LORD KEANE

HC Deb 12 February 1841 vol 56 cc554-84

Mr. Hume

begged leave to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control, to an important subject, which he (Mr. Hume) thought they were at this particular period, before proceeding to take her Majesty's Message into consideration, bound to take into their most serious consideration. He held in his hand certain Indian newspapers, which contained the most grave and serious charges against Lord Keane, for conduct which, if borne out by facts, and not satisfactorily explained to that House, must, of course, put an end to the question which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had given notice of bringing forward this evening with reference to Lord Keane. Certain reports having been circulated for many months publicly in India, to the prejudice of Lord Keane, it might have been expected, that an enquiry would have been naturally instituted by the Government on the spot, for the purpose of ascertaining how such reports had originated, and whether well-founded or not; but no inquiry had taken place. The late disgraceful conduct of the 2nd Bengal cavalry in the face of the enemy, had revived those reports with increased bitterness, and their conduct had been attributed to the circumstance of Lord Keane having at the time the 2nd regiment of Bengal cavalry was under his command, ordered one of the troopers of that corps, who was innocent of any crime to be shot. The allegations contained in a letter which appeared in the Agra Ukhbar newspaper, which he held in his hand was made by the writer of it, who signed himself "Injured Innocence." He would first read an extract from the Bombay Times of the 1st of January, 1841, which states— That the 2nd Bengal cavalry had been dismounted and disarmed, and were on their march to Bengal. Hitherto speculation and surmise had been at fault to account for the dastardly scene at Purwan Durrah. In default of this, violent and angry discussion has been stirred up afresh, in reference to the death (the murder it has been unhesitatingly called) of one of their troopers, in the Affghan campaign, with which the name of Lord Keane had all along in some shape been connected. It has been matter of astonishment to every one, that for the satisfaction of the army, and for the sake of the character of the late Commander-in-chief and his staff, no official investigation was ever entered into on the subject. The writer of the letter in the Agra Ukhbar manifestly was a witness of much of what he describes, and the following-quotation will enable English readers to understand the nature of the charge against Lord Keane, or as he then was, Sir John Keane, for having given orders to shoot a trooper near to his tent, who, it appeared, had died in consequence of the wound he had received from those who had acted in obedience to such orders from Sir John Keane. He (Mr. Hume) knew nothing of the transaction except from the public papers; but from them it appeared that so early as April and May last year, the charges were publicly made; and the extracts from the letter in the Bombay Times of the 1st of January, will explain to the House the nature and extent of the charge. The Agra Ukhbur has published a letter from an old correspondent which makes no mystery of the wretched affair of the trooper of the 2nd regiment of Bengal cavalry, who it is now unequivocally asserted was put to death by order of Lord Keane; The Friend of India speaks of it as a fact, perfectly well known? The Calcutta Press and Bombay Courier has stripped the lion's hide from off the conqueror of Affghanistan. But the Agra Ukhbar is rampant, he says, that with respect to the first cause, that the trooper was murdered, I have never seen it publicly contradicted, though I have heard it said, that a certificate was given, that he did not die of the wound. Why, I ask, was this certificate required? The letter proceeds,' Although the victim to the angry passions of the Commander-in-chief, was not thirty yards from his tent, and he had every opportunity of ascertaining what the man was really about, he still insisted on securing him as a prisoner, he directed his being shot, and disgusting as it must be to the feelings of every soldier, he found a ready sycophant to execute his instructions. It is also stated, that the regiment to which this trooper had belonged, immediately demanded an inquiry into the cause of their comrade's death, but (as the letter went on to state) no enquiry took place, and no satisfaction was granted, the matter was hushed up. Circumstances had remained in that unsatisfactory state, and the regiment to which the deceased man had belonged, had continued in a state of discontent until the action at Purwan Durrah. Since then the regiment had been disarmed, and they were marching back to Bengal. It appeared that the charge which he had read, had been made against Sir J. Keane, not in one paper only, and on one occasion, but it had been made in various forms for many months in the public newspapers, in the presidencies of Bengal and Bombay. He now held some of these papers in his hand, from which he had taken the liberty of reading it. The letter was signed by a person styling himself "Injured Innocence," and it was understood that the name of the writer had also been given to the editor to admit of enquiry. The charge of murder against a man of Lord Keane's high standing and respectability—a man holding so important a position as the gallant officer had been called to fill, was a circumstance that demanded an explanation in this House, for it was impossible that a charge could be brought against any man that could so seriously affect, not only his honour, but also the honour and welfare of the British army. "The extraordinary misconduct of the 2nd Bengal cavalry regiment, has revived the charge of the murder of one of the troopers, and it has been a matter of astonishment to every person, that an investigation upon the subject had not taken place, as well for the satisfaction of the army, as for the honour of the Commander-in-chief." He (Mr. Hume) submitted to the House, that as a trooper of the 2nd regiment of the Bengal cavalry had been put to death as alleged there publicly by order of Lord Keane; and as the charge of murder had. never been contradicted, or any explanation given, although it had been said, that a certificate had been given that the soldier did not die of the wounds which had been inflicted upon him, he (Mr. Hume) would ask, why was this certificate given, and why was not an enquiry instituted? The state of the law, indeed, to render such a document useless; as the law maintained that the intent to murder was as criminal as the actual commission of the murder itself. But there was one paragraph of the extract to which he wished to call particular attention, viz.— "That although the unfortunate victim was but thirty yards distant from the tent in which he (the commander) was at the time, he took no opportunity of ascertaining what the man was about, but, instead of so doing, he ordered the man to be shot, and he found a ready sycophant to execute his orders." That was, continued the hon. Gentleman, the substance of the grave charge he made, on the authorities he had stated, and hoped that the Government would postpone this vote until the matter was inquired into, if the explanation which the right hon. Baronet should give was not satisfactory to the House.

