PENSION TO SIR J. NEWPORT.

HC Deb 27 February 1840 vol 52 cc669-739

Mr. Liddell

said, that in rising to move the resolutions of which he had given notice, be must express his satisfaction, that on this question the Government seemed determined to show fight. For the champion they had put forward on this occasion he entertained the highest possible respect; but, at the same time that he expressed that respect, he could not compliment the noble Lord on the choice of his weapons, for an amendment more pointless or tame than that of the noble Lord he had never seen. Before he called the attention of the House to the resolutions which he had himself proposed, he mast beg leave to examine the amendment, so called, of the noble Lord. It concluded by stating— That it appears to this House that the right hon. Sir J. Newport, in his official capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, exerted himself to the utmost to restrain useless expences, to promote education, and to improve trade and intercourse between Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom; that while in the said office he directed, and after leaving office suggested, various inquiries which led to the adoption by Parliament of measures highly conducive to the better administration of the law, and beneficial to the revenue. That was put in a great number of words, but all it meant was, that during the time Sir John Newport held an official appointment in Ireland he had endeavoured to do his duty. It amounted to nothing more. Since the first discussion on this question he had taken the advice of the noble Lord, and had referred to those periods when Sir John Newport was in an official capacity in Ireland, and was now willing to admit, that he had no fault whatever to find with the right hon. Gentleman during the short period that he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in that country. The chief object, however, which he had affected was establishing the principle of a free intercourse of trade between Great Britain and Ireland. But Sir John Newport was not to found his claims to the approbation of this House on being the sole advocate of that measure. He was prepared to assert, that that question had been fully considered by those great men who had carried the union; and Mr. Pitt himself was long aware of the necessity of doing away with the restriction on trade between the two countries. Sir John Newport, therefore, had not followed out his own suggestions or that of the Government to which he belonged, but one which was almost self-evident, and had been deemed necessary ever since the period of the union with Ireland. The noble Lord's resolution went on to say— That after serving for five years in the honourable office of Controller of the Exchequer, being then upwards of eighty years of age, and afflicted with bodily infirmity, he withdrew from public life, respected for the unblemished integrity of his character, to pass iii retirement the remainder of his days. Now, that part of the resolution was not strictly correct. Sir John Newport had withdrawn from public life before he received the appointment of Controller of the Exchequer. In his last address to his constituents at Waterford, Sir John Newport said, that from bodily infirmity he was unable to perform the duties of a Member of Parliament, and he therefore withdrew from the representation; he then withdrew from public life, and yet subsequently received the office of Controller of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Liddell) had no hesitation in expressing his opinion, that the original appointment of Sir J. Newport to the responsible and effective and active office of Controller of the Exchequer, was an injudicious appointment, and not made in the true spirit of the Act of Parliament which created that office. On looking to that Act of Parliament, and to the debate which took place when the bill for that Act was introduced, he would say it was never intended, that the office then to be created was to be a sinecure office, but that, on the contrary, it was to be a highly active and responsible office. And to appoint to that office a gentleman at an advanced age, and who had previously retired from public life, was in its commencement injudicious and improper. The noble Lord's resolution then went on to say— That considering that Sir John Newport was not in affluent circumstances when he thus withdrew from office, this House is satisfied, that a grant of a pension to a retired Controller of the Exchequer in circumstances so peculiar cannot be drawn into a precedent in favour of persons who have not 'just claims on the Royal beneficence, and are not distinguished by the performance of duties to the public.' Now, the noble Lord might assume, that this grant of a pension to Sir J. Newport could not be drawn into a precedent, but he in his resolution went further, for he contended, that it ought not. He disputed the noble Lord's assumption. If the House took it for granted, it was begging the question, and he would warn them, that most assuredly it might, and would, be drawn into a precedent on future occasions. He would remind the House, as he had expressed it in one of the resolutions which he had the honour now to propose to them, of "the great importance of keeping the Controller General of the Exchequer independent of the influence of the Crown." If, then, a Controller of the Exchequer after a term of service was to be pensioned off according to the will of the then existing Government, he would ask the House what would become of the independence of the office? Was anything easier than that a future Controller of the Exchequer should apply to the Government, and say he was very anxious to retire, and to place at their disposal one of the most honourable offices under the Crown; and that, therefore, if according to the precedent established in this case, the Crown were willing to grant him a pension—which after this example he might have very just reason to expect—for the faithful performance of his duty, and the Government were willing to accept his resignation, they might appoint some other person in his place, but not allow him to retire without a pension? It was incumbent on the House to come to such a vote as would put all chances of such future jobbing out of the power of the Government. After noticing the latter part of the noble Lord's amendment, he had almost forgotten to refer to the former part of it; but he must say it required some little study to find out the enigma which that part contained. All he could gather from it was, that, let Parliament hold what language it pleased, and make what regulations they thought proper for the public service, even if an act were passed for the purpose by the Legislature of the country, means would still be found, if the will existed, for, he would not say corrupt, but a jobbing Government, to evade and set at nought those regulations which the House in vain attempted to impose. If there were any meaning at all in the first part of the noble Lord's amendment, it was that, if there were any further meaning in it, the noble Lord, and not he, was the person to unriddle it. Now, after having observed on the amendment of the noble Lord, he hoped he might be permitted to make some observations on the resolutions which he was about to propose. Those resolutions appeared to flow very naturally from the principle which he had attempted to lay down, and which he considered was embodied in the Act of Parliament referred to by him when this mat- ter was first brought forward. His first resolution was, That it appears that the said Comptroller-general filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland during the period of thirteen months only—namely, from the month of February, 1806, to the month of April, 1807. What was the warrant under which Sir John Newport had received his pension? The grounds on which his pension had been granted might be divided into two parts—the one, for zealous and efficient service rendered to the public during the period that he was out of office, and the other for similar service rendered whilst he was in office. He thought, that the House on the former discussion had given its assent to this great principle—that although some cases of necessity and exception might arise, yet to lay down as a principle that a mere public and Parliamentary life, independent of official service, ought to be rewarded with a pension, was most dangerous, especially considering the power of the Crown to grant pensions in these days. He thought, then, he was entitled to say, that in respect of his Parliamentary life, Sir John Newport was not entitled to a pension. As to his official service, let the House see on what ground the pension could be claimed. The act of 4 and 5 William 4th, c. 24, said, That no person is qualified to receive any pension on the ground of public duties performed in the highest offices of the state, unless he shall have continued in the performance of such duties for a period of two years at the least. And it was, therefore, perfectly clear, that Sir John Newport had no claim to a pension for the time he performed the duties of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland; as that period was only thirteen months. The right hon. Gentleman then came to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, and with respect to that office, one of his (Mr. Liddell's) resolutions went on to say, That it appears that it was also especially provided by the said act, 4 and 5 William 4th, c. 24, that the holder of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer should be precluded on his retirement from that office from all claims to any of the pensions which the Crown was thereby empowered to bestow for civil or political services. It was, therefore, perfectly clear, that for his service as Comptroller of the Exchequer Sir John Newport had no claim to a pension. He had thus divided the life of that right hon. Gentleman into his public and Parliamentary life, and his official life, and had shown, that for the former the House could not allow the principle of granting pensions, and that for the latter he was precluded from all claim to a pension by the act. But the Government said they admitted all this, and he therefore could only suppose, that this pension had been granted on what they considered as a positive claim, because the two negatives made an affirmative. He had already reminded the House of he great importance set forth indeed in the Act of Parliament itself, and recognised by them, of keeping the Comptroller of the Exchequer wholly independent of all possible influence of the Crown, and he would now go forward to that resolution which he was about to propose, and which referred particularly to the act of the 1st and 2d of Victoria:— That it appears, that provision was made in the act of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, c. 2, that the sum which her Majesty might be empowered to grant in pensions on the Civil-list in any one year should not exceed the sum of 1,200l.; and that, in conformity with a previous resolution of this House, such pensions should be granted to such persons only as might have just claims on the royal beneficence, or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts, had merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign, and the gratitude of the country. But this much he must say—as far as he could learn, by reference to the list of pensions granted since that resolution was passed, the spirit of that act of the 1st and 2nd of Victoria had been rigidly adhered to, and he believed, that no fault whatever could be found with the pensions which had been granted by the Crown since that time. He was, therefore, most anxious that the House should affirm the last resolution which he had the honour to propose. It was this:— That, considering all these circumstances, and more especially the great importance of keeping the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer independent of the influence of the Crown, as also of insuring a strict adherence to the spirit of the resolution of this House on the subject of Civil-list pensions, this House deems it expedient to express its decided opinion that the grant of 1,000l. a-year to Sir John Newport, under the warrant were mentioned, ought not to be drawn into a precedent. It was perfectly clear, that his resolutions were very mildly worded; but he considered it much safer and wiser, rather to understate than attempt to overstate the case which he wished to establish, and which he hoped the House would assent to. But, although his resolutions were so mildly worded, they called upon the House to recognise two great principles; the first, of keeping the Comptroller of the Exchequer independent of the influence of the Crown; and, secondly, to adhere strictly to the resolution they had passed on the subject of granting pensions. He brought forward this question on public grounds, on account of the principle and manner in which this pension had been conferred; but the noble Lord in his amendment had put the argument altogether ad misericordiam. To that part of the subject he had no wish to direct the attention of the House; he had no wish to exercise any sort of harshness towards the right hon. Gentleman, nor to withdraw from him the pension he enjoyed. On a question of this sort, when so much might be said concerning the question of pensions and the propriety of granting them, he had thought it right to look into the list of pensions granted since the resolution passed the House; and, as he had stated before, he saw in that list no reason to find fault. He conceived that the spirit of that resolution had been in all cases strictly adhered to; and, as far as he could judge, the individuals selected for those pensions had been eminently deserving of the favour conferred on them by the Crown. Among those names he found some that did honour to this, and would do honour to any other country; he found among them the names of Southey, Moore, Dr. Brewster, Miss Mitford, Miss Somerville, and several other eminent names. But there was one great name equal, if not superior, to any that he had mentioned, which he did not see in that list—the name of a man who had done more than any man who ever lived to open the heart to the most kindly influences of human nature, and to exalt it to the highest inspirations of poetry. He need hardly say that the name to which he alluded was that of Wordsworth. [An hon. Member: Mr. Wordsworth holds an office]. He was aware of that fact, and he had not brought forward Mr. Wordsworth's name by way of a reproach to the Government, but he must make one or two observations on the facts of the case. It was true that Mr. Wordsworth held a provincial office which afforded a tolerably respectable income, and an offer was made, undoubtedly in a spirit of kindness, and was received in the same spirit, to transfer Mr. Wordsworth's appointment to his son, and to place the name of Mr. Wordsworth himself upon the pension list. But the amount of the proposed pension was so much lower than that awarded to other persons of literary distinction, being, in fact, no more than 150l. a-year, that, although Mr. Wordsworth felt as little pride, perhaps, as any human being, a just and commendable self-esteem induced him to decline a provision by means of which his name would have appeared in the civil list in a situation inferior to those of other individuals whom he might, without vanity, consider not equal to himself. As he had already observed, he did not consider these facts as a reproach to her Majesty's Government, although it would have been a great satisfaction to him, as well as, he believed, to the House, to have seen Mr. Wordsworth's name placed on the same footing as those of other eminent literary men. Another instance to which he would advert, was one in which a small pension had been applied for on behalf of a person in humble life, but who was deserving of the highest praise and admiration. He referred to her with pride and satisfaction, because she was a fellow-countrywoman of his—he meant Grace Darling. Did hon. Members know the circumstances of the case? Did they know that this humble individual, residing on a barren rock, had, by her courage and determination, rescued no fewer than eleven of her fellow-creatures from destruction? Such an event could not take place without creating a great sensation in the neighbourhood of the scene where it occurred, and he knew that an application had been made for a small pension of 50l. a-year for life, for the female whose conduct was the subject of universal commendation. The application was not made because she needed to ask the public for means of support, she belonged to a family who were placed above want; but it was thought that a small pension might well have been so appropriated for the sake of example, espe- cially under the reign of a female Sovereign. However, the pension was asked and refused. These were two cases which certainly did appear to present favourable objects for Royal consideration, but to these two cases he did not refer for the purpose of reproaching the Government. There was, however, one more case which had been brought under his notice within the last eight-and-forty hours, and he believed a more melancholy narrative it never was the lot of any hon. Member to lay before the House; it would show how far her Majesty's Government was disposed to dispense equal justice to all classes of the community. In the year 1800, a gentleman named Horatio Leggatt filled a situation in the office of taxes; in 1820, the solicitor to the office having retired, Mr. Leggatt succeeded him in his office at a salary of 1,500l. a-year. In 1833, Mr. Leggatt, after thirty-four years of public service, without the slightest imputation upon his character, and after enjoying the confidence of successive Governments as solicitor to the Board of Taxes, was compelled to retire, owing to the consolidation of the Boards of Stamps and Taxes, upon a retiring allowance of 1,300l. a-year. While he filled his official situation he had a residence annexed to his office, the value of which to him and his family might be estimated at an additional 1,000l. a-year, and there were besides emoluments arising from the situation, which made it altogether worth about 3,000l. a-year. In 1838, this gentleman having suffered grievously in his mind from the embarrassment consequent upon the reduction of his income from 3,000l. a-year to 1,300l. with a family of six children dependent upon him for support, put a period to his existence, leaving a widow with a jointure of 300l. a-year for her support and that of her children, the eldest being seventeen, and the youngest only two years of age. Under these circumstances, Mrs. Leggatt memorialized first the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then the First Lord of the Treasury. One would have thought that this lady, the widow of a man who had for a whole term of thirty-four years, performed his duties to the satisfaction of the Government, might, under the circumstances of destitution in Which she was placed, have used successfully the argumentum ad misericordiam which the noble Lord who had moved the amendment to the present motion, had placed upon the votes. He held in his hand the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the application made on Mrs. Leggatt's behalf:— Downing-street, August 22, 1839. Sir,—I am desired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th, and to express his regret that your former communication should have remained unanswered. He directs me to inform you, that it will not be in his power to relieve Mrs. Leggatt in the object she has in view, as it does not belong to the business of his department to submit for Her Majesty's gracious consideration the applications that may be made for the grant of a pension. This duty, he desires me to add, is confined to the First Lord of the Treasury. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, W. Leake, Esq. "R. BOURKE. In consequence of this letter, Mrs. Leggatt applied to Lord Melbourne, from whom she received the following reply:— Downing-street, Sept. 5, 1839. Madam,—I am desired by Viscount Melbourne to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of August 30, and to inform you, that in consequence of regulations that have been laid down by the House of Commons with regard, to pensions, he is unable to comply with your request. I have the honour to be, Your obedient Servant, Mrs. A. Leggatt. "E. HOWARD. He wished to know whether this was equal justice? Could any one deny, that a just claim had been made out in this case for the gracious consideration of the Crown? Could any one deny, that if the First Lord of the Treasury could consistently with the regulations prescribed by Parliament have granted a pension in this case, he would have fulfilled a much more grateful task than that of carrying into effect what had been called, and would continue to be called, a job? He had brought forward these cases to show, that when a charge was made upon the pension fund absorbing five-sixths of its whole amount, there was no superabundance, no plethora of revenue, arising from the absence of claims upon the fund. He had now one word to say with respect to the noble Lord who lately filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now filled that of Comptroller. Who was it, that in his zeal for the public service (for to that alone his conduct must of course be attributed), and in despite of the great examples so often referred to on that side of the House, had moved for a select committee to consider the merits of all the existing pensions, and overhaul the claims of those placed upon the list? Who but my Lord Monteagle? ——Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur.

An hon. Member

It was a Government motion.

