself in favour of the ministerial proposition. Mr. Goulburn, who chose the medium course, was strongly of opinion that, if they gave an amount equal to the double civil list of king William IV. and queen Adelaide, it would be all that either justice or liberality could require of them. The civil list of William IV. was fixed at 510,000l., from which 75,000l. pension money, and 10,000l. secret service money were to be deducted, leaving 425,000l. as the sum available for the double civil list of king William and queen Adelaide. The grant already made for the civil list of her present majesty was 385,000l., and if they were to give 50,000l. in addition to the separate use of prince Albert, it would amount to the sum of 435,000l. So far, therefore, there was a positive excess of 10,000l., and a far

ther sum of 10,000l. was gained by her present majesty from the diminution which had taken place in the charges on the civil list; for, in consequence of the recommendation of a committee which had been appointed on this subject, lord Monteagle, the chancellor of the exchequer of that day, had effected a reduction to the extent of 10,000l. in the salaries of the great officers of state. The public had a right to receive the benefit of this reduction, and if not, he might truly say, that the government were about to confer on her majesty, queen Victoria, 20,000l. ayear more than the civil list granted to William IV. and queen Adelaide. Under these circumstances Mr. Goulburn felt bound to vote for colonel Sibthorp's amendment, although he had the highest respect for her majesty and the illustrious prince, and was most anxious to contribute with due regard to the principles of liberality and justice to the splendour, comfort, and dignity of the crown. The house then divided on Mr. Hume's amendment Ayes 38; Noes 305: Majority against the amendment 267.

Colonel Sibthorp rose afterwards to move the amendment of which he had given notice, and lord John Russell went over again the same ground which he had before taken, and he also stated, that he was so convinced of the propriety of the proposed grant, that he had no doubt, had not an accident last year prevented the gentlemen opposite from getting into power, they would themselves have proposed the same provision for the prince. "I certainly am bound," continued his lordship, "to give every credit to the noble lord (lord Elliot), who at the same time that

he supported reduction made great professions of respect for her majesty, and of anxiety for her majesty's domestic comfort; and I only wish that such language 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 this because the noble lord, in supporting the reduction, said he was doing so with every respect for her majesty. And when professions of extraordinary 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."

Lord Eliot and sir James Graham rose immediately to protest against this insinuation, as in all respects most uncalled for and unjustifiable. Indeed, the latter expressed in the strongest terms his indignation that the noble lord should insinuate that he and his party in voting for the smaller sum were influenced by any want of respect for their sovereign. He felt for his part the greatest respect for her majesty, but he also felt that he had been sent to that house as the representative of the people. He considered it a large and generous disposition of the public money, to give to prince Albert 30,000l. for his establishment, which was 9,000l. a-year more than was enjoyed by the royal family in a direct line of succession to the throne. Perhaps in the critical times in which they lived their loyalty might be brought to the test, and something better than words might be necessary, and then the noble lord would see that

the party with whom he (sir J. Graham) had the honor to act, had not forgotten their duty to their sovereign.

Mr. Leader was opposed to any grant whatever, but voted for the amendment as the least evil of the two. He did not think the precedents quoted were at all in point, because the state of the country had been so much changed since the periods adverted to, that for one man that could read and write and consider politics, and condemn such a grant as this in the reign of queen Anne, there were a hundred thousand at the present time. The house should look to the effect of this proceeding out of doors, and he was afraid that 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 poorhouses, but very extravagant when they had to make a grant for the palace. Mr. O'Connell, who had already identified himself so completely with the government during the preceding session, did not desert them on this occasion, but stated that this was the first occasion on which he had ever voted for a larger sum in preference to a smaller.

