HC Deb 26 March 1830 vol 23 cc945-58

The Vote for the sum of 174,584l. 9s. 4d. to defray the Superannuations granted to Commissioners, Clerks, &c. formerly employed in the civil departments of the Navy, gave rise to the following debate.

Sir R. Heron

said, he hoped that, in proposing the Motion of which he had given notice, he should not be deemed to trespass improperly or unnecessarily on the time of the Committee, while he made a few observations. In the first place, he would say, it was not his fault that the Motion had not been brought forward at an earlier period. He had given many successive notices of his intention to bring the matter under consideration; but circumstances had prevented him from introducing it sooner. He considered the proposition which he was about to submit to the Committee as one of very considerable importance; but he feared that its consideration would not be enhanced in consequence of the subject being taken up by so humble an individual as himself. He observed in the Estimate which they were now called on to vote, the names of two individuals, the Hon. R. Dundas and the Hon. W. L. Bathurst, to the former of whom was granted a pension of 500l., and to the latter a pension of 400l., making a total charge of 900l. on the country. This charge he wished to have disallowed by the House. The former of those gentlemen was a reduced Commissioner of the Navy, the latter was a reduced Commissioner in the Victualling department. The column in which the time of service was usually marked was in those two instances left blank, and he concluded that this gave a very proper and significant description of the services of those gentlemen, for if not nil, essential they certainly had not been. The situations appeared to have been created purposely for the parties; and shortly after they were appointed to them the offices were abolished. Then these pensions were created. They had heard much of the constant assiduity and labour which Ministers showed in considering what places and pensions could be abolished without detriment to the public service; and he for one acknowledged that he was somewhat astonished when he found that the amount of saving effected by all this anxiety was a little more than 1,000,000l. a year. If they were to rely only on the assiduity of Ministers to curtail the expenditure, he must say, that he thought the case desperate when he saw these pensions granted in the last year. In speaking of those pensions he knew very well that the sum of 900l. was a mere trifle in the expenditure of the country; but a grant, though small in amount, might be monstrous in principle. To those young gentlemen he imputed no blame; the blame must fall on the Ministers, and on two of them particularly—he meant the fathers of those individuals. It was well known that they were noblemen who for a great number of years occupied, with little intermission, some of the most important and lucrative situations in the Government. Viscount Melville, at the present moment, presided as First Lord of the Admiralty, and Earl Bathurst was now Lord President of the Council, one of the Tellers of the Exchequer, and Joint Clerk of the Crown. Their grandfathers were also men of high consideration. One of them for many years filled the situation of Lord High Chancellor of England, and the other was a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, holding places which produced great emoluments, and performing services which were rather equivocal. Now, that these gentlemen, gorged with the public money, should require for their families, or even condescend to accept such miserable pensions, and that too at a time of public distress, did appear to him, and he would not shrink from expressing his opinion, neither would he state it more harshly than the case required, but it did appear to him to be paltry. Though, abstractedly considered, these