Mr. Liddell

But the Government selected the noble Lord to make out its case, and after doing that, he ought to have been the last man whom it should have chosen for this proceeding, which would never go by any other title than the Monteagle job, Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to get rid of the subject, and, without any disparagement to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would say, that whatever might be the noble Lord's qualifications as a financier, he possessed the power of making more of a bad case. He had seen the noble Lord extricate himself from situations in which his successor would be very likely to founder. The noble Lord now enjoyed his otium cum dignitate, in the peaceful and calm retreat of the Comptrollership of the Exchequer, where at length snugly moored, he laughed at the breakers from which he had just escaped, and listened to the murmurings of the distant storm. He wished the noble Lord health and happiness in his new office, and in that retirement which his social qualities were so well qualified to adorn; and, above all, he wished the noble Lord a complete independence from all influence on the part of the Crown. He would trouble the House no further; if his resolutions were, as they had been described, mild as milk, he hoped he should not see them diluted with water by means of the noble Lord's amendment. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following:— That it appears, by a copy of a warrant on the table of this House, that a pension of 1,000l. a-year, has been granted by her Majesty to the late Comptroller of the Exchequer on retirement from that office, on the ground of 'zealous and efficient services rendered to the public during a period of nearly half a century, in which interval of time he filled the offices of Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, and Comptroller-General of the Exchequer for the United Kingdom.' That it appears that the said Comptroller-general filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland during the period of thirteen months only, viz., from the month of February, 1806, to the month of April, 1807. That it appears, by reference to the Act 4th and 5th William 4th, c. 24 (by which the granting of pensions for political services was regulated), that no person is qualified to receive any pension on the ground of public duties performed in the highest offices of the State unless he shall have continued in the performance of such duties for a period of two years at the least. That it appears that it was also specially provided by the said Act, 4th and 5th William 4th., c, 24, that the holder of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, should be precluded, on his retirement from that office, from all claim to any of the pensions which the Crown was thereby empowered to bestow for civil or political services. That it appears that the person holding the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, now constitutes the sole check (in lieu of all others formerly existing under the ancient regulations of the Exchequer) on the expenditure of all public moneys issued through the Exchequer by the authority of the commissioners of the Treasury; and it is specially provided that he should be incapable of holding any other office under the Crown in conjunction with such comptrollership, and should be irremovable from his office, except in pursuance of an address from the two Houses of Parliament, this officer being thus withdrawn from the exercise of any influence of the Crown over him in the discharge of his functions. That it appears that provision was made in the Act of 1st and 2nd of Victoria, c. 2, that the sum which her Majesty might be empowered to grant in pensions on the civil list, in any one year, should not exceed the sum of 1,200l.; and that, in conformity with a previous resolution of this House, such pensions should be granted 'to such persons only as might have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts, had merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign and the gratitude of the country.' That, considering all these circumstances, and more especially the great importance of keeping the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer independent of the influence of the Crown, as also of ensuring a strict adherence to the spirit of the resolution of this House on the subject of civil-list pensions, this House deems it expedient to express its decided opinion that the grant of 1,000l. a-year to Sir John Newport, under the warrant before mentioned, ought not to be drawn into a precedent,

Viscount Morpeth

said: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for North Durham stated, in the beginning of the conclusive and crushing speech which he has just delivered, that he was glad the Government had mustered courage to show fight on this question. I would humbly remind him that this is not the first occasion on which the Government has been induced to show fight in the course of the present session. And, Sir, I look upon it as a matter of no small or mean congratulation to the administration of which have the honour to be an humble Member, that after an opposition to its principles, its measures and its existence has been formally announced, more keen, organised and determined than in any preceding year, and after we have heard it stated by authority, that those who carry on that opposition are ready and eager to oust us from our places, and substitute themselves in our stead—that the only topic in the wide range of all our domestic, our foreign, or our colonial policy, which they have selected for coming twice to the charge upon, is the pension which has been assigned to Sir John Newport. I must say that, after all the denunciations which have been thundered against us during the recess—as well as those which were bottled up for explosion after the opening of the session—I do feel relieved and reassured, to find that, of all our large misdeeds, this is the leading and crowning enormity. I do not wish to bandy epithets with the hon. Member for North Durham, with respect to the character of the resolutions which he has proposed, or the amendment which I wish to substitute instead of part of them. I can only say that, if my amendments are what he terms them, pointless and spiritless, anything better corresponding to the original resolutions I cannot well conceive. There is this difference, however, between our weapons, that while at all times some degree of point is expected in the spear with which an attack is to be made, we never look for it on the shield which is used for the defence, and which will be sufficient, in this case, if it can repel a pointless blow. With respect to the whole of that long string of resolutions which have just been moved by the hon. Member, they do seem to me to be of that colour and character that no man need feel much discomposed at the fate which may betide them. With respect to the greater part of them, as well as the considerations by which a case for them was attempted to be made, notwithstanding the terms of respect which the hon. Member has been pleased to speak of me, I cannot help designating them as most didactic twaddle. Notwithstanding the length to which the resolutions of the hon. Member ran, they do not yet seem to me to give a clear and full account of the subject with which they profess to deal. As the hon. Member has given a sort of historical review of the grounds on which pensions have been granted, in application to the case of the particular pension which he brings under our notice, I shall venture to suggest an addition of some particulars to his retrospect, and endeavour to clear up some of the grounds for the specific pension which is more immediately in question. With respect to the luminous resolutions of the hon. Member—the offspring of the great and united party opposite—I have to observe that all the first six, without pronouncing on the subject to which they lead, contain statements which no man could wish to contradict. For the most part, they are statements of plain, undisputed matters of fact. With the inference that is sought to be drawn from them, I shall presently have occasion to deal. For instance, with respect to the first resolution, we cannot wish to dispute the terms of the warrant for the pension of Sir John Newport, which we ourselves have laid, in pursuance of an act of Parliament, on the table of the House. We cannot wish to dispute the terms and conditions under which the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer is regulated. The sixth resolution of the hon. Member recites, and of course accurately, the terms and conditions under which grants of pensions are now regulated on the Civil List of the Crown. But with respect to what happened before on this question of pensions, it appears to me that the act containing the terms and conditions recited by the hon. Member, so far from embodying any new or unprecedented principles, did, in fact, only confirm and authorise anew the positive enactments of previous acts of Parliament. I have, therefore, thought it desirable to call the attention of the House, in the amendment of which I have given notice, to what has been enacted by previous acts of the entire legislature. The law under which pensions were granted by preceding governments, from 1782 to 1830, did not differ from that which has subsequently been in force. So far from it, I think if we refer to the terms of former acts we shall find that they give no foundation for the argument that the present Government has acted in contravention of regulations, which former Governments did not violate, because they did not then exist. Very many of the pensions which have been granted by preceding Governments, have been granted in contravention of the terms and conditions within which they ought to have been confined in accordance with acts of Parliament, and this was made manifest on the production of the list of pensions published at the request of the House for the information of Parliament and the country. In order to show what the previous regulations and understanding on which pensions ought to have been granted were before the adoption of the resolutions of 1834, and in order to point out the practice of preceding Governments who were in fact as much bound by the stipulations of enactments as the Government of which I am a Member can be bound by the words of the resolutions of the House of Commons, or by the enactment of the civil list of the present Queen, I propose to insert between the 5th and 6th resolutions of the hon. Member for North Durham the first resolution of which I have given notice. It recites:— That by an act of 22 George 3rd, c. 82, it was declared, 'And whereas much confusion and expense did arise from having pensions paid at various places, and by various persons, and a custom hath, prevailed of granting pensions on a private list during his Majesty's pleasure, upon a supposition that in some cases it may not be expedient for the public good to divulge the names of the persons in the said list, or that it may be disagreeable to the persons receiving such pensions to have it known that their distresses are so relieved, or for saving the expense of fees and taxes on small pensions, by means of which said usage, secret and dangerous corruption may hereafter be practised; and whereas it is no disparagement for persons to be relieved by the royal bounty in their distress, or for their desert; but, on the contrary, it is honourable, in just cause, to be thought worthy of reward,' &c.: That this limitation to persons in their distress, or for their desert, not having proved a sufficient check on the grant of unmerited pensions, this House, in the year 1834, entered into certain resolutions concerning pensions. I think it desirable, as the hon. Gentleman has gone into grounds of pensions, to show that if, in years preceding 1830, any pension was granted by preceding Governments on other grounds than for distress or desert, those pensions were granted in contravention of preceding acts of Parliament. The resolution which I have read I propose to add to those to which I have already adverted, as moved by the hon. Member for North Durham, for the purpose of clearing up his statement of fact. But the last resolution of the hon. Member contains the expression of an opinion. Accordingly, it is my intention to move, as an amendment to the last resolution, two resolutions, conveying also an expression of opinion, but of opinion differing from that contained in the resolutions of the hon. Member. The difference consists in this, that whereas the last resolution of the hon. Member states, "that the grant of 1,000l. a-year to Sir John Newport ought not to be drawn into a precedent," the resolution which I shall have the honour to move, affirms that the grant of that pension "cannot be drawn into a precedent in favour of persons who have not 'just claims on the royal beneficence,' and are not distinguished by the performance of duties to the public." Now, the hon. Member for North Durham stated, that the tenor of this resolution was, that this pension could not be drawn into a precedent. He entirely misconstrued and misinterpreted the meaning, which is, that this pension having been fully deserved, cannot be drawn into a precedent for future grants of undeserving pensions. But now, what are the grounds on which I rest my preference, and which I hope the House will rest its preference, for the opinions expressed in my concluding resolution over that expressed in the concluding resolution of the hon. Member for Durham? First I say, I have no wish but that every part of the case, that the whole transaction, should be looked at, and sifted in every possible light. If there is one conceivable point in the whole transaction on which I can imagine that a person determined to find fault might lay his hand, it is the period of life at which Sir John Newport was first appointed to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. I can imagine such an objection having been felt and having been stated. But I do not think, throughout the very candid and fair remarks made in a preceding discussion by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, that he at all questioned or censured the selection of Sir John Newport for the high and important office in question. But I can imagine such an objection having been felt and stated at the time. No such objection was stated at the time of the appointment. No such objection has been stated during the whole intervening period; no such objection is now stated, and I think, after the long acquiescence in it, none can fairly or properly be stated. The fact is, that none is now stated, implied, or conveyed, in the resolution, or by the hon. Member. With respect to ability in the performance of his duty while he held the office, no one who had observed the manner in which Sir John Newport discharged his functions, his constant and assiduous attention, would be inclined to call in question his competency, so long as he felt justified in retaining his office, and he retained it no longer. Before I address myself to anything stated directly in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I must refer to one or two points, which, though very convenient to leave open for insinuations, sarcasms, and innuendoes, he has not had the courage or the consistency to insert in his resolutions. The courage would certainly have been a great, but the consistency an object of desperate attainment. The hon. Gentleman has permitted himself to convey that the retirement of Sir John Newport took place in order to enable the present Lord Monteagle to succeed to the office. And he then pelted poor Lord Monteagle with many hard epithets, and some not very new quotations. Now, with respect to that, though covertly insinuated, though darkly stated, though not contained in the resolutions, and though the House is not directly called on to express an opinion that the retirement of Sir John Newport took place in order to effect the succession of Lord Monteagle to the vacant office, yet to that statement I have to give the most distinct and unqualified contradiction on the part of all the parties concerned in the transaction. If there is any one who disbelieves the deliberate assurance of such parties, I can only say that I leave them most cheerfully to the latitude, the felicity, and the pride of their scepticism. In the year 1838, Sir John Newport, feeling, from his increasing infirmities, the discharge of the duties of his situation irksome and uncomfortable to himself, ex- pressed from time to time to some Members of the Cabinet his disposition to be relieved from those duties. He was induced to consent to continue the possession of his office; but in the year 1839, being about to pay a visit to his native country, he solicited and obtained a personal interview with the first Lord of the Treasury, at which interview he placed the disposal of his office in the hands of Lord Melbourne. I have received the most distinct assurance that in the month of May last, if the right hon. Baronet opposite had succeeded in the formation of a permanent administration, he would have found the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer at his disposal. It is true that, on his return to the administration of affairs, Lord Melbourne did postpone accepting the resignation of Sir John Newport, and Sir John Newport did not give up the office till the end of the session. But so far from that retirement having the most remote connection with the succession of Lord Monteagle, not only was the office held by Sir John Newport offered, in the interval, to another person, but it is well known to many Members on this side of the House—it must be known to some on the other side—and can be known to none better than to yourself, Sir—that at that time, and for a long time after, the views of Lord Monteagle were centred on a totally different object. The hon. Member had stated that Lord Monteagle was one who was enabled to make, at all times, the most of a bad case. I regret that I cannot, upon this subject, return the compliment to the hon. Member. But, turning to his resolutions, I ask where are the grounds for the opinions which he endeavours to twist and torture into the last resolution that he has proposed. The first resolution is a matter of indisputable fact. The second and third resolutions say this:— That it appears that the said Comptroller-general filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland during the period of thirteen months only, viz., from the month of February, 1806, to the month of April, 1807. That it appears, by reference to the Act 4 and 5 Will. 4th, c. 24 (by which the granting of pensions for political services was regulated), that no person is qualified to receive any pension on the ground of public duties performed in the highest offices of the state, unless he shall have continued in the performance of such duties for a period of two years at the least. Now this is undoubtedly true. It is not pretended by any one that Sir John Newport had any title whatever to any retiring allowance or pension under the act which is there referred to, by reason of his official services; but then, whether he has not a fair claim to the favourable consideration of the Crown, by reason of his public conduct, whether in or out of office, that is a point which I shall consider in a moment. The two next resolutions go on to state— That it appears that it was also specially provided by the said Act 4 and 5 Will. 4th, c. 24, that the holders of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer should be precluded, on his retirement from that office, from all claim to any of the pensions which the Crown was thereby empowered to bestow for civil or political services." "That it appears that the person holding the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer now constitutes the sole check (in lieu of all others formerly existing under the ancient regulations of the Exchequer) on the expenditure of all public monies issued through the Exchequer by the authority of the Commissioners of the Treasury; and it is specially provided, that he should be incapable of holding any other office under the Crown in conjunction with such comptrollership, and