Sir John Hobhouse

expressed his surprise that his hon. Friend should have been influenced by the gross calumnies against Lord Keane, which had appeared in the Indian newspapers, calumnies which, gross and unfounded as they were, ought, however, to be contradicted, He was glad, that his hon. Friend had not waited for the vote which his noble Friend was about to propose, and that he had, as he thought there was something worthy for the consideration of that House in these rumours as to the conduct of Lord Keane, he had called for an explanation before that vote was proposed. He must, however, express the surprise he felt, that the hon. Gentleman, on the mere authority of newspapers, and such newspapers, too, as he was sorry to say circulated in India at this day, should have thought it possible that an English general officer could be guilty not only of murder, but of being an accomplice in murder, such as those papers had distinctly charged him with—namely, murder under the pretence of a discharge of duty. The hon. Gentleman had read extracts from certain newspapers, copies of which he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) then held in his hands, and he was certainly surprised, that when the hon. Gentleman read those newspapers, he was not shocked at the terms in which the charge was made. Was this charge ever heard of before Lord Keane left India? There were Gentlemen present in that House connected with the East-India Company. He saw a director opposite (Mr. Hogg), and he would ask him whether he had ever heard, or whether the court of directors had ever had the slightest cognizance of any such fact, or of any such charge having been made? When he saw the charge in the newspapers, he made it his business to inquire immediately whether there were the slightest ground for it. He sent to the East-India House, and the gentlemen there informed him they had heard of none. He next inquired in his own department, and found there was no account of any such occurrence. Then, of course, it became his duty, for he had no other application to make, to inquire of the parties concerned, of those who were in the campaign with Lord Keane, and he had also inquired of Lord Keane himself, for he felt that a charge of this sort was not to be passed lightly over, especially if it were to be brought before Parliament, in order to prevent an hon. Officer, who had served his country nearly half a century, receiving those honours that were about to be conferred upon him. He had felt it his duty, that neither the stories of an "Old Correspondent," nor of "Injured Innocence," should be allowed to take away the character of an old English general. The truth of the case was this he would put the House in possession of the facts, and then leave it to judge whether there were any ground for the imputation. He was sorry to be obliged, in narrating these facts, to say that a portion of the Bengal cavalry that had advanced into Afghanistan, had not distinguished itself for bravery. Lord Keane was informed, at the capture of Ghusnee, that the second regiment of Bengal cavalry were marauding, and that they were about to commit depredations upon the standing crops of a village, the principal men of which came to Lord Keane himself in his tent, and, upon their knees, implored him to save that which was to be their food for the next, half year. Lord Keane immediately sent for the Provost-marshal, and said, that he could not permit such disgrace to be brought on troops which had previously distinguished themselves in discipline and good conduct, and who were advancing into that country for the purpose of restoring the monarch whom the Governor-General of India had declared to be the legitimate sovereign. He therefore ordered the Provost-marshal to place a certain number of videttes around the fields of corn; and to prevent any person from advancing into them to cut down the corn or to feed their horses, he ordered the vi- dettes to fire at first over the heads of the marauders; but at any rate not to allow depredations to be committed. Lord Keane felt, that he could not allow the character of the British soldier to be compromised by such marauding. He gave his orders to a competent authority, the Provost-marshal, and he did not conceal from the House, that he believed Lord Keane gave those orders with a view to repel the marauders, and that he meant them to be obeyed. What occurred, he was sorry to say, was this, the 2nd regiment went out for the purpose of marauding at night, and some of the videttes fired—they fired upon those who had gone into the field to cut down the corn. It did so turn out, that although the infantry stationed to protect the property of the natives fired over the heads of the depredators, one of the troopers was wounded in the leg, and it was said he afterwards died. But he (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) would