pensions might seem small, yet they appeared very large when they were compared with the remuneration of a vast number of persons whose services had been most brilliant, and whose exertions had added to the greatness of the country. He would take the liberty of naming two of those individuals, and he had not the least hesitation in naming them, for they were men who could not be mentioned without awakening recollections of national glory, and exciting feelings of admiration and gratitude. They were Admiral Bowen and Admiral Barlow—the one twenty years, the other somewhat less than twenty, in the civil service of the navy,—the former had a pension of 500l. the latter a pension of 450l. per annum. It was true, indeed, that Admiral Barlow had his half-pay in addition to his pension of 450l. To Mr. Dundas a pension of 500l. was granted; but he believed that he held the situation of Commissioner for a very short time; and during the time he held it, if he mistook not, that gentleman was engaged on two diplomatic missions. ["No, no," from the Ministerial benches.] He was employed at least on one; but if he recollected accurately, he had gone to St. Petersburg with the Duke of Devonshire on one mission, and with Lord Heytesbury on another. He would next call the attention of the House to that meritorious officer Sir Thomas Foley, who had his half-pay of 750l., and Sir Thomas Hardy, the captain of the great Nelson, who had 450l. per annum. These were men who had served their country in every climate, and who had asserted her honour in many a bloody action. The places given to Mr. Dundas and to Mr. Bathurst were places held during pleasure. It was, therefore, perfectly in the power of his Majesty's Ministers to dismiss them with or without pension, according to the service which they had performed. But what must the people think of the professions made by Ministers when pensions like these were granted,—pensions that were without precedent,—pensions for which no adequate service had been rendered? Now he would ask, on what ground was it possible that these pensions could have been given? Could the act be defended on the ground of custom? He believed not; but even if it could, he was not aware of any abuse in existence that might not be defended, certainly not justified, on that ground. He would ask, what was the use of boasting of alleviating the sufferings of the people, when pensions such as these were allowed? These individuals were first improperly placed in these situations, and, when they were removed from them, they were with equal impropriety pensioned on the country. By such a system, a number of persons belonging to that noble profession, the Navy, who had infinitely higher claims to office, and were at least equally calculated to act in office, were excluded from beneficial employment; for he would say, that no young men were better educated for all useful purposes than those who entered the navy now were. He really hoped and trusted, that the Members of that House would, this night, by their vote, put an end to such a lavish and improper use of the public money. He trusted, that in this case, at least, they would show some fellow-feeling for their constituents, and prove that they were anxious to represent their wishes and to relieve their wants. He would say nothing farther on the subject, except by repeating his opinion, and it was a strong one,—that the grant and existence of these pensions were highly improper, and that the conduct of those who acquired them for their families, who had no just claim on the public, and who could not possibly want them, was such as he could not denominate otherwise than as paltry. In his mind also, Ministers, in allowing giants of this nature, were guilty of a mockery of the public distress. He then moved, "That the proposed grant of 174,584l. 9s. 4d. should be reduced by deducting from it the sum of 900l.