should be irremoveable from his office, except in pursuance of an address from the two Houses of Parliament; this officer being thus withdrawn from the exercise of any influence of the Crown over him in the discharge of his functions. But what is it we are to infer from the two resolutions I have read to the House? Is it that the person who has tilled the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer is not only to be deemed as not entitled to any claim for a retiring allowance, or superannuation by reason of his tenure of that office, which is true to the letter, and which, considering the delicate and important nature of the office, as detailed in the resolution, is as proper as it is true; but is it also to be inferred that every person who has held that office in all times, if circumstances shall have compelled him to retire from the office, either by increase of years, or from a conscientious sense of his inability satisfactorily to perform the duties—is he, if there be other considerations, independent of his having held that office—circumstances connected with his former life, his former public services, and his present position and state of fortune—is he, if such circumstances render him as a fitting object for the bounty or favour of the Crown— is he to suffer because he has held the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, and be debarred from the exercise of the fair discretion of the Crown? I believe it is sufficient to say, that it was enacted by act of Parliament, that the person holding the office of Treasurer to the Ordnance should not be entitled to any superannuation allowance, by reason of his having held that office. And yet that circumstance did not prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, from giving a pension to Mr. William Holmes, who had filled that office, and, no doubt, upon considerations independent of the mere discharge of his duties in that office. In making that provision they did not bestow it, as it is given to Sir John Newport, a man at a very advanced age; but they gave a pension to Mr. Holmes's son, in the full bloom of youth and vigour of life, I do not, Sir, mean to question the propriety of that grant; but I only call attention to it, for the purpose of showing that the existence of a specific enactment in an Act of Parliament, that no one holding that office should receive a retiring allowance, did not prevent the preceding Government from making such a provision for such an I individual or his family, that individual having held such an office, if they thought that the circumstances of the case rendered it desirable that there should be an exercise of their discretion in his favour Then the question is—do the circum stances connected with Sir John Newport warrant us in the exercise of such a discretion in his case? It becomes my duly to inquire this, in reference to the 6th resolution moved by the hon. Member for North Durham, which recites the well-known resolution of this House. It is this:— That it appears that provision was made in the Act 1st and 2nd Vic, c. 2, that the sum which her Majesty might be empowered to grant in pensions on the civil list, in any one year, should not exceed the sum of 1,200l.; and that, in conformity with a previous resolution of this House, such pensions should be granted 'to such persons only as might have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts, had merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign, and the gratitude of the country.' The question that we have to deal with is this; to consider whether the case of Sir J. Newport brings it within the conditions herein specified? In addressing myself to this part of the case, I beg to observe that I refer to it, not as a case of sympathy or of feeling, but solely as a claim of public justice. If I were appealing to such an assembly, common to the hon. Member and myself, I might, perhaps, mention that Sir John Newport had the good fortune of having as fags at Eton, such distinguished men as Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville, and he obtained their respect and affection, which were ever continued during the busy period of his public life. I certainly do not mean to rely upon any such ground with this House. But, then, what has been the public career of Sir John Newport, which entitles him to that grant, and that public remuneration which he has now received. I shall state circumstances very plainly—I shall mention them perfectly unvarnished; for, unless the facts speak for themselves, any observation respecting them would be superfluous. Sir John Newport entered Parliament in the year 1804; he continued a Member of Parliament for thirty years. In the first year he succeeded in putting an end to the Union Compensation Commission, which was composed of five commissioners, who it was alleged, were obliged to sit once a-week, and who, I believe, really did nothing. In 1806, the only time in which he was in office, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland. In that year of the tenure of office by him, he either originated, or carried through, or laid the basis for many important measures, and of these, the most essential certainly was the bill opening the corn trade between England and Ireland, for, before that time, the corn trade between the two islands, was under as strict a system of law, as that of England with foreign countries. This restriction, whatever might have been the intention of Mr. Pitt in effecting it, Sir John Newport induced Parliament to repeal. What has been the result of that measure? That Ireland has become the granary of England—its productions annually increasing; and every year has seen marvellous additions to the agricultural improvement of that country; and from that time, too, it has afforded the most profitable market for the manufactured produce of England. It may be safely said, that no enactment has tended more directly to the safety and the very existence of the whole empire. In the year 1806, Sir John Newport having provided for the animal sustentation, had also the merit of providing for their mental instruction. In conjunction with the father of my noble Friend who sits near me, the late Duke of Bedford, he took the first steps towards the establishment of any good general system of education in Ireland. By his advice the first royal commission of inquiry was issued, and on the fourteenth report of that commission it was that the noble Lord opposite(Lord Stanley) founded his system of national education. It was on that inquiry the noble Lord's system was peculiarly founded. In 1806, Sir John Newport instituted an inquiry into the Customs, which terminated in the abolition of sinecure offices in that department. The succeeding year he was not in office; but he still persevered in bringing abuses before the public, which he was the means of correcting. In 1810, he brought forward and effected the correction of abuses in the Treasury and the Post-office, and was in those respects of great assistance to Sir G. Shee. He moved, too, for an inquiry into tithes, and through his means, there was a report as to the commutation of tithes. In 1814, he proposed and carried, in the face of a violent opposition, and after prolonged discussion, by a majority of one, his motion for a commission to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in England, Ireland, and Scotland; and, in doing so, he rendered the proceedings in courts of equity and of common law less burdensome and much more expeditious for the suitors. That was a step of the greatest importance, and the utmost value to the community at large. I have here a Parliamentary return which refers to Ireland, and the reduction of costs to suitors in that country; and shows that whereas previously the average establishment of the Court of Chancery was 75,000l., the saving has been 24,900l.; in the King's Bench the average establishment was 30,000l., the saving has been 17,000l.; in the clerks of the Pleas and the Exchequer the total average establishment was 28,000l., the saving has been 16,000l.; in the Court of Error the saving has been 400l.; and in the Judges' Registers the saving has been 3,500l. The saving on the whole completed by him amounts to 75,000l. in the courts of Ireland. During the whole of his career in Parliament, he never desisted from bestowing his earnest attention upon measures for the relief of the poor, and for removing the serious distresses that affect them in Ireland. In 1804, he brought forward the ease of the lunatic poor. In 1806, he mainly contributed to the improvement in houses of industry and hospitals; and in 1819 he drew up that admirable report on the state of disease which has led to the establishment of fever hospitals throughout that country. With respect to the Church of Ireland, though a zealous advocate for the reform of that church, no man was also more zealous for promoting its real efficiency and welfare. He introduced, suggested, or aided in carrying various acts of the Legislature for putting an end to the evils of non-residence, and the abuses of pluralities—the union of large parishes—the abolition of the vestry-cess—a taxation of the first fruits of dignities—were first brought forward by him. All the provisions of the Church Temporalities Bill were suggested and advanced by Sir John Newport. The grand jury laws, public works, the salaries of county officers, were all remodelled at his suggestion, direction, or advice. In short there was no subject of great national Irish policy—there was no one detail, however trivial, that concerned the local administration of that country, to which he did not give, while he had a seat in Parliament or out of it, his unwearied supervision and continual attention. Almost every internal measure of improvement was the consequence either of the direct interference, or the salutary suggestion, or the hearty co-operation offered by him, and willingly accepted on many occasions by the party to whom he was opposed. At all times that he had the opportunity he was ever ready, and ever anxious, to carry into effect every good measure. I have mentioned several of those measures for which we are indebted to the vigilant control exercised in this House by Sir John Newport. I may say truly, that his deeds followed him. I own that I do not regret, in the position is which I am placed, and bound as I am by duty, as I am impelled by feeling, to have at heart the welfare of Ireland, to be called upon thus to recount the advantages conferred on her by her venerable benefactor, and to pay to him living this tribute—not, I am glad to say, tardily to record his merits before the silent bust, bat to carry home the fame of his virtues across his threshold while he is living to receive it. It is contended by the hon. Member that being only one year in office, and having carried and assisted many measures, he was only discharging his duty in Parliament. The hon. Member for North Durham contends that the mere duties of Parliamentary life do not constitute a circumstance which can be regarded as a claim to the consideration of the Crown. Apply, then, this case to that of the illustrious countryman of Sir John Newport—Mr. Grattan. It is true that he received a magnificent provision from the Irish people; but suppose that no such grant had been assigned to that gentleman by the Irish people—will any man contend that though Mr. Grattan, who, it will be recollected, perseveringly refused to accept offices tendered to him at various periods of his Parliamentary career, for that reason, an administration who sympathized in his principles or revered his merits should be prevented from recommending him to the liberality of the Crown if circumstances called for it. Apply, then, the cases of Sir Samuel Romilly, and of Sir James Mackintosh—the greater part of whose lives and whose valuable services were given to the country in opposition. Look, also, to the pensions granted to the families of deceased statesmen, such as Fox, and Tierney, and Sheridan; and of whose lives the greater part, too, were passed in opposition. And let it not be told that official services should alone recommend gentlemen to the favour of the Crown. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth stated, when this subject was last debated, in a spirit of self-application which I could not admire, that great good can be done to the country by Members in the Opposition. I cordially agree in the sentiment. I wish that the claims of those who may have been in Opposition should obtain consideration. But then it was contended the other night, that if there be a claim arising from Parliamentary services, it ought to be decided by a vote recorded within the walls of Parliament. I own that that course seems to me to be the reverse of expedient. I apprehend that is the tendency of the resolution on the paper which is about to be moved by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The burdens of the country would, I believe, be greatly increased, if, in addition to the bounty of the Crown, there was also to be imposed on it the sums which this House might be inclined to grant. There would be the temptation to the canvassing parties in Parliament. It is true that pensions granted by the Crown on the civil list may call for the condemnation of Parliament; but the originating and canvassing for the proposal of pensions in Parliament would put matters upon a different footing, and would have a tendency to throw a misinterpretation and misconstruction upon the contests going on within the walls of Parliament itself. While the right hon. Baronet seemed to intimate his opinion of a grant for Parliamentary services being; arranged by the vote of the House of Parliament itself—while the right hon. Baronet intimated that Parliamentary services should be remunerated by pensions—the only instance adverted to was that of Mr. Burke, who, it is well known, did not receive his pension in consequence of a vote of the House of Commons, but was placed upon the civil list by the Crown itself. I gather, then, that the feeling of the House is rather to leave the responsibility to the ministers of the Crown, than to the votes of the Houses of Parliament. But then the hon. Member who has proposed these resolutions, seems to have thought that the sum of 1,000l. was too large a grant to be taken in one year from that limited amount assigned to the Crown to distribute in any one year. I do not think it wise or salutary, after you have so far limited the discretion of the Crown as to the amount of pensions, further to question that limited discretion within the bounds to which you have assigned it, provided it can be shown that the pension has not been bestowed on an unworthy object, and that it is within the limits and resolutions established and requisite. Does then the case of Sir John Newport answer these conditions? Is he or not a worthy subject for the bounty of the Crown? I challenge the name of any person that is now on the pension list, highly graced and honoured as that list is, and I say that there is no name on that list that can feel discredited or disparaged by Sir John Newport's being placed along side of it. I may also tell the House that there are some names on that list, which could not be so easily put in such advantageous contrast with Sir John Newport. I do not know, from the spirit in which this motion and the discussion are carried on, but that we may be driven into that department of the subject. But, at all events, at this period of the debate, the case of Sir John Newport and of my resolutions, as combating those proposed by the hon. Member, do not stand in need of reprisals, and I shall not stoop to the use of any such weapons. Does the case of Sir John Newport fall within the limits and restrictions laid down by Parliament—is he one of those who, by their personal services to the Crown, and by the performance of duties, have merited the generous consideration of the Sovereign, and gratitude of the country? I trust that I have already sufficiently demonstrated that the case of Sir John Newport comes within these restrictions. But part of the argument of the hon. Mover of the resolutions goes to this—that we are, by making such a grant, neglecting the just claims of other parties. I think that it is a very questionable thing to do—to canvass the merits of persons who have not received pensions from the Crown. I think that the hon. Gentleman but ill-consulted the dignity of Mr. Wordsworth by the use he made of his name on this subject. I am one who must always rejoice to see the names of persons who have distinguished themselves by useful discoveries in science, in literature, and the arts, placed upon the pension list. Grants of this nature were made in the limited administration of the right hon. Baronet; and the still more limited, the more highly to his praise. Through his means, the pension list contains the names of many eminent persons of this description. That list has subsequently been made by Lord Melbourne to contain the names of several more; and I do hope that succeeding pension lists may have many such honourable appointments. But then I do not think it expedient that the claims of gentlemen of science or of literature, should be thought to assume anything like a regular or stipendiary character. There is another class of cases to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted—the case of those who have entitled themselves to consideration, in their respect for those who have boldly battled for their country in many of its most distinguished contests. None, I admit, can be more fitting objects for the royal bounty. But if the pension list is to be restricted to the applications of such claims, at once you will see overwhelmed the limited restriction of the Crown. I do not think that the set- tlement of this subject was intended to answer any such purpose. I hope that all claims and all cases shall have, and in their turn receive, the fair and patient consideration of the Crown and the country. The hon. Member does not wish to examine into the services in Parliament of such a man as the great subject of these resolutions. He would remove from all consideration of the Crown, such a man as Sir John Newport. What, then, were the words of the amendments, which I have the honour of placing in your hands? They are these:— That it appears to this House, that the right hon. Sir John Newport, in his official capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, exerted himself to the utmost to restrain useless expenses, to promote education, and to improve trade and intercourse between Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom; that while in the said office he directed, and after leaving office, suggested various inquiries, which led to the adoption by Parliament, of measures highly conducive to the better administration of the law, and beneficial to the revenue; that after serving for five years in the honourable office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, being then upwards of eighty years of age, and afflicted with bodily infirmity, he withdrew from public life, respected for the unblemished integrity of his character, to pass in retirement the remainder of his days. I have had the good fortune of seeing him in that spot which he has selected for his retirement, and I can truly say, that he is one who closely answers the description of the great moralist and poet— Whose active days benevolence endears, Whose nights congratulatory conscience cheers, The general favourite, as the general friend; Such age then is, and who would wish its end? I do not impute to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he wishes the end of such a life. Heaven forbid I should impute any such wish to him! But it is because such is the tendency of the resolutions, that I have moved an amendment upon them—it is because I think that the tendency of those resolutions is to cast a cloud over the evening of his days, and to embitter the calm serenity of his parting hours—it is to counteract such a possible tendency, but at the same time to do justice to him, and to all parts of his life, that I now, Sir, put my amendment in your hands, to state that which the hon. Mover has truly said was the spiritless and pointless character of the resolutions he has moved.