say, that if the man had been shot on the spot it would hare been perfectly justifiable; and he would further say, that if every person (being cognizant of the orders of the Commander-in-chief) thus plundering the property of people no way concerned in the war, who had not arms in their hands—if every person who was guilty of such a trespass had been wounded or had suffered death, and if Lord Keane had been brought before that or any other tribunal in the world on the charge of shooting them, he would have been acquitted. Lord Keane was only doing an honourable but a painful duty when he did that, for which so much villanous abuse had been heaped upon him. Having now justified Lord Keane from that charge, he might be permitted to appeal to those gallant Officers who heard him, for the character of that noble Lord. It was quite superfluous for him to pronounce any eulogium upon the merits of the noble Lord, and they were more competent than he to pronounce an opinion upon such a subject; but he would take leave to tell the House this one fact, that during the whole advance, not only was there no man punished with death, but positively no corporal punishment of any kind was inflicted on one single soldier, either of the native troops or of the British regiments. There was not a single court-martial for the trial of any serious offence during the whole of that very important and arduous campaign. He trusted, that he had said enough to convince the House that the death of the sepoy was not owing to the conduct of the noble Lord, or formed any ground for the House to refuse the vote which his noble Friend meant to ask. He was sorry to be obliged to detain the House, but he considered it necessary to go into some details, and the point to which he had now to advert gave him more pain than even the grossly calumnious charges made against the noble Lord. It was also of a more grave character—not as it affected Lord Keane, but those officers who had signed their names to the military commission. The House was aware, that in the course of the campaign a disaster had befallen our troops under the command of Major Clibborne, while endeavouring to relieve a fort. No imputation rested upon that gallant officer, for he was attacked by about seven or eight times his number, when he was obliged to retire. No imputation, whatever, he repeated, attached to the gallant officer in any way or shape, but our troops were so unused to any reverses that the Bombay government very properly ordered an immediate inquiry, in order to find out the cause of the disaster. Certain officers assembled; there was a major-general, a colonel, and two officers engaged in the inquiry. The House would be surprised —he had almost said shocked—to hear, that before the report of that inquiry could have been sent up to head quarters for confirmation or revision, the report itself appeared in a Bombay newspaper, just at the time the packet was about to sail; just at the time when such a report reaching home before the general commanding-in-chief had had an opportunity of seeing it, might operate injuriously to Lord Keane. And here he must take the liberty of saying, that that was one of the most extraordinary military reports he had ever seen. That the publication of that report must have emanated from some person concerned in the inquiry, there could be no doubt. There could be no mistake on that head; and whoever that person might be, as long as he had the honour to hold his present responsible situation, he should think it his duty, for the protection of the character of the noble and gallant Lord, and so he believed would the Court of Directors, to deal properly with those who had so grossly betrayed their confidential duty. It was not for him then to say anything more with respect to that report, and he begged pardon of the House for detaining them so long. He should not, however, have performed his duty, had he not said so much in favour of the noble Lord, who, after nearly half a century of service, had been so cruelly maligned by a rascally paragraph in a newspaper. He trusted the House would do justice by agreeing to the motion.

Mr. W. Williams

wished to know if the right hon. President of the Hoard of Control had received information whether or not Lord Keane or the Indian government had ordered any legal proceedings to be instituted against the authors of these libels?

Sir John Hobhouse

said, he ought to have mentioned, that so shocked were the Bombay government by the appearance of the report of the military commission, that they had thought it their duty to censure the publication of it: and they had called upon the officers to explain how it had appeared. With respect to the Bengal cavalry, he had a report of certain proceedings that had taken place upon the conduct of that unhappy regiment, and it was to be disbanded.