The Question having been put,—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

begged to assure the hon. Baronet that he was not one of those who imputed blame to him for the delay that had taken place in bringing on the present discussion—he was aware that the delay had been occasioned by an unwillingness to impede the public service by interposing unnecessary obstacles to the progress of the estimates. He felt anxious to address the Committee on this particular subject, because he thought the hon. Baronet laboured under an erroneous impression, in which in all probability other hon. Members participated, as to the conduct of the Treasury in giving its sanction to this Vote being submitted to Parliament. He thought he should best satisfy the Committee by stating the circumstances of the case, and the grounds on which the Treasury had proceeded in this particular instance, laying aside, as he intended to do, much of the extraneous matter which the hon. Baronet had introduced in the course of his speech. He said "extraneous," because he did not conceive it to be his duty, in considering cases of superannuation such as the present, to examine whe- ther the ancestor of an individual had been Lord High Chancellor of England, or had held a high office in Scotland; it was not his duty to decide cases by the pedigree of individuals. The Treasury had dealt with these cases by a reference to considerations which would have applied equally to the lowest or the highest person in the King's dominions, and he was not conscious of any error in having done so. The present discussion arose from a considerable reduction which Government thought it their duty to make in the civil department of the navy. Two Commissioners of the Navy Board, and one Commissioner of the Victualling Department had been reduced. It appeared proper to select the two persons in question for reduction: one of the gentlemen, who was a Commissioner of the Navy Board, was appointed to an office then vacant, consequently the charge of his salary as a Commissioner was extinguished without deduction on account of allowance. There remained the other two Commissioners whose names had been introduced on this occasion to be dealt with, and their cases were brought before the Treasury. As to the precise nature of the services of these individuals, he was not prepared to answer. He thought it rather unfortunate that the length of their service had not been stated in the Estimate, but he believed that their service was of about four years' duration, the appointments having taken place in 1825. In considering these cases, the Treasury felt bound to adhere to the principle on which, upon the reduction of Boards at former times, officers had received allowances. Here he might observe, that offices of this description, although, technically speaking, held during pleasure, were always considered as granted for the life of the party, or during good behaviour. The reductions in the members of the Revenue Board had been considered on the same ground as the present, and the Treasury proceeded on the principle of effecting a considerable saving in the public expenditure by the removal from office of several persons, who, be it remembered, had embarked in their several employments with the idea that their situations were to be permanent. The Treasury was the more disposed to adopt this view of the case, because persons embarking in such offices frequently abandoned some profession which they had previously embraced, and lost those opportunities of advancement which they would otherwise have had in their several professions. These two gentlemen were precisely in that situation. Mr. Bathurst, although called by the hon. Baronet a very young gentleman, had been a considerable time at the bar [a laugh. He really did not see what there was to attract hon. Gentlemen's laughter in the circumstance of a Gentleman pursuing an honourable profession. It might appear ridiculous to some hon. Members; but to him it seemed an honourable path for a man to pursue, whatever might be his rank in life. Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Dundas, who had both embarked in different professions, abandoned them on being put into the situations of Commissioners of the Navy, and the principle of compensation and allowances when reduced, applied perfectly to them. The commissioners who were appointed several years ago to inquire into several of our public establishments, with a view to reduction, recommended an allowance of two-thirds of the usual salary, where the service had been for a less period than twenty years, and three-fourths where the period of service extended to more than that time. In looking at other cases of reduction, where it was recommended to abolish inferior offices, and where allowances of an inferior rate were granted, it appeared that persons holding subordinate offices in the Customs for a less period than ten years were to have half their salary, and those who had served longer were to have two-thirds. Now the Treasury, in dealing with the present cases, did not avail itself of the rule laid down with respect to commissioners and high officers removed from the public service, but looked to the lowest scale that applied to subordinate offices. Besides, the Treasury insisted that the Admiralty should appoint these two gentlemen (who had been so reduced) to offices as they became vacant, in order to relieve the country from the charge of their allowances. If the Treasury were to be guided by the rule antecedently adopted, it could not decide differently in similar cases, according to the rank of the parties, and it was fully justified in submitting the present vote to the Committee. Let him advert to one circumstance, which at least showed that there was no wish to benefit particular individuals in the present instance, but that the object was to effect ft saving in the public expenditure—what would have been more easy than to have made this arrangement on the footing of former arrangements of a similar nature, and taking as objects of reduction persons who had served longer than these individuals, to have granted a larger allowance to them, and to have still retained these two gentlemen as commissioners at their full salaries. This was on the supposition that the Treasury was inclined to do what was incorrect—but it had acted differently, and solely with a view to public advantage. In the other case, Ministers would have imposed a heavier charge upon the public, but the present course showed that they had a bonâ fide intention to advance the public service, and pay the utmost attention to principles of economy. He had stated the history of the transaction, and trusted the House would consider it on the same principle as any other similar case. If gentlemen had the fortune or the misfortune to be born of honourable families,—if their ancestors had distinguished themselves in the service of the public, he confessed he could not see, either in the circumstance of their families, or of the services of their ancestors, any thing to disentitle those gentlemen to the fair consideration which the House would be prepared to afford in another case.

Sir G. Clerk

observed, that whatever blame was imputable on the ground of the omission of the length of service of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst in the Estimate attached to him; it was intended that the period of these gentlemen's services should appear, and the hon. Comptroller of the Navy had brought him a copy filled up with these items, but, owing to a mistake of his own, a rough copy in which they were omitted had been brought down.