Mr. Leader

did not complain, that the noble Lord had characterized the speech of the hon. Mover of the resolution as didactic twaddle, while he must say, that the reply to it might be truly characterized as official twaddle and misrepresentation. It was difficult to understand what was the distinction between the resolutions proposed and the amendment submitted to the House—the one said, that this ought not to be drawn into a precedent—the other said, it cannot be drawn into a precedent— Strange such a difference there should be 'Twixt Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The noble Lord had referred to the provision that had been made for Mr. Holmes. It was a strange mode of defending a Whig job to speak of a Tory job. What did the Whigs mean by doing this? It only showed how vain and unmeaning were their professions when out of office. Why were the people, he would ask, agitated, and the public mind disturbed by the pretensions of the Whigs to purity, and their desire to put an end to pensions? The public, placing reliance on the professions of the Whigs, expected that that party would not look back to former days for precedents to establish jobs, but that, as they had promised, they would act for the public service, without jobbing public offices or lavishly expending the public money. It seemed from all he had heard and learnt, that there had been a succession and complication of jobs. He was very glad, that the hon. Member for North Durham had brought forward his resolutions, although he did not think them strong enough, because they enabled hon. Members to state what they knew upon the subject of these jobs, and thus enlighten the public as to the manner in which offices were jobbed, and pensions granted under the pure reign of the Whigs. To make the case clear to those who had not examined it well, there might be some Gentlemen on his left hand (the Ministerial benches) who did not wish the case to be examined. He could easily understand why they would not like examination. He trusted that he was able to state something himself upon this subject, and he hoped that others more competent would lay the matter quite open to the public, so that they might see all the foulness of this job. He must go back to the re-modelling of the Exchequer, for although there were only two parties, the public and the Government, several parties were put forwards before the public merely as the instruments of Government. In mentioning the names of such parties, he begged to be understood as by no means treating them with disrespect. In the first place, then, when the Exchequer was remodelled, why was not Sir Henry Ellis appointed comptroller? He had held the office of Clerk of the Pells—he had a right to that office, and, according to the doctrine of the day, he had a right to compensation. He was a man of ability, of experience, of unquestioned integrity, in the prime of life, and fully able to the performance of the duties of the office. Why, then, was he not appointed? It was because in this case, as in all others, the public service was lost sight of in order to advance party purposes. The Whig party then thought it necessary to get rid of Sir Henry Ellis, and they dismissed him with a retiring pension of 1,400l. a-year, to which he had a clear right, and he did not blame Sir Henry Ellis for taking it. In considering this case, the House must bear in mind, that a certain amount of the public money had been in his opinion improperly spent in this matter, and to a certain degree jobbed. When the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) came into office during the year 1834, the name of Sir Henry Ellis was found in the list of persons receiving public money, being able to perform public services, but unemployed, although willing, and indeed anxious, to be employed. Sir Henry Ellis was asked, he believed, whether he had any objection to go back to Persia as ambassador, and his answer was, that he would prefer some office nearer home, but that if the Government chose to employ him, rather than receive the public money in idleness, he should accept the office. It was arranged that Sir Henry Ellis should go out as ambassador. Then came the dismissal from office of the right hon. Baronet, and the pure Whigs returned to office. Then, as upon the occasion of the remodelling the Exchequer, it was found inconvenient to employ Sir Henry Ellis in any permanent office, and he was sent to Persia, merely to congratulate the Shah, while another person was sent there as ambassador. There were no reasons ex- cept party reasons for not placing Sir. Henry Ellis in the office of comptroller-general, and for these party reasons 1,400l. a-year of the public money was thrown away. He would next come to the appointment of Sir John Newport, and here he must say, that he would not utter a single word against that right hon. Gentleman, or against the very great services he had rendered to the public from the time when he was the lenient master of those distinguished fags Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville. He thought that the noble Lord had a bad case to support. He was astonished that the noble Lord had put forward claims which only showed the weakness of his case. The noble Lord had stated, that Sir John Newport had been the means of saving to the public 75,000l. a-year of the public money. Was that a ground for giving a pension to a Member of Parliament? Did not many of the Members of that House come to that House pledged to economy and retrenchment, and were they to be paid for doing their duty? Upon that ground the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was entitled to a pension. The hon. and gallant Member had saved the country 20,000l. a-year out of Prince Albert's salary. He should like to know what amount of pension would be sufficient to show the gratitude of the public, and the sense they entertained of the service of saving public money—what amount would be sufficient to remunerate the hon. Member for Kilkenny for his public services if the principle of the noble Lord were adopted. The real fact was, that this claim was a very bad claim, and had no foundation whatever. If the Members of that House were to be paid for their public services, they would become mere competitors for the public money, and the public would be justified in saying, that men were not actuated by a wish to serve the public, but were thinking of the example of Sir John Newport, who got 1,000l. a-year because he saved 75,000l. It really showed, that the noble Lord had not a good case when he founded it on such reasons as these. The noble Lord had read a long list of motions which Sir John Newport had made in Parliament. He was very much dismayed at hearing that list read. It seemed to him to be a sort of incitement to Members to make as many motions as possible. The argument of the noble Lord was, "Give this man a pension because he has done his duty so well, and made such a quantity of motions." Of course the amount of the pension must be in proportion to the number of motions. [Cheers.] Without wishing to say a word against Sir John Newport, what could the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) mean by that very expressive cheer? He had not said a word against Sir John Newport. He believed that Sir John Newport was a very good master to Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville. He believed that Sir John Newport did save 75.000l. to the public. He believed that Sir John Newport had done his duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, and he believed that Sir John Newport was a very good old man in Ireland at the present moment. But what of all this? It did not at all furnish a reason for giving him a pension, especially when he considered the way in which Sir John Newport was appointed to office, and the understanding on which he must have taken office. Having said thus much of the noble Lord's praises, he would come to the way in which Sir John Newport was appointed. At the time he was appointed it was clearly understood, as set forth in the Act of Parliament, that the Comptroller of the Exchequer had no claim for a pension on account of that office. That fact was undeniable. He believed the rule was, that no man employed in a public office could claim a pension on account of that office till he had served twenty-five years. When Sir John Newport was appointed, he was seventy-five years of age. It was, therefore/utterly, or at least, almost impossible, that he could become entitled to a pension by twenty-five years' service. That pension, then, was a violation of the Act of Parliament under which he was appointed. They were told that Sir John Newport retired on account of his great age and infirmities. That surely was an objection to appointing him at all. At the time of his appointment he had gone through a long and arduous Parliamentary life, and age and infirmity incapacitated him from performing the responsible duties of his office. What interpretation must any man put upon his appointment? It was plain that the Government of the day wanted to reward a steady old partisan for party services, and being afraid, in the teeth of their own professions and resolutions of purity, to give him a pension at once, they gave him this office as a stepping-stone to a pension. It seemed to him, that this was the way in which the appointment must be interpreted by every unbiased man of common sense. He came to the third part of the job, and he confessed, that it appeared to him to be infinitely the worst part. With regard to this part of the subject, every hon. Member would have the circumstances fresh in his memory. Towards the end of the last Session, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had given such dissatisfaction to all commercial men, almost all, without exception, throughout the country, that the Government found they must positively get rid of him, or the commercial interests of the country would drive them from office. Having, then, found it necessary to get rid of this most inefficient Chancellor of the Exchequer—for he stated, without fear of contradiction, that Lord Monteagle was inefficient—the Government did not know what to give him as a sop. The Speakership at first suggested itself, and Members of the Government went round canvassing Members on that side of the House for votes. He stated this openly, and he knew that many hon. Members would bear him out in the statement. It was stated to him, "Spring Rice is unpopular as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must be got rid of, and as you wish to get rid of him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, will you not vote for him as Speaker?" He plainly and openly answered, that he disliked Mr. Spring Rice as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that he certainly would not vote for him as Speaker—that he thought they had better get rid of him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as to the Speakership, he proceeded to state, that if Mr. Spring Rice were put up as Speaker, he would be sure to be beaten. "Afterwards," said the hon. Member, "for our good fortune, Sir, we elected you." It was then necessary for the Government to find some other retiring place for the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as he supposed that right hon. Gentleman considered himself a very ill-used man in not being made Speaker, the Ministers were obliged to give him a most disproportionate reward for his party services, for he would not call them public services. When a man retired from office after long public service, he claimed generally one of two things. If he were a needy man, and wanted money, he would, perhaps, claim some good place, which would enable him to live comfortably. If, on the other hand, he was a man not caring so much for money, but caring for the honour and power which a peerage gave, he was entitled to the honour and power of the Peerage. In the case of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer there was an accumulation of rewards. Not only was a peerage not sufficient, but he added the very agreeable and well-paid office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. Having stated what his belief was of the way in which this office had been jobbed for party services, and against the interests of the public, he would like to call the attention of the House and of the country to one very important point of the case, as regarded the public money, occasioned by these proceedings. They might be told that it did not signify to so great a nation that 2,000l. or 3,000l. of the public money was given away. Now, he thought it signified a very great deal. That was the sort of argument which the reckless spendthrift used when he found his fortune embarrassed. Such a person would say, "it does not signify whether I spend a few thousands more or less, I am already half ruined, so that it can't make much difference." So the Government said, "we are under the necessity of raising new taxes, and it does not signify whether we raise a few thousands more or less." But the public did not feel so. The public generally, if not individually, felt the bad moral effect which such conduct had on the country. He asked, was the present a time for extravagance, and for jobbing; in public offices, when amongst the working classes there was such great distress and discontent? He asked, was the present a time for giving a fresh argument against the institutions of the country? There was 2,000l. or 3,000l. a-year clearly thrown away. The arguments that would be founded on this job would make many more Chartists than twenty of the most violent speeches at the most violent public meetings. It was this want of consistency in public men—these hollow professions of economy and retrenchment—that made Chartists. It was the lavish expenditure of public money that made men begin to consider whether they could not form a system of Government under which the public money should not be la- vishly expended, nor public offices jobbed. He thanked the House for the attention they had paid him, and he had only this farther to say, that it appeared to him, that the whole matter might be summed up in a very few words. It was a job, and not only a job, but a job perpetrated by those who professed a great abhorrence of jobs, and who got into office chiefly by that profession; and, to sum it up in the fewest possible words, and at the same time in the most expressive, to show that it was a gross and clumsy job—he would pronounce it a Whig job.

Mr. Barron

rose to protest against what he must consider one of the most unfounded and shameless attacks upon one of the most honest, most indefatigable, and best men that had ever sat within the walls of that House. Never, he would venture to say, was there a man less open to attack, or more deserving of all praise for his public services, than his right hon. Friend, Sir John Newport. His right hon. Friend, unsubdued by failure and by opposition, had, by perseverance and ability, forced many most useful measures upon the most reluctant Governments. There was scarcely a branch of legislation, particularly as far as Ireland was concerned, in which Sir John Newport had not been mainly instrumental in effecting great and useful reforms. His successful exertions in the reform of the law in Ireland could be fully estimated only by those conversant with the subject. Was it not also notorious, that Sir John Newport had effected the reform of the Exchequer in Ireland, which led to the consolidation of the Exchequer of the two countries, and to a consequent great annual saving of the public money? Sir John Newport had never swerved from his principle, and it was well known that he refused office, and parted from the early friends of his youth, sooner than concede his principles on the Catholic question. The resolutions of the hon. Member for North Durham would have the effect of indirectly passing a vote of censure upon Sir John Newport for accepting his pension. If the Ministers of the Crown were wrong in granting this pension, Sir John Newport was wrong in accepting and retaining it. He believed, that it was the best-earned pension that was upon the list. He challenged inquiry into the pension list, and he would ask the House and the country to say, whether there was a name on the pension list to be put in competition with the name of Sir John Newport? He unhesitatingly said there was not one. He appealed to those connected with agriculture in Ireland, to state what the agriculture of that country would have been but for the exertions of Sir John Newport? Through his exertions mainly, the value of the land had nearly doubled; whilst it was notorious that the importation of manufactures from England had quintupled. The great object of Sir John Newport had been to bring the two countries as closely as possible into an union. He succeeded in the first great step towards that object, and had done more to unite the two countries than any man living. It might be said that, he had only done his duty as a Member of Parliament. Were Members of Parliament then the only persons who were to be excluded from rewards for the greatest services? Was a man to spend a long life of labour, of industry, of indefatigable zeal, of unflinching integrity in the public service, and to be deprived of reward because he was a Member of Parliament? They were, it appeared, to give pensions to poets, and the writers of penny twaddling romances, but men who laboured in that House for the public good were on no account to receive pensions. He honestly believed that never was a pension more honestly earned than that of Sir J. Newport. The effect of this vote, if carried in the affirmative, would be felt by his right hon. Friend as he was sinking into his grave. He put it to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, would they wish to see one of the oldest and best of the public servants sink into the grave with a vote of censure on his head.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that he must protest against part of the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster. He did not complain of the hon. Gentleman's attack upon Lord Monteagle, but he did complain of his mixing up in that attack another party with whom he was totally unconnected. The motion, he must say, was as idle a one as any that could be proposed; but as it was intended to inflict a stain upon the character of an aged and respectable man, he could not let it pass in silence. The question was not whether this House should vote a pension to Sir John Newport for his public services, or whether the Government should be censured for allowing him to retire with a pension on the civil list; but whether a wholesale attack should be made upon that right hon. Gentleman and the Government in general. When the hon. Member for Westminster talked about Whig jobbing, and of burthens on the public, he should have recollected that not one farthing of burthen extra would fall upon the public by reason of this pension to Sir John Newport. The hon. Gentleman talked about Whig jobbing, but in his opinion there was something worse, and that was Chartist cant, and there was something of cant in talking of increasing the public burthens in a matter by which not one shilling would be added to them. The money must be given to somebody every year, and the only question was on whom it should be bestowed. Now, was Sir J. Newport such a person that, at his time of life, he should be condemned for taking from the civil list what was intended to be bestowed in pensions, and which, if not given to him, must be given to somebody else? The House was not now upon the question as to how Mr. Spring Rice was raised to the peerage; they were upon the question whether a man of the most respectable character, a most zealous and efficient public servant, in advanced years, should be blamed for receiving a pension from the Crown. Who was there who would deny for a moment the extent and value of the right hon. Gentleman's services? To mention one fact alone—he was the man who produced the information concerning church-rates in Ireland, upon the basis of which Parliament had been enabled to abolish that system altogether, and upon this fact alone he thought that Sir J. Newport was entitled to the respect and gratitude of the country. He had only now to repeat his strong protest against the system this night attempted, of assailing one individual, with a view of reaching at another—of bringing forward one topic with another object in view.

Sir J. Graham

commenced by observing, that after the two last speeches addressed to the House, he could not remain longer silent. He could assure the House that if he thought this motion would either directly or indirectly imply a censure upon Sir J. Newport, no individual in the House would give it a more strenuous opposition than himself. Having known Sir J. Newport for very many years, he could not call to his recollection any public servant more honest, faithful, independent, and generous in the performance of his duties. But, besides these considerations, it had been stated upon authority, that Sir J. Newport's affairs were now in an embarrassed state. He considered that the sorrows of a good man were sacred, and should be the last to say anything calculated to wound his feelings, and it was, therefore, with peculiar pain that he took part in this discussion at all, lest by chance anything should be said in the course of it calculated to do so. He begged to declare that he acquitted Sir John Newport of all blame in this transaction, but he did accuse her Majesty's Ministers of exposing that gentleman to unmerited obloquy, and placing him in a most painful situation. But at the same time he could not let his private feelings interfere with the performance of his public duty. He differed in opinion with many parties in this House upon this subject. He had been a consenting party to the resolutions of 1832, on which the Pensions' Act was formed; but he could not say that he adopted those resolutions in all respects with any very strong predilection. He saw many strong objections to them. He thought, and did still think, that when a statesman had laboured long and hard in the public service, and became advanced in years, and perhaps, embarrassed in his circumstances, there should be some harbour of refuge to which he could retreat from political conflict, alike out of the reach of the cold ingratitude of friends, and the bitter animosity of enemies. The throne, he thought, should be the fountain of honours and rewards, as it was the seat of mercy; and he considered that some sum should be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the reward of acknowledged merit, and the relief of acknowledged distress. With these feelings, therefore, if, instead of appointing Sir J. Newport to the comptrollership of the Exchequer, the Government had at that time recommended his Majesty to give him a pension for his past services, whatever might have been the conduct of others on the occasion, he (Sir J. Graham) for one would not have offered one word of objection. He begged, in passing, to observe, that Lord Monteagle presided over the committee at which the resolutions were come to on the subject of pensions. He (Sir J. Graham) was not a Member of that committee, but he saw opposite him several hon. Members who were, and they could tell the House what took place there, what were the amounts of the pensions contemplated by the committee out of the limited allowance of 1,200l., and what were the classes of persons to whom they were to be given. He saw the hon. Member for Kilkenny opposite, and that hon. Gentleman would no doubt, before this debate concluded, state to the House his recollection upon these points. Now, for his part, taking the act of 1834 and the pensions act, he was bound to say that this transaction appeared to be utterly subversive of the independence of the comptrollership of the Exchequer, and a direct violation of the act as to pensions to official persons. It would be in the recollection of the House that when he (Sir J. Graham) was pressing forward the measure for the regulation of the offices of the Exchequer, he was taunted by several gentlemen who then sat opposite him, but whom he now saw by his side, and more particularly by the hon. Member for Harwich, that, by abolishing the office of clerk of the pells he would be rendering the comptroller of the Exchequer the sole check upon the disposal of the public funds. To this he answered, that by throwing the whole responsibility of this office upon a single individual, he considered that he ensured its more efficient discharge than if he divided it between two persons, provided he succeeded in ensuring the entire independence of this sole officer, and placing him beyond the influence or control of the Crown. Now, with regard to what the hon. Member for Westminster said about the office of clerk of the pells. Mr. Ellis, who was clerk of the pells at the time he was drawing up the bill for reforming the Exchequer, refused to retain that office. He at that time gave a solemn pledge on the part of Lord Grey's government that, as Mr. Ellis, in consideration of his vested interest in that office, was entitled, not to a pension, but to compensation as for an office for life, on the first occasion of a vacancy occurring in an office which that gentleman could be called upon to accept, it should be offered to him; and he at the same time gave a pledge on the part of Mr. Ellis that upon such an office being offered to him he would accept it. This assurance on the part of Mr. Ellis was afterwards repeated to the head of the Government, and that in the warmest terms, by that gentleman himself, who said that he did not wish to be looked upon ever in the light of a pensioner on the public; that he was anxious to be actively employed, and that he would take any office which he was adapted for. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth came into office, in 1834, the Duke of Wellington, who formed part of that administration, although not bound by this pledge on the part of a previous Government proceeded to fulfil it. He offered to Mr. Ellis an appointment to Persia, for which he considered him in every respect well qualified. The appointment was accepted by Mr. Ellis; but, before he had time to leave the country, another change took place in the administration of the country, and that gentleman's appointment was changed from one of a permanent character into one of a mere complimentary nature, upon which he was only ten months engaged; and he had been ever since that period unemployed, and in the receipt of 1,400l. a-year, very much against his inclination. With respect to the appointment of Sir John Newport to the Comptrollership of the Exchequer, he was free to confess that, although, as had been truly said by the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire, he had stated no objection to that appointment at the time, he thought it from the first an injudicious appointment. He considered that Sir John Newport was, at the time, seventy years of age, and that he had, four or five years previously, retired from public life, the reason for which being openly assigned, that his health had failed, and that he could not live in London, and wished to retire into the country. Now it might be asked why he had not made this objection at the time? He frankly confessed, that, entertaining as he did the highest respect for Sir John Newport, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind the intention of strictly fulfilling the duties of his office, and executing the high control over the finances of the country, which it imposed upon him. It should be recollected that the act of Parliament regulating this office not only guaranteed its independence, but so studiously was this object observed, that by the Pensions Act passed six weeks afterwards, this office was expressly and designedly excluded from any claim for a pension or retired allowance. It was also alleged at the time that the office would be a sinecure; but he was prepared upon this objection, and said he would take care it should not be so; for that an opportunity should be given to Parliament annually of stopping the salary in committee of supply, if it appeared that the party holding the office did not execute the important duties of it in person. With these views and intentions respecting this office, although out of respect to Sir John Newport he did not cavil at his appointment to this office at the time it took place, he certainly thought it an objectionable appointment. With respect to the particular charge before the House, although the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire sneered at the latitude of the scepticism of hon. Gentlemen on (the opposition) side of the House, he (Sir J. Graham) must say that the noble Lord's explanation, so far from allaying, had only increased the suspicions which he entertained on the subject. It appeared, that in the month of April, 1839, Sir J. Newport had notified to her Majesty's Ministers, that he was unable to perform the duties of his office, and wished to retire into private life in Ireland. Other persons were then thought of to fill the office, and amongst others the noble Lord Monteagle, who, however, at that time was aspiring to the Chair which the right hon. Gentleman now so worthily filled. The Government were aware of the inability of Sir J. Newport to fulfil the duties of his office in April, 1839; on the 27th of May, he believed, the Speaker was elected; but still the Comptrollership of the Exchequer was left vacant through all the months of June, July, August, and September, until, in short, after the prorogation of Parliament, and then the Government appointed their own Colleague, Lord Monteagle. This was not, therefore, an attack upon Sir John Newport, but it was a charge of the gravest character against her Majesty's Ministers, that they had kept vacant during so many months an office of which the duties were of so high and important a nature. What was the object of Ministers in keeping open this office till the month of September? What were the great feats which the right hon. Gentleman (now Lord Monteagle) was to perform during the interval? He believed, that amongst the first things which the noble Lord did, was to omit funding Exchequer bills when they were at a high premium, and it might, therefore be done with advantage, and that he had afterwards done it when Exchequer bills were very low, and that they had ever since been at a discount. The next thing the noble Lord did, was to introduce a new mode of bidding for a loan, the consequence was, there were no bidders, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was actually laughed at. Then the noble Lord, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had got appointed a select committee to take into consideration a very abstruse scheme which he had devised for dealing with Church property; when the whole scheme exploded, was blown into air, and abandoned. The noble Lord also appointed a committee upon the important subject of joint-stock banks; which sat three years examining evidence; but the-noble Lord, though Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their Chairman, on behalf of her Majesty's Government, tendered them no advice whatever on this important subject, and to this day no report had been made on it. What was the next feat of the noble Lord? Why having so managed the financial affairs of the country, in which, during three years, there had been year after year a deficiency, and at last an increasing deficiency, he brought forward that notable project by which 1,500,000l. of revenue was to be sacrificed, namely, the penny postage; and, having announced this great feat, in despair of being able to carry his own plan into effect, he actually advertised a reward of 200l. to any person in the kingdom who would come forward and help him. The last performance of the noble Lord was to attempt the renewal of the charter of the Bank of Ireland—a subject of vital importance—and to bring in a scheme by which a saving of 23,000l. a-year would be saved to the public; and having developed this important scheme, the noble Lord then, as a last act before bidding them farewell, gave a practical example of the necessity under which he was, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to succumb to the overwhelming influence of an hon. and learned Member in that House. And this was the Gentleman for whose convenience this important and responsible office was kept open from May till September, 1839. The noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, had attempted to be facetious on the present occasion; and congratulated himself upon this the first time when her Majesty's Ministers had given wager of battle; or, as the noble Lord said, shown fight. But was it really the first time during the Session that the noble Lord and his Colleagues had shown fight? They showed fight once, and were beaten by 104; but that was a trivial affair; and then another time they were beaten by twenty-six, and that upon what was no trivial affair at all. By the motion of the hon. Member for Harwich, in calling for an estimate at a time when the public finances were in a most deranged state, he was accused of doing great inconvenience to the public service, and casting an unexampled insult upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, upon this point the Government showed fight, and they were defeated, as he hoped they would be again to-night. This was said to be a fruitless resolution; but what was the purport of it, and what would be its effect? This was a transaction on the part of the Government which involved the whole principle of the control of the country—one simple question, whether an officer, which Parliament had declared by a solemn act should have no pension or retired allowance, should by a strained construction of the Civil List Act, be permitted to retire upon a pension. The object of the resolution, then, was to declare, that this promotion should not be drawn into a precedent; and yet this was called a pointless resolution. Upon this point at issue the Ministers again showed fight, and again, he made no doubt, they would be beaten; and then, if they were not satisfied with that, they must, to use a homely but well-understood phrase, be "gluttons" indeed. This was no attack upon Sir John Newport, but a direct charge against her Majesty's Ministers. The resolutions declared, that if this act of the Government were to be drawn into a precedent, it would be subversive of that independence of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer which Parliament declared should be incidental to that office; and that was a declaration which he trusted the House would not hesitate to affirm. The noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, said, however, that this case could not be drawn into a precedent; but he maintained, that by no very strained construction of the resolutions proposed as an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Monteagle was equally entitled at the present moment to receive a pension as Sir J. Newport was; the sole exception being on the score of advanced age. Now, supposing that at some future period the Government of the day finding the control of the noble Lord over the Exchequer inconvenient, should point out to him that it would be more satisfactory to him to retire into Ireland, and reside on his estate, with a pension of 1,200l. a-year, and that it would be very convenient to the Government to be afforded the opportunity of appointing a mutual friend to his place. He maintained, that abuse could not but follow from this precedent, if not restrained by the vote of the House. If the noble Lord's arguments were good for anything, they might themselves, and would be, brought into a precedent, from which nothing could save the country but what he hoped would this evening be the vote of the House.