Sir R. Jenkins

, although he had not been personally called upon to answer the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet opposite, yet felt impelled to confirm most fully the statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman on both heads. He believed, that not one syllable of truth was contained in the charges against Lord Keane. He had heard that the sepoy trooper had been wounded under the circumstances detailed by the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the affair of Major Clibborne, Lord Keane had nothing to do with that disaster, or with the circumstance that had led to it, inferiority of force.

Mr. Hogg

had told the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who had asked the question of him on the night the noble Lord had given notice of the present motion, that no intelligence of the events alluded to had reached him. If the charges that had been brought against Lord Keane had any foundation in truth, would the House believe, that no complaint, no representation would have been made to the constituted authorities either in India or at home? It had been said, that the cavalry had made a remonstrance, but that statement was unfounded. Lord Keane had again and again issued orders—those orders had been disobeyed, and at last he had discharged that duty which, perhaps, it would have been better to have dis- charged a little earlier. Of the whole marauding party only one had been wounded, and whether that individual had died from the effects of the wound or not, he was unable to state.

Mr. Hume

explained, that it was not he who had introduced the mention of the military commission, it was the President of the Board of Control who had done so. He (Mr. Hume) did not, perhaps, differ much from the hon. Baronet in thinking that it was wrong to have published that report until it had been in the hands of the Bombay government. He thought it a most singular state of things if, in India, newspapers should be found hardy enough to put forward such serious charges like those against a distinguished officer upon an anonymous communication, and persist in repeating them for so many months, without any notice being taken by the Government of them. It was said, that the writer of the letter signed Injured Innocence, had given his name to the editor, and was thus to be found out and prosecuted if there was no foundation for the charge. If the death of the trooper was caused in the way stated by the right hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Hume) was not the man to complain; but the newspaper he had quoted said the contrary.

Sir J. C. Hothouse

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. No names were given to the letters containing the villanous charges against Lord Keane; if there had, some opportunity for proof would have occurred. But the correspondents of the Bombay Times and the Agra Ukhbar were anonymous.

Mr. O'Connell

said, there were the public tribunals to appeal to. There was the Board of Control; there was the India House. It really was too bad, that a gallant officer should be traduced in the way that Lord Keane had been maligned.

Viscount Howick

thought, that the explanation of the right hon. Baronet was as satisfactory as possible, and, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought to admit, that it was so, even if it were for no other purpose than to allow the House to approach the discussion free from bias or difficulty,

Sir Hussey Vivian

was enabled distinctly to state, that not only no such certificate as had been alluded to was granted, but Lord Keane was not aware, that any man had died until he saw the account in the Agra Ukhbar.

The Order of the Day for the consideration of the Queen's message was read, and the House resolved itself into a Committee.

Lord John Russell

said, it was quite unnecessary for him to make any statement of the merits of Lord Keane, that subject having been brought before the House last year, on the consideration of the vote of thanks. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, had, on that occasion, laid the whole conduct of the expedition fully before the House, and had enabled the House to judge of the gallantry and ability with which Lord Keane had discharged his most important duties. He could not possibly conceive the grounds upon which the hop. Member for Kilkenny meant to oppose the vote he was about to have the honour of submitting to the Committee. The proposal he was about to make was the same as that which was made in the case of Viscount Lake, in 1808, and the Committee would agree with him, that it was useless to confer the highest honours of the country upon individuals, unless at the same time adequate means were granted to support the dignity that was conferred. He repeated, he could not understand the ground of opposition, when he considered the eminent services which Lord Keane had rendered to this country in India. He would say, that the name of that distinguished individual stood as high, if not higher, than it had before the commencement of the present discussion. The noble Lord concluded by moving: — That the annual sum of 2,000l. net be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the said annuity to commence from the 8th day of February, 1041, and to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Lieutenant General John Lord Keane, and the two next surviving heirs male of the body of the said John Lord Keane.