Mr. C. Wood

was of opinion, that the transaction in question was blameable; but at the same time thought, that the fault did not attach to any particular member of the Cabinet, but to Ministers generally, for sanctioning a vote which involved a most extraordinary principle of superannuations and allowances. Although it did not appear on the Estimates what had been the length of service of these two gentlemen, it was stated that it did not exceed four years. Was that, he asked, a fair period of service for which to grant an allowance? This was to extend the terms of the Act of Parliament under which superannuations were granted, and involved an unjustifiable departure from its principles. It had been said, that these gentlemen had given up professions and embarked in these offices for life to the exclusion of other prospects. Unfortunately, however, for this statement, we found one of the gentlemen, subsequently to his appointment as Commissioner, accepting a diplomatic situation [hear, and cries of "No"]: at least he gave up his office, and accepted a situation in a diplomatic mission, and now he was to be compensated for the loss of an office to which he could not be fairly said to devote his time, having been put into another situation. When he looked at the enormous amount of superannuations, he thought the Committee would not be justified if it did not mark by its vote the utmost reprobation of this transaction. Within three years of 1810, the amount of superannuation allowances had doubled. Between 1810 and 1815, the superannuation allowance to the officers of the Customs alone had increased from 29,000l. to 100,000l. Notwithstanding the Act of 1824, and the expressed opinion of the House of Commons, superannuations had increased since that time from 384,000l. to 488,000l. With such an example before them, it would be a gross neglect of duty if the Members did not oppose the vote.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, he had heard with astonishment the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, charge the hon. Baronet with introducing extraneous matter into his statement. Never was there a more plain unvarnished tale than that of the hon. Baronet. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was full of extraneous matter. The right hon. Gentleman said, that in his opinion the case of the highest and the lowest individual ought to be considered on the same principle, or simply in reference to the circumstances of it. He hoped it always would be so. But pensions and allowances ought to be granted for public services, and casualties, and what could the committee say when it found pensions of 400l. and 500l. granted to individuals, for what?—for doing nothing at all. The hon. Member proceeded to say he had submitted a memorial of the strongest nature to Government with respect to an individual of unimpeached character, who was eighty-four years of age, and had served thirty years in the army, applying for an addition of a paltry sixpence a-day to the allowance of this highly respectable individual—and what answer did he receive? That no additional grant could be afforded. And why? Because this person had been worn out in the public service. Here, however, were two hon. gentlemen of noble descent, the sons of members of a ministerial party, and they got 900l. a year for having done nothing. By the way, if they had not been sons of Ministers, perhaps they would not have obtained their allowances just so readily. The hon. Member went on to read the memorial of serjeant Duncan Macdonald. It stated that the petitioner was an Out-pensioner of Chelsea Hospital; that he had been seventeen years in the 66th regiment of foot, and had served five years in the West Indies; and that he was thirteen years drill serjeant of the South Lincoln Militia. [Laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh at this mention of an old constitutional force, which it was the fashion to treat with contempt in that House, notwithstanding we might one day want it. The hon. and gallant Member again referred to the memorial, which stated, that memorialist was eighty-four years of age, and in a slate of blindness, and prayed for some further allowance. The hon. Member then read the answer to the memorial, in which it was stated, that the petitioner had been discharged in consequence of being worn out in the service, and not for the disabilities of which he now complained; and on this ground that he was not entitled to an increase of allowance, having received his full share at the period of his discharge. Here was an individual worn out, after a service, not of four, but of seventeen years, and yet he was refused an addition of 6d. a-day, while these gentlemen had 900l. a-year between them. He felt that he was discharging his duty in what he was saying, and while he was assured of that, the smiles or the frowns of the House were alike indifferent to him.

Mr. Hobhouse

said, that whatever opinions might be entertained in the House upon this subject, there was but one opinion upon it out of doors. It might be unfortunate that the period of these gentlemen's services was omitted; it might be unfortunate that they were the sons of Cabinet Ministers; it might be unfortunate that they held other places; but of this he was quite sure,—namely, that all these unfortunate circumstances made it also very unfortunate that these pensions should have been granted. It was quite impossible that these appointments could be defended; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not defended them; the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) would not defend them. Indeed, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking, he thought he saw upon the cheek of the right hon. Secretary something like the blush of shame, which seemed to say, "A profligate case has happened once, but it shall not happen again; erubuit—salva res est." He thought it very creditable to the right hon. Secretary that he had not risen to defend this proposition. He knew nothing of these gentlemen personally, and he did not deal with the question personally; but he could not help seeing that one of them held a place of 1,000l. a year, and that the same gentleman had held another situation—that of Commissioner of Bankrupts. He did not mean to say, that there was any intention to create in this country what were formerly called in France "Ministerial families;" but he begged to ask, what the public would think when they found that men were placed on a level with persons who had performed great public services, merely because they happened to be sprung from certain ancestors. Such a system would and must discourage the servants of the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they had laughed because they found a scion of a noble house taking up an honourable profession. But they had not laughed at that, nor had they laughed at a noble scion abandoning that profession. What they had laughed at, but what the country would be indignant at, if these votes were passed, was, that noble scions who could not get briefs at the bar, managed to get themselves pensioned by the public. He would venture to say that never had any Government before received so much independent support as the present Government had received; but that support must cease when it was found that the pension-lists were filled with the sons of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir G. Clerk