Lord J. Russell

said: Sir, I came down to the House prepared to defend an act of my noble Friend, Lord Melbourne, against the somewhat fine-drawn resolutions moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But instead of having this task to perform, I see the right hon. Baronet opposite who has just sat down wishes to blink this question, and to use these resolutions, which entirely concern the pension granted to Sir J. Newport, and the comptrollership of the Exchequer, as a means of attacking a noble Lord who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who is not now in his place to defend himself. I do not feel it necessary to enter into a defence of my noble Friend's conduct, because it does not properly come before us; but I certainly was surprised at the attack which has been made, because I remember that the right hon. Baronet was for a long time a member of that cabinet under which Mr. Spring Rice was an able and efficient Secretary to the Treasury; and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have recollected with some gratitude, the able, zealous, and eloquent speeches which Mr. Spring Rice made in defence of that government, when the right hon. Gentleman so often shrunk from his duty in maintaining its acts. I should have thought, certainly, that the right hon. Gentleman would not have altogether forgotten those services, or failed to call to mind how much that Government, of which he was a member in a very high office, and for which he said so little, owed to the very able and efficient speeches made by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and that the right hon. Gentleman would have at least been inclined to spare a man not now present to answer him. But if those speeches and services, both official and parliamentary, all of them showing, not only great zeal and industry, but great ability likewise, produced no impression on the right hon. Gentleman, they did produce an impression on the noble Lord at the head of the Government, because the noble Member for Lancashire no sooner resigned the office of Secretary to the Colonies than Lord Grey thought he could place the seals of the colonial office in no better hands than in those of the noble Lord whom the right hon. Gentleman, when no question was before the House as to his conduct, thought fit to censure in such harsh terms. In that course Lord Grey thought himself justified, and Lord Melbourne thought himself justified by the conduct of Lord Monteagle in the situation which he then held; and this I am sure of—that, if the right hon. Gentleman ventured, in the presence of my noble Friend (I am sure he never did) to make such an attack as he has indulged in tonight on my noble Friend's conduct of the financial affairs of the country, the right hon. Gentleman would have met with an answer which would probably have deterred him from repeating it. But if the right hon. Gentleman thought it safe to refrain from impugning the services of my noble Friend when he sat on these benches, and was selected for office by Lords Grey and Althorp, it was still more safe to make a laboured attack against a man who is now a Member of the other House of Parliament. But, Sir, the question before the House does not relate to the financial conduct of the affairs of the country during the last Session. I will not be led into it by the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman, and his evident and anxious wish to escape from the question which his hon. Friend has brought forward. That question is, whether the Government was justified in granting a pension to Sir John Newport. That question, I must say, does involve, however the right hon. Gentleman may deny it, the character of Sir John Newport; because if, though of great age, and in an infirm state of health, still in the perfect possession of that right understanding which enabled him to judge of the constitution of his country, and of its public concerns, he accepted knowingly and wilfully, a pension to which he was in no way entitled, and which he obtained in violation of the acts on the civil list pensions—no one will tell me that a resolution of this House, of the nature of that proposed, does not impute blame, and will not be received as a severe blow in the decline of his life, after so many services to his country. Sir, I will venture to say, that I do not think there is one person now receiving a pension from the civil list, or from the public in any other shape, on account of great civil services (I do not, of course, mean to compare them with the exploits of naval and military commanders)—whose character and public services, both as to the length of those services, and the various modes of them, so well entitled him to such a reward as Sir John Newport—that pension being in itself extremely moderate in amount, considering the person to whom it was given. Now I say this, looking back to all those various services which my noble Friend has gone through, and which I shall not attempt to refer to in the same detail; but let me in the first place observe, that a great change must be effected in public affairs, if the custom (which the practice of late years has, perhaps, a tendency to establish) were to prevail, that in future not only the great parliamentary pensions, but those under the control of the Crown, must be directed by the amount and length of official service. I really think it very possible, with regard to the favour of the Crown, that a person may in six months, or in a year, perform services and accomplish benefits for his country which another in the course of twenty years may not be enabled to perform. Now let us see what were the claims of Sir John Newport. He instituted inquiries into the state of our revenues, which he afterwards followed up by reforms. He cut off many abuses in the Excise, and removed the sources of corruption in that department. He proposed and carried through Parliament an Act, allowing a free trade in corn between this country and Ireland, which has proved the greatest benefit to both countries. In company with Mr. Elliot and Mr. Ponsonby, (who have now departed, but I name them with the same honour as I mention Sir John Newport) he was nominated on a commission to inquire into education. In fact, I do not go too far when I say that ten or twelve acts of Parliament have been passed on the suggestion of Sir John Newport. Now, it does appear to me that when all the circumstances of this grant are considered—when Sir John Newport's services in an office, the duties of which he performed with great ability, are called to mind—that he not only submitted measures lo Parliament, but that they were adopted by Parliament; and that, after the course of a long life, having attained a great age (between eighty and ninety), he finds himself in narrow and reduced circumstances—putting all these considerations together, they form a ground—and a fully sufficient one—for the pension which has been bestowed on such a man. I must compare this pension with those granted to other Gentlemen on the ground of official services. Mr. Ware and Mr. Hob-house received 1,000l. pension; Mr. Lushington, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Planta, were paid 1,500l.; Lord Auckland and Mr. Goulburn were each pensioned with 2,000l. a year; Lord Bexley had 3,000l. I shall only mention another, Lord Sidmouth, who manfully and fairly gave up the pension to which he was entitled. But, then, it is said these pensions have been granted under an Act of Parliament. Now, I do not think it a sufficient claim to a pension that a man has served a certain number of years in office, without doing anything remarkable, or performing any essential service. Well, then, it is to be considered whether there are any grounds on which a person can be recommended to the Crown for a pension. As there certainly are such grounds, the question arises who are to be the judge's of the qualifications entitling a person to such a recommendation? I say the first minister of the Crown can best know whether a person has performed his services in such a way as to justify the grant of a pension, I own that all the pensions I have referred to may be questioned. I admit, if I were asked what Mr. Croker has done to call for a pension, I could not give any reasons for the grant, but I think such things are very properly placed in the hands of the Crown, and no doubt the minister of the day advised this pension, not merely because Mr. Croker was a Secretary of the Admiralty for twenty years, which may be a very agreeable occupation, but because he rendered essential service in that situation, I am of opinion, therefore, that the Crown being granted a certain amount on the civil list to be bestowed oh those who have served the Crown (as to those who have Hot, that is another question), the prime minister is the proper person to give advice as to those who should receive pensions. Undoubtedly, as Mr. Burke says, all these pensions are subject to the control of the House of Commons. On any one of these pensions the House may give its advice, but I do not think a calm opinion as to the propriety of bestowing them would be arrived at by Parliament, each individual voting, as he would do, according to party. I may consider those things services which would not be viewed at all in that light by those opposite. For instance, I may consider the formation of education in Ireland a great advantage: those opposed to me may look upon it as an injury. It is, therefore, far better not to make such questions the subject of debate. The right hon. Gentleman has said, that we forced on this discussion. I should like to know how it has been forced on, but by the persevering attempts add continual misrepresentations put forward by those who belong to the present party of the right hon. Gentleman. Such he considers a becoming manner to treat a public servant of eighty-four years of age! In the present Session, had it not been for the hon. Member for North Devon, I know not whether pensions would not have passed as the various other pensions granted by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and by the present first Lord of the Treasury. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say, there was something exceedingly suspicious in Sir John Newport having expressed a desire to retire in April, and in the present arrangement not having then taken place. Here I must be allowed to say, that I was rather in error in a statement I made to the House on a former occasion, because I thought that Sir John Newport had written to Lord Melbourne from Ireland. In April he asked to see Lord Melbourne, for the purpose of giving him his resignation, and he then stated that he was about to go to Ireland, placing his resignation in his hands, whenever he wished to lay it before the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman says, this step was forced on him by the fact that he was an useless and inefficient Comptroller of the Exchequer. But let it be remembered, that as he was of great age, he was entitled to leave of absence on the score of laborious service, whether he held or resigned his office. The right hon. Gentleman says, he should never have been appointed at all, because he was not capable of performing the duties of his office. I was always informed that Sir John Newport attended to his duties most assiduously, though they had lately been increased to an extent not originally contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman next alluded, and the hon. Member for Westminster also referred to Mr. Ellis. Why, a bill passed through the House on that occasion, and I remember Lord Althorp observing to me, that if any question were asked on the subject, it would be most painful to him to answer it, because Mr. Ellis was a near relative to our then colleague, Lord Ripon, and he should be obliged to say that he could not recommend Mr. Ellis for the office. In so saying, Lord Althorp purely did his duty as minister of the Crown, because, whatever might be the considerations of economy, I don't imagine that a minister was bound by such views not to recommend a person qualified for the office. In our selection of you, Sir, I am sure we did not consider whether we should make a saving of any pension by our choice; but we were resolved to give your high office to the fittest person; and if we exercised such a discretion, we must allow the Crown the same right. The office of Comptroller was originally intended for Lord Auckland; but an objection to his holding it being urged, on the ground that he had already a situation connected with Greenwich Hospital, the proposal was withdrawn agreeably to the wishes of the House. I do not think that any man could have been placed in the office in every respect so entirely 6t for it as Lord Auckland. He has since been called to another destiny. He became a member of the cabinet, and afterwards Governor-general of India; and though he has not filled the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, he has performed most splendid services to his country in another capacity, which merit her deepest gratitude. The office was then offered to and accepted by Sir John Newport; and it does appear to me that the appointment was the most proper one, from the fact that he had always been the friend of Lord Grenville, who was auditor of the Exchequer, and that he was conversant with the finances of the country, I think, too, he was the best person to be selected for another reason—that the Comptroller of the Exchequer ought, beside certain qualifications, to have that high rank which a man acquires by taking an active part in public life. Now, having gone through the reasons for this grant, none of which have been shaken, I think it right to say, that it is not desirable, as a general principle, that the Comptroller of the Exchequer should look forward to a pension on the civil list, or any other fund; but, I do contend that the circumstances of Sir John Newport—his varied and long services—his great age, and the state of his pecuniary affairs, entitle him to a pension. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, in which he alluded to many subjects, because he seemed glad to touch any topic rather than the resolution, which does not appear to attract a very warm support from his party, spoke of the Government "showing fight." The right hon. Gentleman referred also to two questions on which the Government was left in a minority; but there was another question which the right hon. Gentleman entirely omitted. An hon. Baronet was disposed early in the Session, to lead a regular onset against the Government, on which the Government did not refuse to "show fight," and on which the right hon. Baronet, and those who thought with him produced all that could be ransacked for the last three or four years, and which ended, after all, in nothing more than in the appointment of some three magistrates, and in some promotions of which they did not approve. No French cook could cater for an epicure denied the use of meat, with a more plentiful supply of meagre condiments. They had very little to say, and a great deal of what they did charge on us, recoiled upon themselves, but the result was, that after four nights' debate they were completely discomfited in every point. It was a question, not for the production of a return. It turned upon no meagre and gingerly resolution, but on a plain vote of want of confidence. I really thought the party opposite had made up their minds to this resolution—"We don't mean to harass you on little points; we don't mean to snatch a vote here and there against you; but we shall submit a proposition perfectly intelligible, that the House has no confidence in the Government, but in the Tory party." To that proposition an answer unfavourable to the Gentlemen opposite was returned; and this, and all such other attempts made like this poor contrivance to hurt the feelings of an old man, only to show how forgetful the Gentlemen opposite are of the profusion which characterised their Government; a state of oblivion in which, I am persuaded, neither this House nor the country participate.