Sir R. Peel

said, he certainly should not wait to hear the objections that were about to be made by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny to the motion proposed by the noble Lord; for he was so satisfied of the justice and policy of the grant, that he could not believe, any objections that could be urged by the hon. Gentleman Would have power to shake his opinion. He should avail himself of the opportunity of seconding the proposal, although the speech of the noble Secretary of State did not require the assistance of a seconder. He was not awed by the menace of opposition; still less was he to be dissuaded from the course he was about to take, by the preliminary discussion on the merits of Lord Keane. He cared not whether Lord Keane prosecuted those newspapers or not; he should be sorry to impose upon that noble Lord the necessity of instituting prosecutions in India against the authors of the scandalous attacks that had been made upon his fair fame as a justification of his title to the honour that was to be conferred upon him. He had never before heard of a charge so preposterous, as to endeavour to make a noble and gallant officer who had ever been conspicuous for his bravery and his ability, responsible for the cowardice of those who had run from their duty. The man who signed "Injured Innocence," ought perhaps more properly to have designated himself "Detected cowardice." To run away was bad enough, but to make Lord Keane responsible for it, and to attempt to vindicate it, by ascribing it to a wound in the leg given to a man detected in an act of insubordination upwards of a year previous, only excited disgust. He would not disturb the unanimity which he hoped would be found to prevail upon this vote by any reference to political opinions. In military transactions all such opinions ought to be left entirely out of sight. However much politicians might differ as to the expediency or propriety of any particular military expedition, all that was required of the soldier was, that be should execute the instructions given to him. It was no part of the duty of a military commander to inquire whether the service in which he was employed was politically right or not. All that was demanded of him was implicit obedience. And when they came, in the House of Commons, to estimate the merits of military men, those merits must be considered abstractedly, and without reference to the policy which led to their development. Under no circumstances ought the differences of opinion which might be entertained as to the policy which dictated a military expedition, be allowed to operate to the disadvantage of the officers who were engaged in it. He might, perhaps, lament that the proposition now made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not been submitted to the House at an earlier period. He thought the general rule should be, that the ho- nours or distinctions conferred for military service should be followed, as soon as possible by the pecuniary reward. There might be good reasons for the delay in this instance; but he thought that the better rule was that which he had mentioned, and he trusted that the delay that bad taken place in the case of Lord Keane, would not be followed as a precedent. Now, by what test was he to try the merits of Lord Keane, and to ascertain the amount of praise to which that noble Lord was justly entitled? If he tried him by the test of privation and suffering, he found the army under Lord Keane's command, and under Lord Keane's example, submitting with indomitable endurance to the greatest privations to which an army could be exposed, overcoming the most formidable difficulties, by strict obedience to command, and furnishing an example of discipline unknown in the world, except in the ranks of the British army—a discipline which, in his opinion, distinguished British troops even more gloriously than their exploits in the field. If he tried Lord Keane by the test of brilliant military achievement, he thought the capture of Ghuznee was as brilliant an affair as ever shed a lustre on the arms of Great Britain. If he tried him by the test of the general success of the expedition in which he was employed, he thought that that test was also decidedly in favour of Lord Keane and of the army which he commanded. If he found, then, that the general usage of Parliament had been, in cases where the necessity arose for it, to accompany honorary distinctions for great military services with such a pecuniary provision as should enable the distinguished soldier to support the honours conferred upon him by his Sovereign, he should be exceedingly sorry to make the first exception to the rule, in the case of exploits performed in India. That, in his opinion, was the last place to which the exception should be applied. In those distant regions, where the achievements of the army were carried on, not under the eye, as it were, of the Legislature, where their deeds were comparatively unobserved—where their exploits, unlike those which took place nearer home, failed to attain the degree of popularity which made them in the mouths of all as "familiar as household words"—it was important to let men employed in those distant regions, know that neither the Parliament nor the people were forgetful of their me- rit, and were ready to bestow, for services performed in those remote quarters, the same reward that would certainly have been bestowed for similar services performed nearer home. Having said thus much upon the subject immediately before the House, he could not but take that opportunity of expressing his deep regret at the loss of the gallant officers who fell in the course of the campaign. It was impossible that Parliament could enter into any public recognition of their individual services, on account of the comparative inferiority of rank; but no man could read the accounts of their gallantry, of the sufferings they endured, and the valour they exhibited (when the exploits of the Indian army were spoken of, and the skill of its commander acknowledged), without remembering the gallant services of those of inferior rank, whose endurance upon the march and bravery in the field, had contributed so much towards the accomplishment of an achievement that must for ever hold a distinguished place in the annals of successful military enterprise. He took that opportunity of offering this slight tribute to their memory, and he begged to express his full concurrence in the resolution moved by the noble Lord.

