§ The report of the committee on the Message of the Prince Regent, relative to the grant to lord Lynedock, was received and agreed to, and leave given to bring in a Bill accordingly. The report on the Message respecting lord Hill was brought up. On the question that the resolution of the committee be agreed to.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he was sorry to have to make any observations respecting the proposed grants in the thin state in which the House then was. He was happy to have prevailed with his Majesty's ministers to consent to tender the annuity per- 1035 petual; but he thought that it was, in the case of lord Hill, still inadequate to the support of the dignity to which it was attached. In the case of lord Lynedock, there was a paternal estate of some amount, which went to the support of the dignity. Lord Hill had no advantage of this kind, and being one of 13 children, of whom five had distinguished themselves in the service of their country, and one of whom had lately died leaving seven children, could expect no addition to his fortune from his family estate. The pensions granted to meritorious officers were much reduced since the union with Ireland. Before that time, when officers were made peers, it was customary to vote them 2,000l. a year from the English Exchequer, and half as much from the Irish. This was the case in the instance of admiral Rodney, who was at the time supposed to be opulent. Lord Hill had served the country from his earliest youth—in Toulon, in Egypt, and in Spain; and he hoped the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Bathurst) would consent to a postponement, as he should not propose any alterations in the grant in the thin state in which the House then was.
§ Mr. Bathurstlamented that the observations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) were not heard by more members. He thought the apportionment of pensions to officers, on account of their private circumstances, a matter of great delicacy. The House, however, should be informed, for its satisfaction, that the amount of the grant proposed to lord Hill had been fixed with the consent of his family, although their moderation should not prescribe limits to the liberality of the House.
Sir John Nicholisaid, the peerage was the reward for the service, and the annuity the means of supporting it. Two thousand a year seemed utterly insufficient. Under the peculiar circumstances, the matter was worthy of farther consideration.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwas sure there was no expence this country would bear with so much pleasure, as the providing for those who had procured by their skill and valour such great public benefits. He instanced the cases of lords Rodney, St. Vincent, and Duncan, who had grants both on the English and Irish establishments.
§ Mr. Babingtonspoke in favour of an increase; which, in his opinion, would not be too much if extended to 5,000l.
§ Sir James Mackintoshalso spoke in favour of an enlarged grant. He was of opinion, 1036 that grants given in reward for merit, and in support of dignity, should be sufficient to enable the receivers to occupy as distinguished a rank in society as those held who inherited fortunes from their ancestors.
Mr. Wynnthen begged Mr. Bathorst to consent to a postponement; which the latter objected to, as he had no authority to give such consent, and as an addition to the grant would be possible in another stage of the Bill.
§ The Speakergave his opinion, that it would be disorderly to introduce any increase crease of the grant in the progress of the Bill, without a new Message, Committee, and Report.
§ Mr. Bathurstthen consented to a postponement. The consideration of the Report, as also the Report on the Message respecting lord Beresford, was fixed for Wednesday; to which day the House adjourned.