Sir R. Peel

However pointless, spiritless, and "gingerly," the noble Lord may feel the resolution of my hon. Friend, he has given conclusive proof that he does not consider the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) pointless, spiritless, or gingerly. It seems to have had the effect of completely obliterating the recollection, not only of the services of my right hon. Friend, but of the unvarying testimony borne by the noble Lord himself to the value of those services. Has not the noble Lord said, that the separation from office of my right hon. Friend was one of the most painful in his life, on account of the proof which be had given of the value of those services which the noble Lord thinks it decent now to decry? The noble Lord says to-night that my right hon. Friend, when one of his colleagues, and a member of the Government, shrunk from his public duty; and Such was his expression, after the testimony to which I have referred of the estimation in which be held the services and character of my right hon. Friend. Is there the slightest foundation for the assertion that my right hon. Friend ever shrunk from his duty? Who was selected to assist the noble Lord in his preparation of the Reform Bill? Was it not my right hon. Friend? And will the noble Lord now, with his impressions of reform, deny the services which my right hon. Friend rendered on that occasion? Does the noble Lord deny the services of my right hon. Friend as first Lord of the Admiralty? [Lord J. Russell: "No."] No, says the noble Lord. Then what does he mean by saying that my right hon. Friend shrunk from his duty as a member of the Government? Who reformed the civil department of the navy? Who was it that took credit for the great saving in the naval estimates during the Government of Lord Grey—and can you deny that the whole merit of it was due to my right hon. Friend? Oh, I am reviving in the noble Lord's recollection some sense of my right hon. Friend's services. Why, this very debate should recall to the noble Lord's recollection some of his services. Who reformed the office of the Exche- quer? Who was it that, burthened with the laborious office of First Lord of the Admiralty, found time to extend his inquiry into the whole department to which I have referred? Who altered the regulations of pensions granted for civil services? It was my right hon. Friend, whom the noble Lord, forgetting his past acknowledgment of his public services, has charged with shrinking from his duty. I will tell the noble Lord what he shrunk from. He shrunk from office in vindication of his principles. Rather than consent to the principle involved in the appropriation clause, by which I was deprived of office, my right hon. Friend abandoned his office; and, perhaps, seeing the place which my right hon. Friend now occupies, from adherence to his principles, and recollecting the fate of the appropriation clause, the noble Lord may be excused for the irritation which he has displayed. The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, alluded to the pensions of other individuals. The noble Lord must surely know there is a complete distinction between pensions granted to holders of office by virtue of an act of Parliament, after a prescribed length of service, and pensions granted from the civil list; and notwithstanding the complaint the noble Lord has made of my right hon. Friend, in referring to the conduct of Lord Monteagle in his absence, yet the occasion was too tempting to the noble Lord to refrain from introducing the name of Mr. Croker, and saying that, although he went through twenty years of official service, he could not conceive what their nature was. Allow me also to say, that if the noble Lord had made that assertion during the long period of twenty years during which Mr. Croker was in office, the noble Lord would probably have received such an answer as would have prevented him from repeating the attack. The pension to Mr. Croker, and the pensions granted to my right hon. Friend, Mr. Planta, and to Mr. Hobhouse, stood on totally distinct and separate grounds. Those were pensions conferred in consequence of the abolition of sinecure offices of much greater amount, and it was because these sinecure offices had been abandoned, that the Crown, having power to give pensions in certain cases, granted those pensions; and I must, therefore, say, that it was ungrateful on the part of the noble Lord to depreciate, as he has done, the services of the subordi- nate officers of the Government, who, for twenty years, had devoted their best faculties to the service of the country. True, they might not have taken a brilliant part in the debates of that House, or engaged in political contests; but this I am prepared to assert, that there is not one of the pensions to which the noble Lord has alluded, which has not been gained by the exercise of the best faculties which the recipients had the power to bestow; and they are one and all men of high intellectual endowments. The noble Lord had complained that we wish to draw the attention of the House from the proper subject before it. I will show the noble Lord I have no such wish, and encouraged by his precept rather than by his example, I shall apply myself to the only question presented for our consideration. I admit Sir J. Newport's talents and services; but the noble Lord must not shelter the Government under the character of Sir John Newport. This is a question affecting the public conduct of Government. What is the answer to it? Don't question our acts for fear of embittering the last years of a worthy and respected man. The Act of Parliament provides for grants to various departments of the State, but excludes by name his office. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No, no!] I am aware that other offices forming part of a class of offices, are excepted by the Act, but I repeat, that the only office specially excepted, is this particular office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. I am referring to the 15th clause of the Act, which is in these terms:—That the Act should not be construed as extending a right to pension or superannuation allowance to any officer of his Majesty's Courts of Westminster Hall, nor of any of his Majesty's courts of justice elsewhere; and then, continued the right hon. Baronet, we come to an office which is specially named and specially expected; and what is that office? It is this, and this alone—"nor the Comptroller of his Majesty's Exchequer." Was I not warranted, then, in saying that specially, and by name, there was one office, the holder of which was disabled from receiving a pension? What could be the meaning of that particular exception? What but this?—that that officer should be kept not only independent of parties, but, being the sole check upon the issues of the public money from the Treasury, should also be kept independ- ent of the Government and of the Crown. It is plain that, under the terms of the Act, the Crown was not entitled to give a pension to this officer. The Act contains another provision, which is somewhat analogous. It declares that the Crown shall not be entitled to appoint the Comptroller of the Exchequer to any other situation held at the pleasure of the Crown, and that that officer shall be removeable, not at the will of the Crown, but only upon an address from either House of Parliament. Can there be stronger proof that the intention of Parliament was, that the Comptroller of the Exchequer should not look to the Crown for favour or promotion of any kind whatever? What, then, has been done? The Crown, according to the provisions of the Act, could not grant a pension. How, then, has it been obtained? Why, it has been granted out of the Civil List. The noble Lord says that he thinks this pension ought not to be drawn into a precedent. The noble Lord admits that. Well, then, either the noble Lord differs from the resolutions moved by the hon. Member for North Durham, and thinks that there was no impropriety in making the grant of a pension to this office out of the civil list, or else he thinks that the case is questionable, and ought not to be drawn into a precedent. If the noble Lord holds to the first of these propositions—if he thinks that the grant is defensible—if he thinks that the holder of this office is entitled to a pension (and if this holder, of course all other holders of the same office)—if the noble Lord thinks this, why does he not meet this proposition by a direct negative? He does not venture to take that course, but chooses to move two other resolutions, which he asks the House to adopt in lieu of those moved by the hon. Member for North Durham. Surely the noble Lord cannot be serious, when he proposes the first of these two resolutions. I have no objection to the substance of it, but surely the noble Lord cannot be serious in asking the House to assent to a resolution which quotes the preamble of one of the clauses of the Act, 22nd George 3rd, finishes the quotation by an "et cetera," and then proceeds to assert, "That this limitation," no limitation being mentioned in the quotation:— That this limitation to persons in their distress, or for their desert, not having proved a sufficient check on the grant of unmerited pen- sions, this House in the year 1834 entered into certain resolutions concerning pensions. "Now, in point of fact, the Act of George 3rd, imposes no limitation. Let us be accurate in our quotations. The Act of George 3rd, is this: it especially provided, that until the gross amount of pensions shall be reduced to below a certain sum, no pension of more than 300l. a-year shall be granted to any individual, nor more than 600l. a-year in the whole, and that an account of pensions shall annually be laid before Parliament. But, when the gross amount of pensions should fall below 90,000l. a-year, then the unlimited discretion of the Crown to grant pensions was to revert, subject only to the obligation of annually laying before Parliament an account of the pensions granted, no limitation was imposed. If the noble Lord will read the speech made by Mr. Burke upon the occasion, he will find that that statesman said:—"I cannot control the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, but I will limit the amount. The Crown shall not have the power of granting more than 60,000l. a-year." [An hon. Member—90,000l. a-year.] Yes, Parliament subsequently made it 90,000l. a-year, but Mr. Burke spoke of 60,000l. a-year as the limit. But as long as the gross amount of pensions did not amount to 90,000l. a-year, the Act of Parliament prescribed no limit whatever. Surely, then, the noble Lord cannot be serious in asking the House to adopt his first resolution. I repeat, that I have no objection to the substance of it; but surely, before the noble Lord wishes us to assent to it, he will see the propriety of giving it such a shape and form as shall not bring us into discredit for entering it upon the journals of the House. The noble Lord says, that this ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Now, we do not propose to deprive Sir John Newport of his pension; and I say at once, that if he were deprived of it and it should be proposed, in consideration of the particular circumstances of his case, and the expectations held out to him, that he should be provided for by a special act of Parliament, I would vote in favour of such a proposition. Allow me to say, however, that I am surprised at the terms of the noble Lord's resolution; because I was the person who stated the other night that I thought, in special and particular cases, Parliament ought to be appealed to; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, was one of the very first who assented to that opinion. [Mr. Hume: No, no] I certainly thought so. It is possible that I might have been mistaken; but it certainly appeared to me that the hon. Gentleman assented to my proposition, and spoke in support of it with unusual enthusiasm. I retain my opinion, notwithstanding what has been said by the noble Lord. I still think that in cases where men have performed such special and peculiar parliamentary services as shall appear to entitle them to a pecuniary reward, it is better that that reward should be given by Parliament than that it should be conferred by the Crown. If services have been rendered in Parliament, let Parliament be the judge of their worth, and determine the reward that shall be afforded for them. I am surprised that the noble Lord, when he was preparing his resolution, did not recollect the case of Mr. Grattan. Mr. Grattan's services were not rewarded by the Crown—he was provided for by a vote of Parliament. Mr. Pitt's debts were provided for by a vote of Parliament. Be it observed, however, that when I say that I think Parliament ought in special cases to make provision for Parliamentary services, I am of opinion that the circumstances under which such a provision should be awarded, should be so peculiar and so extraordinary, that no mere majority of a Member's own party should be enabled to vote it, but that it should come to him with the general assent of the whole House, as a boon conferred in consideration of the special and particular nature of his case. If influence is to be guarded against, I think it much more likely that the Crown, by making a grant, might obtain an influence over an active parliamentary opponent, than if the matter were left entirely to the bounty and liberality of the House. So much for the principle that the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer ought to be independent. But what did we do in 1834? We provided that the whole amount of pensions which the Crown should have the power of granting for the reward of literary service, for scientific eminence, and for services rendered to the Crown should be 1,200l. a-year. That was the limit—and what have you done? Why you have granted at one swoop five-sixths of the whole of this sum for parliamentary service, I say that that is contrary to the intention of Parliament. Now let me appeal to every man in the House. Suppose, when I came into office in 1835, I put this question to those who were politically opposed to me—suppose, when I came into office in 1835, with the resolution of the House limiting the grant of pensions to 1,200l. a-year fresh in the mind of every one—suppose at that time I had done what you have done—suppose I had taken five-sixths of the whole of that sum, and had granted it to some Gentleman on this side of the House who had devoted himself to the public service in Parliament, but had not held office long enough to entitle him to a pension under the act of Parliament—suppose I had created a vacancy in this office, which ought to be independent of the Crown, by granting a pension to the person who held it on condition of his retirement—suppose I had facilitated some political arrangement by putting a friend of mine into the office—suppose I had done this, I ask you whether by an immense majority from your side of the House, you would not have condemned such an act on my part in much stronger language than is employed in any part of the resolutions moved by the hon. Member for North Durham? Would you have contented yourselves with a simple declaration, that such art act ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Would you not have said, "This is a violation of the independence of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer—this is an absorption, for party and political purposes, of five-sixths of the whole sum allotted by Parliament for the reward of every species of merit? and would you not propose and carry by acclamation, if you could carry it at all, not a resolution merely declaring that this act of mine should not be drawn into a precedent, but an humble address to the Crown, praying that I might forthwith be removed from office? That, undoubtedly, is the course that you would have taken. I ask you to maintain at least so much consistency as to vote to-night that such an act ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Do not trust to ministerial declarations. The power of jobbing in posse is immense. You can hardly put a limit to the possibility of what can be done. If you will only convert the "can" into "ought"—if, instead of considering what "can be done," you will prescribe what "ought to be done," it is possible that your deliberations may attain an useful end. If you consent to the amendment, I will prove to you that you are going to recognise a power on the part of the Crown to grant a pension of this kind. In the first place, with every respect for the character and every acknowledgment of the services of Sir John Newport, I hope that the House will not establish the precedent of coming to a vote in favour of a civil officer, couched in ten times more glowing terms than any previous vote ever accorded to men of the highest distinction. You did not do it in the case of Mr. Fox. You did not do it in the case of Mr. Pitt. I do not recollect one single instance in which the House of Commons has put upon record such a recognition of public service as that now proposed. This opens a great question. Sir John Newport is spoken of in these glowing terms, because he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland for a period of thirteen months—because he was Comptroller of the Exchequer for several years—and because, whilst he was in the first of these offices, "he exerted himself to the utmost to restrain useless expenses." When the noble Lord speaks in such fervid terms of this special service—this exertion to restrain useless expenses—does he forget the service rendered upon that score by my right hon. Friend, Sir James Graham. With what consistency can the noble Lord put this service forward specially as a vindication of the pension granted to Sir John Newport, and, at the same time, almost in the same breath, turn round and assail the conduct of my right hon. Friend, who, during the whole time that he formed a part of the Administration of which the noble Lord was a member, zealously, indefatigably, and most successfully applied himself to the curtailment of useless and unnecessary expenses? What are the special grounds laid in the noble Lord's resolution in vindication of this pension? Why, That it appears to this House that the right hon. Sir John Newport, in his official capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, exerted himself to the utmost to restrain useless expenses, to promote education, and to improve trade and intercourse between Ireland and the other parts of the United Kingdom; that while in the said office he directed, and after leaving office suggested, various inquiries, which led to the adoption by Parliament of measures highly conducive to the better administration of the law, and beneficial to the revenue. Why, surely these are duties which a man ought to perform—surely these are duties which a public man is bound to perform—surely these are not duties to entitle a civilian to special thanks and special rewards, carried by a majority of those who concur with him in political opinions. It is a bad precedent. The noble Lords resolution concludes in these terms:— That, considering that Sir John Newport was not in affluent circumstances when he thus withdrew from office, this House is satisfied that the grant of a pension to a retired Comptroller of the Exchequer, in circumstances so peculiar, cannot be drawn into a precedent. Observe, the resolution says, "cannot be drawn into a precedent in favour of persons who have not 'just claims on the royal beneficence,' and are not distinguished by 'the performance of duties to the public'" Thus, you are not going to say, that the granting of this pension cannot be drawn into a precedent; but I tell you that if you pass this resolution, you will be giving a parliamentary sanction for drawing it into a precedent. Most likely whoever is placed in the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, will have been a man who, at some period of his career, has exerted himself with activity and talent in public life. How easy, then, will it be to say, that he has distinguished himself in the performance of his duties to the public, and that he has a just claim upon the royal beneficence! In such a case the Crown will be perfectly justified under this resolution in granting a pension from the civil list, thereby inducing the officer to retire and immediately appointing another in his place. Some one, perhaps, referring to the terms of the resolution now proposed, will say, "This ought not to be drawn into a precedent." "True," will be the answer, "it ought not to be drawn into a precedent in favour of a man who has no claim upon her Majesty's beneficence—who has performed no duty to the public; but the particular friend whom we now propose to appoint to this office has a very great claim to her Majesty's beneficence and to public gratitude, in proof of which we are prepared to lay before you an account of all the motions he has made during five and twenty years of Parliamentary service, of all the committees be has appointed, and of the savings he has effected in restraining use- less expenses. Why, if my hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) should happen to fill the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, what a catalogue of public services might be quoted to justify his being pensioned. How many motions for inquiry into useless commissions? How many motions for inquiries into useless expenses? Why, according to the admissions of the noble Lord, my hon. and gallant Friend absolutely put an end to the commission for granting compensation for the Bude light; and, as the hon. Member for Westminster has justly observed, it was my gallant Friend who, at one single blow, in one single vote, saved 20,000l. a-year to the public in the grant to Prince Albert. In such a case, with such a catalogue of public services, how could Parliament resist the appeal, when it was asked if it could be so niggardly as to refuse to such a man the pension to which his zeal and activity in the public service justly entitled him. The noble Lord, foreseeing this case, has provided for my hon. Friend under the head of "performance of duties to the public." If the noble Lord had limited himself, in his amendment, to a simple declaration that this cannot be drawn into a precedent, it would have been all very well; but when he opposes any declaration of that kind, and he asks the House to assent to a proposition that it cannot be drawn into a precedent, except in cases where public services have been performed, can any one deny that he is asking the House to establish a direct sanction for the grant of a pension from the Civil-list to all persons who hereafter may hold the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. I hope I have fulfilled my promise, that I would not withdraw the attention of the House by personal considerations from the question properly before it. I entreat the House to recollect that we have the admission of the noble Lord that this pension ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Now, I ask the House of Commons to have the courage and manliness to tell the noble Lord, by a direct and unequivocal vote, that it will not lend its sanction to such a proceeding. Let us by our vote to night prevent the possibility of other governments relying upon any resolution of ours, to justify them in undermining the independence of an office, the integrity and perfect independence of which are essential to give the holder of it a due and proper control over the public expenditure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