Viscount Howick

confessed, that he had seldom felt greater pain than in giving the vote that he felt himself bound to give upon the present occasion. He admired, in common with the House, the exploits of the Indian army under Lord Keane. He entirely disregarded, as he had already stated, all that had been stated at the beginning of the evening. He trusted, that that subject was for ever disposed of; and that whilst, on the one hand, it could not for a moment influence the mind of any reasonable man, and induce him to give a vote in opposition to the resolution now-proposed; so, on the other hand, he trusted hon. Members would be careful not to allow their minds to receive from it what would not be an unnatural bias, and be induced to mark their indignation against a charge so utterly unsupported, and so improperly brought forward by the Indian newspapers, by agreeing to a vote which otherwise they might not deem called for by the circumstances of the case. There was, as he had said, an inducement to agree to the motion before the House from admiration for the exploits of the Indian army, and the conduct of Lord Keane; there was also a natural feeling of reluctance to take upon one's self the invidious duty of disputing the propriety of conferring rewards for public service. On the one side were these feelings; but, on the other, he could not forget that in voting upon a proposition of this description, they were called upon not to be governed by any feelings of that nature, but by a pure consideration of the public interest, and by what that interest really required. He believed that in the greatest nations of ancient and modern times, before the periods of their decay, the wisest monarchs and rulers had ever shown a great parsimony in the distribution of rewards for public service. It was well known that that was the case with our own Elizabeth. It was well known that she was particularly sparing in the distribution of the rewards which she thought it necessary to give. It was equally well known that the consequence of that parsimony—of that sage reserve in using this means of exciting emulation and eagerness in the public, service, was, that slight rewards coming from her carried with them more real distinction than much greater rewards conferred by other sovereigns. A knighthood, or even a simple expression of her approbation, was considered far more really honourable than the grant of a peerage from her weak and pedantic successor. It was a wise principle, with regard to the public service, to be very sparing in the distribution of great rewards—it was a wise principle that great rewards should only be given upon very great and high occasions. But at the same time, whilst this was the case, there was a natural tendency on the part of governments to fall into the opposite error. There was always a strong temptation to do that which was popular at the moment. To confer rewards was always a grateful and an acceptable duty, whilst to withhold them gave an appearance of niggardliness and absence of generosity. Hence it too frequently happened that governments were too apt to fall into the error of a prodigal distribution of rewards. And in discussing this topic, it ought not to be forgotten that every fresh error of this sort invariably afforded a ground and an argument for further errors of the same description. Every mistake that the legislature was guilty of in a too lavish distribution of rewards naturally and necessarily led to an increase in the demand. It was impossible to withhold from one distinguished individual similar rewards to those which had been conferred upon another for services of the same nature; and thus we went on from time to time, step by step, and little by little, gradually raising and increasing the scale of rewards given for public service, until at length they came to constitute an enormous item in the public expenditure, and to take a conspicuous place amongst the burdens which pressed most heavily upon the nation at large. At the same time it must be remarked, that whilst this increase in the scale of rewards was going on, no corresponding increase was given to the incentive to the discharge of public duty. He thought that in the very case now under their consideration the House was falling into this error. Why was it that it was now deemed necessary to grant this great reward of a peerage, accompanied by a pension for three lives, to Lord Keane? Because the House of Commons had adopted with too great facility, or without due reserve, former propositions of this kind, and because the Government by a too lavish distribution of those rewards which cost the country nothing, which, more sparingly administered produced a great effect on men's minds, had rendered those rewards valueless in the estimation of those who would otherwise be ambitious of attaining them. Was it not remarkable, that at the end of twenty-six years peace, during which no great naval or military service had been performed, and in the process of which few additional claims to reward or distinction could have arisen beyond those which existed at the end of the war—was it not remarkable that, under such circumstances, we should find the number of those who were members of the great military Order of the Bath, as high as when the peace of Europe was restored? He believed, that if a wise policy had been pursued in this respect—if the distinction conferred by admission to the Order of the Bath had been husbanded, and reserved for cases only of distinguished service and merit, the Government would have had a cheap, and at the same time a satisfactory mode of rewarding such services as were now under the consideration of the House. Every consideration, therefore, induced him to believe, that it was a wise policy not to distribute these rewards with great profusion. If he came to apply that principle to the case which was now before the House, and were to examine into the nature and extent of the services performed by Lord Keane which they were called upon to reward, he was aware that he should find great difficulty in explaining the considerations which operated in his own mind, and impelled him to take the course he was now pursuing. He thought, upon the whole, it would be better that he should not attempt to do so, because he felt, that it would be impossible to enter into that explanation without letting fall remarks or using words that might be construed possibly, though much against his intention, as evincing a disposition to disparage or diminish the value of the services of Lord Keane, and the brilliance of the exploits of the army that