and that he should depart from that position if he
assumed an office of his own of so much importance.
The Duke then expressed a hope that his Royal
Highness would pay attention to the state and efficiency
of the army; but he never in any way interfered with
the patronage, or in the ordinary business of the Horse
Guards. Lord John then examined and refuted two
specific charges which had been alleged against the
Prince. The first related to the resignation of Sir G.
Brown as adjutant-general, which took place under the
following circumstances:—A difference of opinion
occurred between Lord Hardinge and Sir G. Brown with
respect to the weight that the soldier should carry, and
with regard to other points of military detail and
arrangement. Sir George wrote a letter in exceedingly
suitable terms, saying that as there was a considerable
difference between Lord Hardinge and himself, and as
his own opinion, formed upon what he had heard from
the Duke of Wellington, was unshaken, he thought it
was better that he should resign the office of adjutant-
general; and he therefore begged Lord Hardinge to
place his resignation before the Queen. The second
charge referred to the appointment of Sir G. Cathcart.
Lord Hardinge having laid Sir G. Brown's resignation
before her Majesty, recommended that Sir G. Cathcart
should be appointed his successor, as he considered him
a very distinguished officer, and of an age that would
enable him to perform actively the duties of that
situation. Her Majesty acquiesced in the advice that
Lord Hardinge gave, but she said she hoped that
General Wetherell, who was next in that office of
adjutant-general to Sir G. Brown, would meet with
every consideration from Lord Hardinge. Lord
Hardinge said that he was quite ready to pay every
consideration to the merits of General Wetherell, that
he thought very highly of them himself, that he
performed his duties in Canada very well, but that
he (Lord Hardinge) did not think he would be so
efficient an adjutant-general as Sir G. Cathcart; that
he was, however, quite ready to propose some method
by which it should be shown that no disapprobation
was entertained towards General Wetherell. Upon
this, an equerry of her Majesty, who was also in
attendance upon his Royal Highness, came to London
to express to General Wetherell the Queen's sense
of his services, and that it was not from any slight
to him that she had taken the advice of Lord Hardinge.
General Wetherell, as might be expected, expressed his
grateful sense of this mark of her Majesty's
condescension and kindness, and made no complaint of the
appointment which was made to the office of adjutant-
general. Lord John stated that with regard to various
other allegations against his Royal Highness, in
connection with the Horse Guards, the same contradiction
could be given, if it were worth while. But there
was another subject, with respect to which a
specific assertion was likewise made. It was said
that upon questions of foreign policy, and more
especially upon that Eastern question which at present
absorbs to so great a degree the attention of the country,
Prince Albert had taken a course to thwart the advice
of her Majesty's responsible ministers, and that in the
attempt so to thwart their advice he was in the habit
of writing to foreign ministers on these subjects. On
that point Lord John read a letter from Lord
Westmoreland, giving the assertion a strong contradiction.
He then spoke of the position of her Majesty in
relation to Prince Albert. Her Majesty is married
(he said) to a prince of singular attainments, and their
domestic life is as good an example to all the Queen's
subjects as her constitutional conduct is a model for all
sovereigns. Would any man believe me if I were to
say that, while thus united, the Queen never consulted
with the Prince Consort—whose eminent qualifications I
have described—with respect to affairs that nearly
interest her Majesty, that interest her fortunes,
and the fortunes of her crown, the welfare of
her people, the happiness of her interior life, and
her relations with many of those who are dear
to her? No one would believe me if I made such an
assertion. I say, then, that I hope in future there
will be no delusion upon this subject. There is no
harm in telling the whole truth with regard to this
matter; in saying that her Majesty and the Prince
are inseparably united, and that with regard to public
counsels, as with regard to private affairs, they have
no greater comfort than to communicate with one
another. And when the people of this country, always
just in the end, have reflected upon these matters,
I think the result of these calumnies, base as they are,
and of these delusions, blind as they have been, will
be to attach the people of this country still more
strongly to the Queen of these realms, and to give
a firmer and stronger foundation to the throne.—Mr.
Walpole said, the house and the country were
indebted to the noble lord for the complete manner in
which he had vindicated the Prince Consort from
charges as extravagant as they were calumnious. The
only thing which he wished to add to his statement
was, that Lord Derby and his colleagues had enjoyed
the same confidence which Lord John had said was
reposed by her Majesty in her other ministers. He
made a few comments upon other topics in the speech
of the noble lord, observing, with reference to the
reform measures, that he thought the time not
convenient, and the measure itself not required. The
motion for the address was then agreed to.

On Wednesday, Feb. 1, Mr. BROTHERTON moved
a resolution designed to restrict, if not prevent, After-
midnight Legislation in that house. He expatiated
on the bad consequences of late sittings, and feared
that the evil was increasing. In the session of 1851
the house had sat for eighty-six hours, and in 1852
only sixty-three hours beyond midnight; while last
session the aggregate was 133 hours.—Mr. WILLIAMS
seconded the motion.—Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to
it, believing that a far more useful change would be
to terminate the session at an earlier month of the
year, rather than the sittings at an earlier hour of the
night. He suggested the appointment of a committee
on the subject.—Lord J. RUSSELL combated the
motion, because it might seriously hamper the course
of public business, but agreed in thinking that a
committee might prove advantageous.—After some
discussion the house divided, when the motion was
lost by a majority of 30, 54 members voting for it, and
84 against it.

On Thursday, Feb. 2, the Marquis of BLANDFORD
obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the Better Management
of Episcopal and Capitular Property. And the
Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained leave to
bring in a Bill on the subject of the Public Revenue
and Consolidated Fund Charges.

On Friday, Feb. 3, Mr. CARDWELL, in a Committee
of the whole House, moved for leave to bring in two
bills for the Further Amendment of the Navigation
Laws: one bill "to strike off the last remaining fetters
from the free navigation of the sea"—to throw open
the coasting trade to foreign vessels; the other to
consolidate and amend those laws which, since the repeal
of the Navigation Act, has passed for the benefit of
British shipping. The second bill (he said) would
consolidate the law with respect to registry and measurement,
abolishing the registry ticket, and introducing the
greatly improved system of measurement known as
Captain Moorsom's;—also with regard to the discipline
of crews under the master; with regard to safety in
better securing the certified competency of masters in
the home as well as the foreign trade, and inquiry into
accidents with the local assistance of the Trinity Board;
and also with regard to lights and pilotage. He
proposed to appropriate a small sum from the Board of
Trade funds for the purpose of organising the life-boats
on the coast, so that more life might be saved. Mr.
Cardwell reported that the recent changes in the
Navigation Laws had worked well; not realising the
apprehensions of overwhelming foreign competition. Wages
are higher than ever, and freights higher: there are not
enough British ships for the purposes of the coasting
trade; while fleets of foreign ships enter the Tyne in
ballast. Last year, 190,000 seamen left the ports of the
kingdom; and during the first three months of the
operation of the new manning clause there were only
2,500 foreign seamen. And our shipping trade and
commerce increased by £2,282,639 in 1851, by £2,564,429
in 1852. It was on such grounds, that, after mature