begged to call the attention of the Committee to the real question before it; that question was, whether there was any thing in the situations of these gentlemen which ought to induce the House to refuse in their case what they would not refuse in similar cases. There was no instance in which persons removed in consequence of the abolition of offices bad been denied some remuneration. Such was the present case. The allowance, moreover, was purely of a temporary nature; for these two persons were to be appointed to the first civil situations which should fall vacant in the naval department.

Colonel Dundas

said, that he should not have intruded himself upon the House but for the unnecessary personality in which the hon. Baronet who brought forward the subject had thought proper to indulge. [Cries of "no, no,"] No! Why, the hon. Baronet had described the gentleman to whom he alluded as the son of a noble Lord who held office, and as the grandson of another noble Lord whom he called a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, who had performed somewhat equivocal services. Now it was impossible to mistake the allusion which the hon. Baronet intended to convey by the words "equivocal services;" but he thought that he might confidently appeal to the result of the circumstances to which the hon. Baronet alluded, as a complete answer to the calumny. In describing the noble Lord—for whose memory he could not but feel the deepest respect—as having been a Viceroy in Scotland, the hon. Baronet had only given him an occasion to say, that he was proud of such an ancestor. The support which that noble Lord received from the people of Scotland during his life-time, and the monument which had been raised to his memory in that country since his death, were sufficient proofs of the estimation in which his noble ancestor was held in Scotland.

Mr. Maberly

said, that this question had been argued as though the vote were one of course, whereas it was clearly subject to the determination of the House. He hoped, however, that the vote of that night would establish the fact, that no person should have a pension who had not performed actual services.

[Sir R. Heron and Mr. Peel rose together, but the latter gave way.]

Sir R. Heron

, in explanation, begged to say, that when he called the late Lord Melville a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, he alluded to an office and to duties which no longer existed. As to the expression "equivocal services," he could assure the hon. Member, that he had no intention of hinting at the circumstances to which the hon. Member had alluded. Indeed, that circumstance never once entered his mind. But his meaning was, that the late Lord Melville belonged to a particular party, and his services, however approved by that party, were equivocal to the rest of the nation.