acted under his command. This was a question which, after all, must be left to the mind of every man; and, in his opinion, when he looked at the nature of the service on which Lord Keane was employed, and at the achievements he performed, he was bound, standing in that House, to declare that he did not think upon the whole that those services were of sufficient importance to justify the legislature in granting a pecuniary provision, not only to Lord Keane himself, but to his two immediate successors. He thought that the services performed by Lord Keane might very justly and very properly have been rewarded by the highest honours that could be conferred, without calling upon Parliament for a provision of the nature now proposed. He thought, also that the case would have amply justified an appeal to the liberality of the House of Commons in favour of Lord Keane himself; but, for one, he had the greatest possible reluctance to granting these pensions, not only in possession to the person who performed the service, but in reversion to those who succeeded him. This he thought a very dangerous principle; and although in each particular case the burden, when compared with the revenue of this great country, appeared to be very trifling and insignificant, it must not be forgotten how great was the tendency of cases of this kind to accumulate and run up. A pension granted now might last for a long series of years. In the mean time, other demands of the same nature arose and were conceded, so that at length an accumulation was formed, that became a large and sensible burden upon the resources of the country. He could not but remember, that in the form of half-pay and pensions, and what was commonly called "dead weight," the burdens upon the finances of the country were now so great, as in many instances to have compelled Parliament to postpone grants for active service which he thought were very urgently required. In fact, the weight of these demands had been in times past, and were still, very severely felt. The principle of the whole was the same; and in his opinion, it was the duty of the House to prevent any further accumulation of charges of this description. He was perfectly aware, when he urged this argument, that he was performing a highly invidious duty. It was a strong sense of the duty he owed to those who sent him there that compelled him to do so. He thought, that the Members of that House, in the discharge of the task for which they were responsible to their constituents, namely, in watching over the pecuniary interests of the country, were not at liberty to be guided by their own feelings of what it might be liberal and pleasing to do in behalf of a brave and gallant man. They were bound to apportion rewards for public service, not upon that principle, but upon the conviction of what they believed necessary, and no more than necessary, to stimulate and encourage merit in the public service in general. That was the only principle upon which, in his opinion, rewards of this kind ought to be given. He was well aware, that his objections were liable to this answer—that Lord Keane having been now made a Peer, it would be extremely unjust and cruel if the House were to refuse to him, and to his immediate successors, a pension corresponding to the rank he had attained. He was not prepared to deny the force of that argument. He confessed, that that was a consideration that had weighed with him, and had increased the difficulty that had attended his making up his mind to give the vote that he had determined to give upon the present occasion. It had, also, made him greatly wish, that in cases of this kind, when a pension was considered as a necessary accompaniment to a peerage, that the custom were different, and that instead of granting a peerage in the first place, and then coming to the House of Commons for a pension, the opposite course were observed, and the granting of the peerage made contingent upon the obtaining a pension. He thought, that that would be a far better, a far wiser, and a far more reasonable course of proceeding. He was, however, quite aware, that it had not been the practice—he was quite aware that a different rule had hitherto been acted upon. He did not complain, therefore, of what had been done in this case. But as the rule (an unwise one in his opinion) had been acted upon, he was bound not to consider the hardship to the individual, but to consider whether, if the whole matter were now brought before the House for the first time—whether if the peerage had not been granted, he should be prepared, as a Member of the House, to approve of the grant of the pension and the peerage together. That was the opinion which substantially he felt himself called upon to give; because the Crown possessed an undoubted right to confer honours according to its own discretion, and the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the advice which they gave to the Crown in the distribution of its marks of honour and distinction; but if it were the clear and undoubted right of the Crown to grant those honours, it was equally the clear and-undoubted right of the House of Commons—nay, it was the incumbent duty of the House to exercise a very severe discretion in all matters relating to the increase of the burdens upon the finances of the kingdom. That being the case, although he feared that the honour conferred upon Lord Keane might be rather an incumbrance than a reward, and greatly as he should regret that circumstance, yet he was bound to keep his judgment unbiassed, and to give his vote upon those great considerations of public policy to which he had already adverted. He would not add any further remarks in support of the vote he intended to give, except once more to declare, that he gave it with unfeigned reluctance, and that it was not inconsistent with the declaration that he set a very high value on the services of Lord Keane, and of the army under his command; and that it proceeded solely from a conviction, that if grants of this nature were to pass by as matters of course —if no individual would take upon himself the odious and unpleasant duty of raising his voice against them, they would gradually increase and multiply, gradually become more and more common, until at length the amount of service to acquire them becoming less and less, the higher rewards for more distinguished services, would have to be screwed up and increased in order to retain their relative value. It was this strong conviction that imposed upon him the duty—a duty from which he could not shrink—of declaring his disapprobation of the vote now proposed.

