POSTSCRIPT. SATURDAY.

The House of Lords was occupied last night with a discussion on Socialism. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition signed by 4,000 of the principal inhabitants of Birmingham, complaining that the " Ra- tional Religionists" were permitted to disseminate their pernicious doc- trines with impunity, and that their numbers were rapidly increasing. The Bishop described the organization of the Socialists as formidable ; and he estimated their numbers at 350,000. He insinuated that Lord Normanby was unwilling to enforce the law against these dangerous fanatics, who sought to deluge the land with blasphemy and immorality; and he reproved Lord Melbourne for presenting Mr. Owen at Court.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Owen, (who, he said, was well known to the most distinguished persons in the country, as a benevolent visionary of respectable character,) praying for inquiry into the doctrines of Socialism, and disclaiming the abominable tenets im- puted to his sect.

Lord NORMANDY said, he had only lately become acquainted with the Socialist opinions, and the increase of those who professed them. He doubted the policy of prosecuting Mr. Owen's disciples.

Lord MELBounsis admitted that he had acted indiscreetly in allowing Mr. Owen " to put his name on his card ;" but Mr. Owen was in that station of society which entitled him to presentation when he had an address to present to the Queen. He much questioned the policy of legal proceedings against the Socialists ; and feelingly deplored the power of falsehood and calumny from which he suffered so much lihnself. No doubt, truth would ultimately prevail, but he knew by experience that it was allowed to falsehood to triumph for a long time.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, the presentation of Mr. Owen was certainly unfortunate, but as Lord Melbourne had admitted his indis- cretion, he would say no more about it. He was aware of the difficulty of prosecuting the Socialists, but he thought a good effect would be produced by some legal proceeding showing the disapprobation of the

Government.

Here the discussion closed.

The Royal Assent was given by Commission to Prince Albert's Na- turalization Exhibition Bill.

In the House of Commons, Sir William Gossett, Sergeant-at-Arms, being called upon by the SPEAKER, stated, that he was served at six

o'clock on Thursday evening, with a writ of Habeas Corpus from the Court of Queen's Bench, commanding him to bring up the bodies of William Evans and John Wheelton. He desired the instruction of the House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved a resolution- " That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to make a return to the said writ, that he holds the bodies of the said William Evans and John Wheelton by virtue of a warrant issued at the hands of the Speaker, by the authority of the House of Commons, for a contempt and a breach of the privileges of that House."

The Attorney-General expressed a very strong opinion, supported by numerous precedents, that if the Court decided according to esta- blished law and invariable practice, that return would be held sufficient, and the prisoners would be remanded. Mr. GonsoN doubted whether the Court would view the question in that light. The question might be whether an officer of the Court could be hindered in the execution of his duty by any power known to the constitution of the country.

A remark from Mr. CRESSIVELL, that the house must presume that the Court would do its duty, stopped the discussion, and the resolution was adopted.

The House went into Committee for the purpose of considering that part of the Queen's Speech which related to a provision for Prince Albert.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL touched upon the embarrassments which might arise from a connexion with any considerable power in Europe, and upon the advantage of the Queen's marrying a young prince who might be attached to English habits and associations. He thought this consi- deration bore upon the subject of Prince Albert's provision. Lord John then referred to the arrangements made on the marriages of Queen Mary and Queen Anne ; admitting, however, that circumstances were so much altered, that these cases could not he regarded as precedents. Coming down to a later period, lie remarked that Queen Charlotte was to have had 100,0001. a year in the event of surviving George the Third, and Queen Adelaide was receiving the same amount. Prince Leopold and the Princess Charlotte had 60,000/. a year, though the Princess was only presumptive heiress to the Crown ; and of that sum 50,0001. was settled on Prince Leopold in the contingency of his surviving his wife. With these precedents before them, Government proposed to empower her Majesty to grant to Prince Albert an annuity of 50,000/. a year, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, to commence on the day of the marriage, and to continue for his life. With respect to the Prince's personal expenditure, he found no precedent for the inter- ference of Parliament in matters of that kind— Be could only say generally, that an establishment must he kept up by Prince Albert ; and that it was impossible to maintain the dignity of his posi- tion unless he hadpersons about him above the ordinary rank, and ready to be an attendance on his person, according to the customary etiquette—such as Lords in Waiting and other persons. It was proposed to form that establish- ment, without saying that its arrangement was definitively fixed, a good deal on the model of the establishment of the Prince of Wales ; with a Groom of the Stole, at a salary of 1,200/. a year, with other Grooms and Equerries ; and the whole expense of that establishment would be 7,000/. or 8,000/. a year. (In reply to a question from Mr. 1'11E, Lord JODN observed that this would be included in the general sum of 50,0001.] This was for the purpose of sus- taining the dignity and rank kilning his station. No one would deny that there should be a suitable provision for the maintenance of the station of the Queen's Consort. With regard to other heads of expenditure, be did not believe that he could do more than refer to the precedents which he had given, and which belonged to a time when the expense of living was much less costly than at present, and when an income of 10,000/. a year went as far as 20,000/ goes now. If at that time it was thought that the husband of Queen Anne should have 50,000/. a year, and if at subsequent periods it was thought proper to settle-that amount upon va- rious Queens Consort, it appeared to him to be a reasonable proposition to make with reference to Prince Albert's establishment. The only ground,indeed, on which he was told that the Civil List should be diminished, was a ground which did not affect the case. His proposition was, that the Civil List with

regard to the Household, which was now separated almost entirely from those other matters that used to be connected with it, having been 435,0001. in the

late reign, and her Majesty having foregone 50,000/. because no privy purse was required for a Queen Consort, they should now make the Civil List equal to what had been granted in 1831 to King William and Queen Adelaide. That was his proposition.

In reply to the objection, that in the distressed state of the country so large a sum ought not to be voted, he remarked, that if on that ac- count a small sum was voted now, ()fortiori it ought to be increased when the country recovered its prosperity. The arrangement he proposed was intended to be permanent, whereas he firmly believed that the dis- tress was temporary.

Mr. Hums wished to ask a question— The noble lord had stated that the establishment of the late Prince of Wales was to be adopted as the pattern on which the establishment of Prince Albert was to lie placed. Now the Prince of Wales had a separate palace ; and what he wished to know was, whether it was intended that there should be a separate palace or dwelling provided for Prince Alberti' (Laughter.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that it was intended to have nothing of the kind_ ; but, of course, Prince Albert would have persons belonging to his Household, beyond what constituted the establishment of her Majesty.

Replying to a question from Mr. Gotmnunx, Lord Jonx said, the grant would not be during her Majesty's pleasure, but for life.

The resolution having been " considered," the Chairman " reported progress ;" to sit again on Monday.

Sir JOHN YARDS BULLER stated that his motion on Tuesday would be in the following terms- " Resolved, That her Majesty's Government, as at present constituted, does not possess the confidence of the House of Commons."

The Lotus ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a bill to ascertain and define the right of voting for Members of Parliament in Scotland.