With the exception of sir R. Inglis, who at an early period of the debate had intimated his intention of supporting the ministers, all the conservative members who addressed the house were in favor of colonel Sibthorp's amendment. Sir R. Peel would not have risen at all had it not been for the intimation of the noble lord (lord John Russell), which he stigmatised as being most unnecessarily and unjustly introduced, and contrary to all parliamentary rules and principles, and wholly unworthy of the

situation which the noble lord occupied as a minister of the crown and leader of the house of commons. It would have been base indeed in him (sir R. Peel) to have been influenced by the events of last May, but it would also have been equally base and cowardly to have shrunk from the performance of his duty, from the fear lest such a notice should be imputed to him. He did not give his vote for the smaller sum on account of the temporary distress that prevailed, nor because financial difficulties were felt, for he did not believe the country was unable to make a proper allowance for the consort of the sovereign. He abstained from all such invidious topics. He felt that he might, by his vote, give temporary displeasure, but he was conscious that he only consulted the permanent interests of the crown, in saving it from the unpopularity which would attend such an extravagant vote. Sir R. Peel entered into the different cases which had been quoted as precedents in point. There was no analogy between the present case and that of queen Adelaide, the queen consort, and the course proposed to be taken was quite a different one. The sum voted to queen Adelaide was 50,000l. ayear for life, and 100,000l. a-year after the demise of her husband. With respect to prince George of Denmark, nothing was voted to him during the lifetime of the queen but 100,000l. in case of survivorship. Now 30,000. to prince Albert for life was far more than 100,000. payable in the event of his surviving her majesty. Prince Leopold and the princess Charlotte had 60,000. a-year for the maintenance of their whole establishment, and 50,000. to the prince

if he should be the survivor. Could any man deny, that the universal opinion of the country 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. "I will not," continued the right hon. baronet, "condescend to rebut the charge of want of loyalty and respect; I have no compunctions of conscience on that ground-I never made a concurrence of political sentiments on the part of the sovereign a condition of my loyalty I have never been otherwise than respectful towards my sovereign; not one word, not one breath of disloyalty to the crown or any members of the royal family, however adverse their political sentiments were to mine, has ever escaped my lips, and in the performance of my duty to this house, and to the crown, I should deem myself unworthy of the position which I hold-of my station as a member of the house of commons if I hesitated to take a straightforward course without needless professions of loyalty, or without a defence against accusations which I believe to be utterly unfounded."

The house then divided on the amendment, when there appeared, Ayes 262; Noes 158; and a consequent majority of 104 in favour of the grant of 30,000. This was, without doubt, a remarkable triumph to obtain over the ministers, and plainly showed by what an uncertain tenure they held their situations. Here was a question in which their sovereign might naturally be supposed to take considerable interest, and in the times before the passing of the reform bill, no ministry would have dreamt

of continuing in office for a day after a defeat on a matter in which their honour and credit was so deeply concerned. The evenly balanced state of parties, however, renders it inevitable, that either changes of administration should be constantly taking place, or that the party in power should persevere in spite of the occasional success of the opposition. The necessary consequence of such a state of things is, that the favor of the sovereign becomes of much greater importance, and the ministry who have the good fortune to retain it may survive many a discomfiture in parliament which would prove fatal under different circumstances. Such a majority, however, as we are now alluding to, was large enough to have decided the fate of any government providing that it had been entirely composed of members entertaining the same political opinions, but as it contained together with the conservatives a considerable admixture of those who are generally classed among the supporters of the administration, it was perhaps regarded rather as the result of an accidental combination than as a victory achieved by the steady systematic opposition of a party possessing greater strength in the house of commons. A symptom rather of the weakness of the government in themselves,

than a sign of the increased power and popularity of their opponents. So elated however was colonel Sibthorp by the success of his amendment, that he endeavoured to follow it up a week or two afterwards by moving for the insertion of a clause in the bill for prince Albert's provision, to the effect that the annuity of 30,000l. should cease altogether in case his serene highness should reside for a less period than six months consecutively in each year within the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or should ally himself in marriage with any foreign princess who should not be a Protestant, or should cease to possess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law established in these realms. Sir R. Peel exposed the inexpediency and inconsistency of making any such restrictions as these, which would compel the prince at the risk of losing his annuity, to adhere to the church as established within these realms in case of her majesty's death, while he is free to be a member of the Lutheran church or any other Protestant church during her lifetime. Lord John Russell concurred in the observations of sir R. Peel and the gallant colonel, feeling that the house was against him, did not press his motion to a division