rose to follow the right hon. Baronet, with the view, as far as possible, of confining the attention of the House to that which was the real state of the question, and to warn it not to be led into a discussion of those topics which his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir James Graham) had so dexterously introduced, and introduced, as he could not help thinking, with the hope of picking up some stray votes. He, therefore, neither proposed to follow his right hon. Friend into the attack which he was good enough to make upon the whole of the Government system of finance nor to pursue the right hon. Baronet in the defence which he had made of the public service of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). He thought, however, that the right hon. Baronet had a little misunderstood the observations of his noble Friend. In the remarks that fell from his noble Friend, there was no imputation whatever against the public conduct or the public services of his right hon. Friend, services which he should be the first to acknowledge, both as an executive officer of the Crown, and as a Minister of public departments. What his noble Friend said was this, that whilst sitting on the Treasury Bench, the right hon. Baronet did not exhibit the same readiness to appear in debate in support of his colleagues, that he now evinced on all occasions to put himself forward to attack them. His right hon. Friend now told the House that the necessity for the perfect independence of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer was such, that the House ought to mark with its censure any attempt to grant to the holder of that office any civil list pension, or in fact any pension whatever. Now, he should be glad to learn where the right hon. Baronet found any ground for censure in this proceeding, or where the House was to discover the principle which he now, for the first time, heard laid down by his right hon. Friend, and the right hon. Baronet? He had the honour to serve on the same commission with his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham)—the commission which recommended the alterations to be made in the pension-list—and he confessed that, having so served with his right hon. Friend, he now for the first time learned that there was any intention whatever of so controlling the power of granting pensions as to preclude this officer for ever from any retired allowance whatever. He found nothing of that kind either in the report of the commissioners or in the Act of Parliament which was subsequently introduced and passed, founded upon the report. In point of fact, the very provision upon which the right hon. Gentleman had laid so much stress, the very provision which deprived Lord Auckland of the office—that very provision did not exist in the act when it was first introduced by the Government; but was subsequently inserted by Parliament. Was there anything in the acts and proceedings of the Legislature, in analogous cases, that could lead the government to discover the new principle which was now laid down, and laid down as he thought for the first time, and for the purpose of casting a censure on Sir John Newport's pension, and upon the government? He would refer to some cases which appeared to him to be strictly analogous. In the first place, there was the office of Assistant Comptroller of the Exchequer. That officer, in the absence of the Comptroller of the Exchequer, administered all the duties which the Comptroller could perform, and exercised precisely the same check upon the Treasury, in regulating the expenditure of the public money. It was as requisite, then, that the Assistant Comptroller should be independent of the Crown, as that the Comptroller himself should be independent. Yet the Assistant-comptroller was certainly entitled to a superannuation allowance, and that superannuation allowance was settled by the Treasury. What, then, became of the assertion of the right hon. Baronet, that it was a principle which there was no possibility of mistaking, that the party who exercised this check upon the Treasury must be a party wholly independent of the Crown—a party never to be admitted to any pension whatever? During the absence of the Comptroller of the Exchequer, which might often be for a considerable time, circumstances might occur which would make it of the utmost importance that the same independent control should continue to be exercised. Yet it would be found by the provisions of the very act which was so much relied upon by the right hon. Baronet, that the assist- ant comptroller was entitled to a retired allowance; and no one knew better than his right hon. Friend that that retired allowance was entirely in the hands of the Treasury. Passing from the office of Assistant-comptroller of the Exchequer, let the House look for a moment to another analogous situation, that of the auditors of public accounts. Was it not as essential that those officers should be independent, as that the Comptroller of the Exchequer should be independent? He thought it much more important that they should be independent of the Crown and of the Treasury, even than the Comptroller himself. In the first place, they held their appointment during life—they were Parliamentary commissioners, not commissioners appointed by the Crown. They had also certain judicial powers; for instance, they had the power of taking evidence upon oath, and they actually audited the accounts of the Treasury. If ever there was a case, then, to which the new-found principle ought to apply, surely it must be to the auditors of public accounts. His right hon. Friend had declared that if Government had given Sir John Newport a pension before his acceptance of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, he should not have quarrelled with it, such was his respect for him. He called upon his right hon. Friend to show upon what grounds he could say that the claim which Sir John Newport had in 1834 was forfeited because that right hon. Baronet had been willing to continue his services in his office to a most recent period, the duties of which he had most efficiently discharged. The right hon. Baronet had attacked the resolution of his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth), because it included certain words used by Mr. Burke, but those were not enacting words, and therefore of no importance. The right hon. Baronet had further complained of what he conceived to be inconsistency on the part of his hon. Friend, because he the other night objected to the giving of a pension to Sir J. Newport, not by the authority of the Crown, but by the authority of Parliament. What was the opinion of the right hon. Baronet himself on this subject in 1837? When the hon. Member for London proposed to put these pensions into the hands of the House of Commons, what said the right hon. Baronet? He declared that He was quite averse to the proposition: that a popular assembly could never wisely interfere with the patronage of the Crown. There was no instance in the history of Parliament of its ever having wisely interfered with the discretionary power of the executive. An assembly such as the House of Commons was too much governed by temporary passions and feelings for the salutary exercise of such a right. The course of proceeding on the part of such a body would be, that, under certain circumstances, they would give a great deal too much; whilst, under the influence of other considerations, they would be tempted to neglect public services of the highest order. He could not help thinking, that temporary circumstances of such a description as those apprehended by the right hon. Baronet might have weight with the votes of to-night, and might induce many hon. Members to overlook, circumstances of a higher nature. There was another point to which he wished shortly to advert. It had been observed, that although the Crown had only 1,200l. a year to appropriate to pensions, the Government had disposed of 1,000l. of it in this one case. It ought, however, to be borne in mind, that the whole sum allowed to the Crown in former years had not been exhausted, that there remained a portion of the yearly allowance after every claim on the part of literary and scientific merit had been fairly met. The right hon. Baronet seemed also to forget the argument he used in the case of Prince Albert. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman contended, that there was no analogy between the allowance to the Queen Dowager and that to be given to the Prince, because the Prince was in his youth, and was likely to receive it for a long period of years, whereas her Majesty the Queen Dowager was advanced in life. [Sir R. Peel: You settled the Queen Dowager's allowance.] He was not surprised that the right hon. Baronet was disinclined to hear his own arguments repeated. But when he complained that the enormous proportion of five-sixths of the entire sum which the Crown had to dispense in the year, was given as a reward for political services, to one individual, he should remember, that the receiver of the pension was of a very advanced age, and was not likely to enjoy it for a long term of years—and that Sir John Newport was not likely long to honour the Pension List with his name. His noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) had not re- ferred to the political pensions on the list in any unfair manner. He had said, that he was not a fit judge of the merits of those who received them, as he had not acted under the same Governments with them, but that no less pension than that received by Sir John Newport was given for political services. He begged the House to consider, that as it had been admitted by his right hon. Friend, that if a pension had been granted to Sir John Newport, even before his taking the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, it would have been a proper pension, and as his right hon. Friend had on this, as well as on a former occasion, admitted, that it was a pension which, in the fair exercise of its prerogative, the Crown might confer, and considering these points, he trusted the House would come to a vote in accordance with justice, and support the resolution of his noble Friend.

Mr. Hume

said, that having been alluded to, he could not allow the discussion to be closed without stating his opinion to be, that both sides had taken a wrong course. If he was called upon to vote for the original motion or the amendment, he felt that he should be compelled to vote for both. The hon. Gentleman who had proposed the original resolution did not apply his speech to it. If the hon. Gentleman meant a vote of censure to be passed upon Lord Monteagle, neither his speech nor the resolution went to that. Therefore it was, that he did not know how to act. If it was intended to blame any party, he thought they ought to have been brought before the House by name. The right hon. Baronet had not been so fortunate in his dates, as he had been strong in his reasoning, because he said, if in 1835 he had made such an appointment, what would have been the consequences? Now the right hon. Baronet must have known, that the law did not exist at that time, which gave to her Majesty the power of granting pensions every year to the amount of 1,200l. That law did not pass till 1837. The right hon. Baronet must bear in mind, that the committee to which allusion had been made, had reported, that no pension ought to be placed on the Civil List, and in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, no man was entitled to receive public reward without receiving it openly. The right hon. Baronet knew, that it was quite an accident that 1,200l. was proposed, because when that sum was proposed, an objection was taken by the right hon Gentleman, that so small a sum was not intended to recompense political services. He considered, that the doctrines laid down by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and defended by the noble Lord the Member for Stroud, held out an inducement to every man to look forward to reward for political services. With respect to the removal of Sir John Newport, and the appointment of Lord Monteagle, it was (perhaps unfortunately) supposed, that the vacancy was created on purpose to enable the Government to support Lord Monteagle, and all that he had to regret was, that such was not the case had not been stated in more distinct terms. He should have wished to have seen a letter showing the date when the application was made, because that would have removed all doubts and suspicions respecting the transaction. He could assure the noble Lord, that the whole transaction was denominated a job, and it was supposed to be done purposely to favour Lord Monteagle. That was the supposition, and the great difficulty was, to remove that from the public mind. He felt bound, therefore, to vote for the original motion.

Lord John Russell

, in explanation, repeated, that on the authority of Lord Melbourne, Lord Duncannon, and Sir John Newport, he had stated, and must restate, the retirement of Sir John Newport was not effected to answer the purposes of Government.

Mr. T. S. Duncombe

felt some difficulty in rising to speak upon a subject which had been designated a job. The question was, how were they to deal with this job? When his hon. Friend rose, he thought it was for the express purpose of saying something in defence of the proposition which he had placed on the notice paper; that, however, he had not done; and if it were possible, according to the forms of the House, for the Speaker to put all the three different propositions from the chair together, the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding of the county of York, and the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny—if the Speaker could put those three propositions together to the House, all he could say was, that he should feel the greatest satisfaction in voting against all the three; for he had never met with three more absurd propositions; although, if he were called upon to name one more absurd than another, so far as the public were concerned, ha should fix upon that of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. He did not know whether there was any stranger in that House—he assumed that there was not; but if, peradventure, there had been any during the addresses which had been delivered that evening, he would go out with the conviction that there had been a debate which had nothing to do with the public interests. He wanted to know whether in any of the propositions which had been made in that House by the hon. Member for North Durham, the noble Lord, or his hon. Friend, any one individual had proposed to save the public purse one shilling? Far from it. All the end that the propositions came to was this, except, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who proposed to put 1,200l. a-year additional upon the public burthens; that the hon. Member for North Durham said, that this pension to Sir John Newport "ought not to be drawn into a precedent;" whilst the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding said, "it cannot be drawn into a precedent." Now, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth advised them, "don't trust to that declaration, that never could be depended upon," for, added the right hon. Gentleman, "although this House may say, that this cannot be drawn into a precedent, and although it ought not to be so drawn, yet the next House of Commons, with the Tory administration which will, in all probability, succeed the present, will do the very thing that we say cannot and ought not to be done. This precedent will be established, and the next House will say, we will repeat it whenever we think proper." He must look, then, in order to form his own determination, at the conclusion of the hon. Member for North Durham, for his premises were not disputed. The hon. Member said, that it was of great importance to keep the Comptroller-general of the Exchequer independent of the influence of the Crown. [Hear, hear.]—Hear, hear, said he. He would like to know from the hon. Gentlemen who were now so desirous of keeping the executive government independent of the influence of the Crown, when they acquired their new-born zeal? When did it commence? Was it in the reign of George 3rd? Was it when Mr. Dunning proposed a resolution that "the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished?" Did they declare that the influence of the Crown was to be nothing with the executive when appointments were made in former reigns? Did they commence this assertion in the reign of George 4th? Did they begin in the days of William 4th? No; it was reserved for the reign of Victoria to see the Tories coming forward and saying that the influence of the Crown ought not to be used in the executive government! The right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir James Graham), said that he had a great regard for Sir John Newport, and that this motion had nothing to do with him—that it was, in fact, a vote of censure on her Majesty's Ministers. If this were so, why did not hon. Gentlemen say, "This is an act unworthy of her Majesty's Ministers?" Why did they not state fairly, "This is a gross job," and he would agree with them; but they did not do any such thing, they evaded the question, they did not directly assert the censure. He would like to ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether any one of those who were in Parliament in 1830 recollected—if they did not, he did—a motion made by Sir Robert Heron? Did they recollect the names of Dundas and of Bathurst? Did they recollect the proposal made by the Tories of those days? How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day defend the proposition? They had now got upon the votes that Sir John Newport had served the public for fifty years, and that he was entitled to a pension. At any rate, he had not heard any one deny the justice of the claim. To use the noble Lord's expression, which was not perhaps the most elegant, although it was very expressive, hon. Gentlemen had approached the question "in the most gingerly manner." How had those same Gentlemen defended other pensions? How had the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1830 defended the pensions to Messrs. Bathurst and Dundas? He believed that the right hon. Member for Cambridge was the person then holding that office, and he said, As to the precise nature of the services of those 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. Now, then, four years duration was all that the right hon. Gentleman had to say in favour of the services of Messrs. Dundas and Bathurst. The right hon. Gentleman went on— Mr. Bathurst, although called by the hon. Baronet a very young gentleman, had been a considerable time at the bar. 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 appeared 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. Here were two individuals claiming pensions. And whilst the pension to Sir John Newport was opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, after fifty years of service, they were quite ready to grant 500l. a-year to each of two individuals, in whose favour all that could be said was, that they had been at the bar, and that their public services had been of four years' duration. He would be glad to see any hon. Gentleman stand up and say in what respect the public were concerned in the debate that had taken up the whole evening. The public interests were in no way concerned in it. It was a mere fight between the two factions, and whether the one succeeded or the other was a matter of perfect indifference to the public. He could only say again, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was the most absurd of the three; between the others he had a doubt which was the best, and as he had that doubt, he should give it in favour of those whose administration he thought most beneficial to the country.

Mr. Williams Wynn

felt much embarrassment in stating, that he differed from those with whom he usually acted; but as this was a judicial question, he was bound to decide it by the construction of the act of Parliament, and by his opinion of the merits of the individual who was the more immediate subject of the motion. He could not depreciate the merits of the right hon. Gentleman; he agreed with his two right hon. Friends as to their estimate of Sir John Newport's services; he believed with the right hon. Member for Pembroke, that if a pension had been given to Sir John Newport when he retired from Parliament, he would have been fairly entitled to it, and that according to the construction of the act, there was nothing to prevent its being granted. He could only say for himself, that he would not carry that act further than the words would lead. He saw by the words of that act, that pensions were allowed to be granted to the extent of 1,200l. a-year, to such persons as should have "just claims upon the royal beneficence," and he did believe that Sir John Newport had just claims on the royal beneficence. The words of the act continued, "or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public," and he believed also that Sir John Newport, by the performance of duties to the public during the long period that he sat in Parliament, "had," in the words of the act, "merited the gracious consideration of the Sovereign;" and he for one could not say that services rendered to one's country ought to be excluded from the consideration of those who had to advise her Majesty in the administration of the grant, although the individual might have held office at intervals, and only for a few months each time. He did not know that the claims of Mrs. Fox or of Mrs. Tierney were invalidated, because Mr. Fox had held office only for a few months, or because Mr. Tierney had held no office for many years, and had been but a short time Master of the Mint. He had risen to bear his testimony to the merits of Sir John Newport; he believed that no man had been more indefatigable in his exertions than he was throughout the whole of his Parliamentary career, or more honourable in the discharge of his duty. Under these circumstances he was not prepared to say that this grant ought not to be drawn into a precedent for a similar grant, if similar merits existed in respect of individuals at an advanced period of life. But the question which his right hon. Friends had raised, was, whether Sir John Newport, having held the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, had not become disqualified from receiving a pension. To that he could not agree. He did not think that the holding of the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer gave a claim to a pension, but if a person having a claim to a pension did hold that office, he was not thereby disqualified. What was the object of the act? That there should not be a person holding a pension from the Crown appointed, or that a party should not look for a pension from the Crown whilst he held the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, and that, having held that office, he should not have, on that account, any claim to a retiring pension. But allow him to ask, whether it was ever intended that if an individual, who was entitled to a retiring pension, should be appointed Comptroller of the Exchequer, he should therefore be precluded from afterwards putting forth the claim he already had? Such a proposal would neither be fair towards the individual, nor economical towards the public, because if a man entitled to a pension should be appointed as comptroller, the pension might be suspended during the time that he held the office, and the public would save the amount of the pension. Upon these grounds it was that, having heard the whole of the debate, he had determined to give his vote in favour of the noble Lord.