Mr. Peel

said, he was glad he had given way to the hon. Baronet, whose explanation, he was sure, must be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman who had expressed himself on the subject with a degree of warmth that the circumstances undoubtedly justified. The hon. Member for Westminster was mistaken in supposing that he disapproved of the proposition; but he could assure that hon. Member, that he was not insensible to the value of that independent support which, the hon. Member truly said, the present Government had received. Most sorry should he be to lose such support; and never, to the latest day of his existence, could he forget the conduct pursued by the Gentlemen on the other side of the House on the great measure of last Session. The manner in which the Gentlemen opposite gave their support to the Government at that time could never be forgotten by him; and he thought that the conduct pursued by those Gentlemen on that occasion reflected the highest credit on the political parties of this country. With respect to the present proposition, he agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last as to the nature of it. It was only a proposition made by the Government, which the House would reject or allow as it thought fit. It was a mere estimate, which, if the House thought improper, it would be its duty to reject. He begged of hon. Members, however, to consider what the real nature of the proposition was, before they came to a decision upon it. It was a proposition which arose out of a revision of the establishments of the country which the Government had thought it their duty to make. The course which had been pursued in this case by his Majesty's Ministers had been to take away the youngest officers, and instead of a salary of 1,000l. to give them 450l., until some' other employment offered for them. But the main question was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers in the measure, and he would read to the Committee the official correspondence which had taken place respecting it. The right hon. Gentleman here read the following letters:— "Admiralty Office, March 20th, 1829. SIR—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that their Lordships have given directions for praying New Patents for the Navy and Victualling Boards, the effect of which will be the immediate reduction of two members of the former, and one of the latter Boards, and the further reduction of a third Member of the Navy Board, on the death, removal, or resignation, of Mr. Tucker or Sir Robert Seppings, the present Joint-Surveyors of the Navy. The two Commissioners of the Navy who are reduced are Captain J. M. Lewis and the Hon. Robert Dundas, the former of whom will be appointed to Sheerness and Chatham Yards, in the room of Commissioner Cunningham, who retires; and the reduced Commissioner of the Victualling Board is the Hon. W. L. Bathurst. My Lords command me to request you will state this arrangement to the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, and inform me whether their Lordships are of opinion that any retired allowance, and to what amount, should be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst on the abolition of their offices, which have usually been deemed hitherto as held during life or good behaviour. Mr. Dundas has held the office four years, having been one year previously attached to the British Embassy at Madrid and Lisbon; and Mr. Bathurst has held his situation nearly four years. Their Lordships think it right to add, for the information of the Lords of the Treasury, that Mr. Dundas is eligible to two of the reserved Commissionerships of the Navy; but that as all the members of the Victualling Board, except the Chairman, are professional, Mr. Bathurst would not be eligible to any seat at the Board, unless as Chairman. I am, &c. (Signed) "JOHN BARROW. The Hon. J. Stewart, Treasury. Treasury Chambers, April 30th, 1829. SIR—Having laid before the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury your letter of the 20th ult., respecting the amount of superannuation allowance to be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst, on their removal from the Navy and Victualling Boards, in consequence of the reduction in the numbers of the Commissioners of those respective Boards, I am commanded by my Lords to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords of the Admiralty, that they observe with satisfaction that their Lordships have made an arrangement for employing in another situation Captain F. M. Lewis, one of the reduced Commissioners of the Navy, and have thus superseded the necessity of raising any question as to any provision for him. And my Lords have no doubt that the Lords of the Admiralty will be equally anxious to adopt a similar course with respect to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst; and my Lords, therefore, consider that any allowance to be made to them is purely of a temporary nature, to continue only during the period which may elapse before they can be again employed in some civil situation connected with the Civil De- partments of the Navy. My Lords, therefore, see no objection to assigning to them a temporary allowance of one-half of their respective salaries from the period when they ceased, being the proportion allowed to other officers reduced on abolition of their respective offices, under the Minute of this Board of February 2nd, 1825, it being distinctly understood, that Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst are to succeed to the first situations which may be at the disposal of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, for which they may be qualified. I am, &c, (Signed) "J. STEWART. Those letters showed, the right hon. Gentleman went on to observe, that these allowances were in conformity to the rule of former Governments; they were not the result of any special rule of the existing Government, nor any job. The rule might be wrong, but it was established long before. It did not originate with his noble friend the Duke of Wellington and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was established when Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderich were in office. The Treasury Minute of February 2nd, 1825, referred to in the letter he had read, related to the Board of Customs; and the rule it laid down was, that the Lords of the Treasury would grant to those officers who had not served ten years, one half of their official salaries. The general rule was the material point of the question; and it was a positive hardship on the sons of Cabinet Ministers, that they only should be liable to animadversion when they are treated according to this rule. The Committee would allow he had not attempted to bias its opinion by any appeal to the passions; but he must say, that considering the difficulties attending the making reductions, it was not quite right to embarrass the Government when it attempted to effect them. He hoped he had said enough to convince the House that his Majesty's Ministers had not been influenced by any corrupt motive in this transaction.

Lord Althorp

observed, that the House had a right to investigate all the circumstances of these pensions, which, in his opinion, ought not to be granted.

The question being loudly called for; the Committee divided, when there appeared—for the Amendment 139; against it 121; Majority against Ministers 18.

