20 JULY 1850, Page 10

POSTSCRIPT. SATURDAY.

The principal matter under discussion in Parliament last night was the Queen's message recommending to the Commons the consideration of a pro- vision for the young Duke of Cambridge and the Princess Mary. Before going into Committee, Mr. Hoax briefly indicated that he was prepared to oppose the too liberal provision which he expected the Government to make ; and referred much to the unconstitutional grants to the present Ring of Hanover. In Committee, Lord Jona Russmix recalled the real subject to mind, throwing aside the payments to the King of Hanover as irrelevant.

By an act of 17:', George the Third was empowered to grant 60,000/. a year between his sons, so that none should originally or by survivorship have more than 16,000/. By subsequent acts two additions of 6,000/. a year each were made to the portion of the Duke of Cambridge, raising his whole income to 27,0001.- but of this sum 6,0001. a year was given on ac- count of the education of the present Duke. No part of this income sur- vives to the present Duke; who does not now receive any sum under any act of Parliament. On inquiry, Lord John Russell Ands that the public im- pressions as to the accumulations made by the late Duke are much exagge- rated: what he has left to his children is equally divided between them, and the share of the present Duke is so nearly absorbed by annuities charged on it to legatees that he has no other income than about 1,2001. from the small pro- perty of the late Duke at Combe, and that professional income which is as fairly his independent right as that of any other officer in her Majesty's service. The late Duke of Gloucester had an income originally of 6,000/. a year, which was augmented to 14,000/. a year. The late Duke of Gloucester was the nephew of George the Third, living contemporaneously with several sons of the King enjoying considerable incomes; while the present Duke of Cam- bridge is the only adult Prince of the Royal Family resident in England. It is deemed therefore that an annuity of 12,000/. a year, being 2,000/. a year less than was granted to the Duke of Gloucester by the act of 1806, will be a proper sum for the House to vote for the present Duke of Cambridge. That sum will enable him, in a manner that will suit his known character, to answer those calls of charity to which his father was so munificent a con- tributor, and yet not be excessive or beyond what is necessary to maintain the dignity of his station. By a provision made a very few years ago, the sum of 3,0001. a year was granted to the Princess Augusta, to take ettbct on the death of her father the late Duke of Cambridge : it is proposed to grant a like sum to the Princess Mary. Parliament has already provided that 6,000/. a year shall be payable to the present Dutchess of the late Duke on her beconung his widow. The grants proposed, or already made, are 12,000/. a year to the present Duke, ol. a year to each of his sisters, and 6,0001. a year to his mother: toge- ther making 24,0001. a year, or 3,0001. a year less than the total grant to the late Duke.

Mr. Helm objected to a larger sum than was for many years granted to the late Duke of Gloucester-8,000/. a year ; and, though exceedingly sorry to differ from Government, because no one respected the late Duke more than himself, he would take the sense of the Committee on the pro- priety of the lesser amount. Mr. DISRAELI supported Lord John Russell's proposal : the reduction in the Duke of Gloucester's ease was made in consequence of the alteration of the times. The grant now proposed was fair and moderate. Mr. BRIGHT expressed disappointment at Lord John Russell's statement : he thought it an unfortunate circumstance that the late Duke—considering his receipts, commencing so far back as 1778 —his share in the 60,000/. a year, then his 15,000/. a year, after- wards his 21,0001., and then his 27,000k, not to mention his emoluments as Viceroy of Hanover—had not made some provision rendering it unnecessary for Parliament to vote the sums proposed. Parliament is not bound to shut out of view the duties which parents in all positions of life, whether in the cottage or on a throne owe to their families. Mr. Bright hinted that the proposal is not calculated to convey a favourable impression of monarchical institutions; and he asked .if ulti- mately it may be expected that every son of the Queen is to have 12,0001. a year ? The House listened with impatience to several Memberc in support of the grant, and then negatived the amendment, by 206 to 53.

Mr. RIIME—alluding to the Queen's "increasing progeny," but sharply rebuked by Lord JOHN Russeix—moved a second amendment, that the sum should be 10,000/. instead of 12,000L Negatived by 177 to 55. The vote as,proposed by Government was then affirmed ; and the vote f'or the Princess Mary was carried without specific opposition. The other subject before the House of Commons for any considerable time was the vote of 24,080k to defray the charges of the civil establish- ments on the Western Coast of Africa,—including 10,000/. for the "pur- chase of stores, &c., on the Gold Coast from the Danish Government," being for the purchase of five Danish settlements. The vote was opposed by Mr. COBDEN', on the ground that it is an unnecessary extension of our costly Colonial establishments, and a further outlay on a fresh fruitless plan for exterminating the slave-trade. The vote was supported by Mr. RAWES and Lord PaLmarisvom as merely covering the cost of materials existing in the Danish forth ; the Danish Government having handsomely offered to give us the forts, as they have no:commerce on the Gold Coast to protect Mr. Cobden was supported by Mr. Hustx, Mr. Mrusma. GIB- SON, Mr. Herr, Mr. JACKSON; Lord Palmerston was supported by Mr. Fonsven, Mr. CARDWELL, and Sir EDWARD BUXTON. The opponents re- vived the general arguments against the costly, fatal, and fruitless at- tempts to suppress the slave-trade by direct means. The supporters went mainly upon the ground, that the measure would facilitate the extension of settlements for the encouragement of legitimate trade, and that that would be the most effective substitute for the armed suppression. On a division, the vote was passed by 138 to 42.

In the House of Lords, the Duke cf RICHMOND and the Earl of lan- ROWBY renewed their opposition to the Factories Bill on the last stages. The Duke moved against the third rending; but withdrew his motion. The Earl moved the insertion of a clause restricting the labour of children within the same hours of the day as those fixed for women and young per- sons ; which was defeated by 30 to 24. The bill then passed.

Earlier in the evening, Lord SEYMOCR informed Lord Drama; that among the last communications he received from the late Duke of Cam- bridge' was one recommending that the regulations of Richmond Pint should be revised, so that they should interfere as little as possible with the enjoyment and liberty of the people. The House applauded this evidence of the late Duke's kindly feeling.