Mr. Liddell

replied. After the allusion that had been made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, to some former transactions of former governments, he wished to say a few words. The hon. Member gave the tu quoque answer to the Opposition side of the House, and he had implied that they only opposed jobs when they were out of office. In doing so he had alluded to what he termed a job in former days. He had never sat in Parliament except as an independent Member, and well he recollected the circumstances of the transaction to which the hon. Member for Finsbury had alluded. He said, now, that the clouds of obloquy which surrounded the administration of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had passed away, that if there was one thing more redounding to the credit of that administration than another, it was that identical transaction. What were the real circumstances of that transaction? The noble Duke, with that zeal which he had ever displayed for the public service, finding that some offices could be cut off with advantage to the public service, had cut off the two offices held by Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Dundas; and, instead of reducing the less influential clerks, instead of making a job, as others might have done, he cut off two sons of two of his own Cabinet Ministers, who were the junior commissioners who had been appointed to an office, which, up to that time, had been invariably held for life, and the tenor of which might alter, and most probably did alter the whole circumstances of their lives; and he did propose that pensions should be granted to them by way of compensation, with the consent of Parliament: and that consent the Parliament of that day, in its discretion, perhaps not in its wisdom, refused to give. How, then, could the hon. Member for Finsbury say, that this was a job. He gave utterance but to his own impressions, which were as likely to be formed upon considerations of honour as those of the hon. Member. After those remarks he would not longer detain the House, but go at once to the division which would decide between him and the noble Lord.

The House divided on the original question. Ayes 240, Noes 212:—Majority 28.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Burroughes, H. N.
A'Court, Captain	Calcraft, J. H.
Alsager, Captain	Cantalupe, Viscount
Arbuthnot, hon. H.	Chapman, A.
Archdall, M.	Cholmondeley, hn. H.
Ashley, Lord	Christopher, R. A.
Ashley, hon. H.	Chute, W. L. W.
Attwood, M.	Clerk, Sir G.
Bagge, W.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Bailey, J.	Cochrane, Sir T. J.
Bailey, J. jun.	Codrington, C. W.
Baillie, Colonel	Cole, Viscount
Baker, E.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Baring, hon. F.	Cooper, E. J.
Barneby, J.	Copeland, Alderman
Barrington, Viscount	Corry, hon. H.
Bell, M.	Courtenay, P.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Cripps, J.
Bethell, R.	Dalrymple, Sir A.
Blackburne, I.	Darby, G.
Blackstone, W.	Darlington, Earl of
Blair, J	D'Israeli, B.
Blakemore, R.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Blandford Marq. of	Douro, Marquess of
Blennerhasset, A.	Dowdeswell, W.
Boldero, H. G.	Duffield, T.
Bolling, W.	Dugdale, W. S.
Bradshaw, J.	Dunbar, G.
Bramstone, T. W.	Duncombe, hon. W.
Broad wood, H.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Bruce, Lord E.	Du Pre, G.
Bruges, W. H. L.	East, J. B.
Buck, L. W.	Eastnor, Lord
Burrell, Sir C.	Eaton, R. J.

Egerton, W. T.	Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.
Egerton, Sir P.
Eliot, Lord	Knight, H. G.
Ellis, J.	Knightley, Sir C.
Estcourt, T.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Farnham, E. B.	Law, hon. C. E.
Fielden, J.	Leader, J. T.
Fellowes, E.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Filmer, Sir E.	Lincoln, Earl of
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Litton, E.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Lockhart, A. M.
Foley, E. T.	Long, W.
Follett, Sir W.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Forester, hon. G.	Lowther, J. H.
Fox, S. L.	Lucas, E.
Freshfield, J. W.	Lygon, hon. General
Gaskell, J. M.	Mackenzie, T.
Gladstone, W. E.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Mahon, Viscount
Gore, O. J. R.	Maidstone, Viscount
Goring, H. D.	Manners, Lord C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Marsland, T.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Mathew, G. B.
Greene, T.	Maunsell, T. P.
Grimsditch, T.	Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Grimston, Viscount	Meynell, Captain
Grimston, hon. E. H.	Miles, P. W. S.
Grote, G.	Miles, W.
Hale, R. B.	Milnes, R. M.
Halford, H.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Moneypenny, T. G.
Harcourt, G. G.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H.	Neeld, J.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Nicholl, J.
Heneage, G. W.	Norreys, Lord
Henniker, Lord	Ossulston, Lord
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Owen, Sir J.
Herbert, hon. S.	Packe, C. W.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.	Palmer, R.
Hill, Sir R.	Parker, R. T.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hinde, J.H.	Peel, J.
Hodgson, F.	Pemberton, T.
Hodgson, R.	Perceval, Colonel
Hogg, J. W.	Perceval, hon. G.
Holmes, hon. W. A.	Pigot, R. D.
Holmes, W.	Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hope, hon. C.	Plumptre, J. P.
Hope, H. T.	Polhill, F.
Hope, G. W.	Pollock, Sir F.
Hotham, Lord	Powell, Colonel
Houldsworth, T.	Powerscourt, Visct.
Hume, J.	Praed, W. T.
Hurt, F.	Price, R.
Ingestrie, Lord	Pringle, A.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Pusey, P.
Irton, S.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Jackson, Sergeant	Reid, Sir J. R.
James, Sir W. C.	Richards, R.
Jermyn, Earl	Rickford, W.
Jervis, S.	Rolleston, L.
Johnston, General	Round, C. G.
Johnstone, H.	Round, J.
Jones, J.	Rushout, G.
Jones, Captain	Sanderson, R.
Kelly, F.	Sandon, Viscount
Kemble, H.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Sheppard, T.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Shirley, E. J.	Verner, Colonel
Sibthorp, Colonel	Vernon, G. H.
Sinclair, Sir G.	Villiers, Viscount
Smith, A.	Vivian, J. E.
Smyth, Sir G. H.	Waddington, H. S.
Somerset, Lord G.	Wakley, T.
Sotheron, T. E.	Walsh, Sir J.
Spry, Sir S. T.	Welby, G. E.
Stanley, E.	Whitmore, T. C.
Stanley, Lord	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Sturt, H. C.	Williams, T. P.
Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Sutton, hn. J. H. T. M.	Wood, Colonel
Teignmouth, Lord	Wood, Colonel T.
Tennent, J. E.	Wyndham, W.
Thomas, Colonel H.	Young, J.
Thompson, Alderman	Young, Sir W.
Thornhill, G.	TELLERS.
Tollemache, F. J.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Trench, Sir F.	Baring, H.

List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral	Craig, W. G.
Aglionby, H. A.	Crompton, Sir S.
Aglionby, Major	Curry, Sergeant
Ainsworth, P.	Dalmeny, Lord
Alston, R.	Dashwood, G. H.
Auson, hon. Colonel	Denison, W. J.
Archbold, R.	Dennistoun, J.
Baines, E.	Duff, J.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Duke, Sir J.
Barnard, E. G.	Duncombe, T.
Barry, G. S.	Dundas, F.
Bellew, R M.	Dundas, hon. J. C.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Dundas, Sir R.
Bernal, R.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bewes, T.	Ellice, Captain A.
Blackett, C.	Ellice right hon. E.
Blake, W. J.	Ellis, W.
Blake, M. J.	Evans, Sir De L.
Bodkin, J. J.	Evans, G.
Bowes, J.	Evans, W.
Bridgeman, H.	Ewart, W.
Briscoe, J. I.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Brocklehurst, J.	Finch, F.
Brodie, W. B.	Fitzalan, Lord
Brotherton, J.	Fitzpatrick, J. W.
Brown, R. D.	Fleetwood, Sir P. H.
Buller, C.	Fort, J.
Buller, E.	Gisborne, T.
Bulwer, Sir L.	Gordon, R.
Busfeild, W.	Grattan, J.
Butler, hon. Colonel	Greg, R. H.
Byng, G.	Greig, D.
Byng, right hon. G. S.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.
Callaghan, D.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Campbell, Sir J.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Campbell, W. F.	Hall, Sir B.
Cavendish, hon. C.	Handley, H.
Chetwynd, Major	Harland, W. C
Clay, W.	Hawkins, J. H.
Clive, E. B.	Hayter, W. G.
Collier, J.	Heathcote, J.
Conygnham, Lord A.	Hector, C. J.
Corbally, M. E.	Hill, Lord A. M. C.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Hobhouse, rt. hn.Sir J.

Hobhouse, T. B.	Russell, Lord C.
Hodges, T. L	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Hollond, R.	Salwey, Colonel
Howard, F. J.	Sanford, E. A.
Howard, P. H.	Scrope, G. P.
Howard, Sir R.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Howick, Viscount	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Humphery, J.	Shelburne, Earl of
Hurst, R. H.	Smith, B.
Hutchins, E. J.	Smith, J. A.
Hutton, R.	Smith, G. R.
Jervis, J.	Smith, R. V.
Labouchere, rt.hon. H.	Somers, J. P.
Langdale, hon. C.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Lemon, Sir C.	Spencer, hon. F.
Lennox, Lord G.	Standish, C.
Loch, J.	Stanley, M.
Lushington, rt. hn. S.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Lynch, A. H.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Macaulay,rt. hn.T. B.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
M'Taggart, J.	Stewart J.
Marshall, W.	Stuart, Lord J.
Martin, J.	Stuart, W. V.
Maule, hon. F.	Stock, Dr.
Melgund, Viscount	Strangways, hon. J.
Mildmay, P. St. J.	Strickland, Sir G.
Morpeth, Viscount	Strutt, E.
Morris, D.	Style, Sir C.
Muntz, G. F.	Surrey, Earl of
Murray, A.	Tancred, H. W.
Muskett, G. A.	Tavistock, Marq. of
Noel, hon. C. G.	Thornely, T.
O'Brien, W. S.	Townley, R. G.
O'Callaghan, hon. C.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Connell, D.	Tufnell, H.
O'Connell, J.	Turner, E.
O'Connell, M. J.	Turner, W.
O'Connell, M.	Verney, Sir H.
O'Conor, Don	Vigors, N. A.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Vivian, rt. hon. Sir R.
Ord, W.	Walker, R.
Paget, Lord A.	Wall, C. B.
Paget, F.	Wallace, R.
Palmerston, Viscount	Westenra,hon. J. C.
Parker, J.	White, A.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.	Wilde, Sergeant
Pechell, Captain	Williams, W.
Pendarves, E. W. W.	Williams, W. A.
Philips, G. R.	Wilshere, W.
Phillpotts, J.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Pigot, D. R.	Winnington, H. J.
Pinney, W.	Wood, C.
Ponsonby, hon. J.	Wood, Sir M.
Price, Sir R.	Wood, G. W.
Protheroe, E.	Wood, B.
Pryme, G.	Worsley, Lord
Ramsbottom, J.	Wrightson, W. B.
Redington, T. N.	Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Rice, E. R.	Wyse, T.
Rich, H.	Yates, J. A.
Roche, W.
Rumbold, C. E.	TELLERS.
Rundle, J.	Seymour, Lord
Russell, Lord J.	Stanley, hon. E. J.

Paired off.
NOES	AYES.
Abercomby, G. R.	Palmer, G.

NOES.	AYES.
Acheson, Viscount	Parker Montague
Anson, Sir G.	St. Paul, H.
Barron, W. H.	Castlereagh, Viscount
Beamish, F. B.	Rose, Sir G.
Berkeley, hon. C.	Neeld, J.
Bryan, G.	O'Neil, J.
Cave, O.	Burdett, Sir F.
Cavendish, G. H.	Bagot, hon. W.
Cayley, E. S.	Cartwright, W. L.
Chapman, Sir M. L.	Compton, H. C.
Chester, H.	Parker, T. A. W.
Chichester, J. P. B.	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Childers, J. W.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Colquhoun, Sir J.	Trevor, hon. R.
Crawford, W.	Dottin, A. R.
Davies, Colonel	Hamilton, C. J. B.
D'Eyncourt, C. T.	Maclean, D.
Donkin, Sir R.	Gordon, hon. W.
Duncan Lord.	Brownrigg, J. S.
Edwards, Sir J.	Davenport, J.
Erle, W.	Cresswell, C.
Etwall, R.	Rushbrook, Colonel
Fector, J. M.	Egerton, Lord F.
Ferguson, R.	Kelburne, Lord
Ferguson, Sir R. C.	Jones, W.
Fitzsimon, N.	Fleming J.
French, F.	Williams, R.
Gillon, W. D.	Hughes, W. B.
Grattan, H.	Lefroy, D. T.
Guest, J.	Tyrell Sir J. T.
Heneage, E.	Marton, G.
Heron, Sir R.	Kerrison, Sir E.
James, W.	Jenkins, Sir R.
Jephson, Sir C.	Gore, O. W.
Langton, Colonel G.	Farrant, R.
Lister, E. C.	Hawkes, T.
Macnamara, W.	Pollen, Sir J. W.
Maher, J.	Canning, Sir S.
Martin, T. B.	Hayes, Sir E.
Milton, Lord	Alford, Viscount
O'Brien, C.	Kirk, P.
Phillips, Sir R. P.	Patten, W.
Ponsonby, C.	Baring, W. B.
Power, J.	Dungannon, Lord
Roche, Sir D.	Bateson, Sir R.
Roche, E. B.	Conolly, E.
Slaney, R. A.	Broadley, H.
Spiers, A.	Feilden, W.
Talbot, J. H.	Houston, G.
Talfourd, T. N.	Godson, R.
Vivian, Major C.	Dick, Q.
Vivian, J. H.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Walker, C. A.	Campbell, Sir H. P.
Westenra, hon. H.	Harcourt, G. S.
White, S.	Cole, hon. A.
White, Colonel H.	Stewart, J.
White, L.	Coote, Sir C.
Wilbraham, G.	Granby, Marquess of
Absent NOES.
Andover, Viscount	Blunt, Sir C.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Brabazon, Lord
Bannerman, A.	Brabazon, Sir W.
Benett, J.	Chalmers, P.
Berkeley, G.	Clayton, Sir W.
Blewitt, R.	Clements, Lord

Collins, W.	Lennox, Lord G.
Crawley, S.	Lushington, C.
Currie, R.	Marsland, H.
De Winton, W.	Moreton, A. H.
Divett, E.	Nagle, Sir R.
Dundas, W. D.	Oswald, J.
Easthope, J.	Palmer, C. F.
Ellice, E.	Pattison, J.
Euston, Earl of	Pease, J.
Fenton, John	Philips, M.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.	Power, J.
Greenway, C.	Pryse, P.
Hallyburton, Lord D.	Rippon, C.
Hastie, A.	Scholefield, J.
Hawes, B.	Sharpe General
Heathcote, G. J.	Steuart, R.
Heathcote, Sir G.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Hindley, C.	Villiers, C. P.
Horsman, E.	Warburton, H.
Hoskins, K.	Ward, H. G.
Hutt, W.	Wemyss, J. C.
Lambton, H.
Absent AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Ingham, R.
Adare, Lord	Irving, J.
Attwood, W.	Kerr, D.
Burr, H.	Knox, hon. T.
Crewe, Sir G.	Lowther, Viscount
Damer, hon. G.	Master, Colonel
De Horsey, S. H.	Miller, W. H.
Fector, J. M.	Morgan, C. M. R.
Goddard, A.	Pakington, J. S.
Grant, hon. Colonel	Shaw, F.
Grant, F. W.	Wodehouse, hon. E.
Howard, W.
Liberals who usually vote with Ministers, who voted against them.
Fielden, J.	Jervis, S.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Hume, J.
Grote, G.	Leader, J. T.
Goring, H. D.	Molesworth, Sir W.
Johnson, General	Wakley, T.