List of the Majority.
Althorp, Lord Benett, J.
Acland, Sir T. Blandford, Marquis
Attwood, M. Bernal, R.
Baring, Sir T. Langston, J. H.
Baring, F. Lambert, J. S.
Byng, G. Lester, B.
Brownlow, C. Lennox, Lord G.
Blake, Sir F. Lumley, J. S.
Burdett, Sir F. Martin, J.
Buck, L. Maberly, J.
Bentinck, Lord G. Maberly, Col.
Bright, H. Monck, J. B.
Birch, J. Marjoribanks, S.
Barclay, C. Milton, Lord
Barclay, D. Marryatt, J.
Burrell, Sir C. Macdonald, Sir J.
Bankes, H. Nugent, Lord
Batley, C. H. Ord, Wm.
Carter, J. Osborne, Lord F.
Colborne, N. R. O'Grady, Col.
Cholmeley, M. Powlett, Lord W.
Clive, E. Protheroe, E.
Cavendish, W. Phillimore, Dr.
Cavendish, Hon. H. Price, Rt.
Cavendish, C. Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Cotterell, Sir J. G. Pallraer, N.
Calthorpe, Hon. F. Palmer, C. F.
Clifton, Lord Palmer, R.
Davies, Colonel T. H. Parnell, Sir H.
Du Cane, P. Peach, N. W.
Dundas, Hon. Sir R. Philips, Sir R. B.
Dundas, Hon. T. Philips, Sir G.
Dawson, A. Pendarves, E. W.
Davenport, E. Poyntz, W. S.
Duncombe, T. S. Ridley, J. M. R.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Rice, T. S.
Denison, J. E. Robinson, G. R.
Denison, W. J. Robinson, Sir G.
Dick, Q. Ramsden, J.
Egerton, W. Ramsden, J. C.
Ebrington, Lord Robarts, A. W.
Easthope, J. Rickford, W.
Euston, Earl Ramsbottom, J.
Ellison, Cuthbert Rumbold, C. E.
Encombe, Lord Sadler, M. T.
Ewart, W. Spence, G.
Fane, J. Stanley, E.
Fazakerley, J. N. Stewart, Sir M. S. B.
Fergusson, Gen. Sir R. Sibthorp, Col.
Fyler, T. B. Sefton, Lord
Farquhar, J. Smith, Ald.
Graham, Sir J. Thompson, Ald.
Grant, Hon. C. Thomson, C. P.
Grant, R. Townsend, Lord C.
Harvey, D. W. Trant, W. H.
Hobhouse, J. C. Uxbridge, Lord
Hume, J. Vaughan, Sir R.
Honeywood, P. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Heneage, G. F. Ward, J.
Hay, A. Western, C. C.
Hoy, J. B. Wilson, Sir R.
Howard, R. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Jephson, C. D. O. Wood, C.
Knight, R. Warburton, H.
Killeen, Lord Whitmore, W. W.
Kerrison, Sir E. Wilbraham, G.
Keck, Legh Webb, Col.
Knatchbull, Sir E. Whitbread, S.
Kekewich, S. Wetherell, Sir C.
Labouchere, H. White, S.
Lloyd, Sir E. Wynn, Sir W.
Wells, J. Rowley, Sir W.
TELLER. Wood, Ald.
Heron, Sir R. Howick, Lord
PAIRED OFF Stanley, Lord
Newport, Sir J. Phillips, Sir G.
Rancliff, Lord Portman, C. B.

On our return to the gallery, the Commitee were discussing the next item,- namely, 99,000l. for the works of the Dock-yards.

A conversation took place between Mr. Hume, Sir G. Clerk, Sir G. Cockburn, Sir M. W. Ridley, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Maberly, relative to the grant of 23,457l. for building a Naval Hospital at Malta, which was postponed.

Sir J. Graham

took that opportunity to give notice, that he should move for the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance when the Ordnance Estimates should be regularly brought before them.

The House resumed, Sir A. Grant reported progress, and the report to be received on Monday.

On the Motion of Mr. Maberly, were ordered copies of correspondence relative to the Naval Hospital at Malta.