Lord John Russell

Although I regret that my noble Friend thinks it necessary to oppose this vote, yet I am not sorry that he has stated, with the ability which belongs to him, and with the temper and respect proper to be observed towards the individual who is the object of the vote, the general principles upon which he is disposed to proceed with respect to propositions of this nature; because, being of an entirely opposite opinion from that expressed by my noble Friend, his speech gives me at least an opportunity of stating the views which I entertain upon the subject, and of putting fairly to the House the issue upon which our adverse opinions are to be decided. My noble Friend speaks, in the first place, of the practice of ancient times. He tells us that the Romans observed great parsimony in the distribution of rewards for public service; and that Queen Elizabeth and some of the other great sovereigns of this country had observed a similar frugality. It is to be recollected, with respect to those periods, both of ancient and of modern history, to which my noble Friend has adverted, that there were then very different rewards to be attained. A Roman general returned from a successful campaign, laden with spoils, and retired with a private treasury filled with the produce of those spoils. This occurred at a time when they were often so ignorant of the value of what they had obtained, that one of the greatest of them, having acquired a great number of works of art of the highest order, and ranking highest in the estimation of those capable of appreciating them, made a contract with the ship-owner, by whom they were to be transferred to the conqueror's home, that if they should suffer shipwreck, or be injured upon the passage, he (the ship-owner) should be bound to supply other works of art of equal merit. Such was the spirit, and such the understanding, upon which a general of ancient times entered upon the service of his country. And in the days of Elizabeth, were there not great rewards of the same kind? Did not Sir Francis Drake bring home treasures of silver that would probably shock our eyes, if displayed as a part of the conquest of Lord Keane? What, indeed, should we say, if we saw waggon-loads of silver drawn through the streets to Lord Keane's house as the result of his campaign in Affghanistan? In the days of Elizabeth, public men, too, were rewarded by high privileges and great monopolies, which in our time would never for a moment be sub- mitted to. Were not the Cecils rewarded? Was not Sir Walter Raleigh rewarded? I belive Sir Walter Raleigh had about 3,000l. a-year granted to him by Elizabeth —a sum as compared with which 2,000l. a-year in the present day was utterly insignificant. If we come down to far more modern times—which I need not go through, as my noble Friend has not followed them—but if we come down almost to our own day, we must remember that it was in the power of the Crown to give great offices, to grant large sinecures, to give large pensions, and to bestow great rewards on those who had performed high service to the Crown. All that has since been abolished. Of late years the House of Commons has said, I think very lightly and properly, that it shall not be left entirely in the discretion of the Crown to make these large money grants—that the consent of the House of Commons should be first required; and then it was always added, "who can ever doubt that if there is a real service performed—if it is not a job to serve a political friend, but a bonâ fide grant to reward a naval or military man who has performed valuable service for his country—who can ever doubt that the House of Commons, under such circumstances, would show its gratitude? Who can ever doubt but that the House of Commons would be too happy to co-operate with the Crown in rewarding these merits?" It was said, further, that it would be an additional satisfaction to the individuals who had performed good service to find that they were not only graciously rewarded by their Sovereign, but that the voices of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were likewise in their favour; and this, it was added, could not fail to make whatever reward was bestowed more acceptable to those upon whom it was conferred. Such was the language hold in Parliament when it was proposed to abolish the large pensions and places, and other sources of reward previously held by the Crown. Then, I ask, is this a case, or is it not a case, in which valuable service has been performed? I have stated before, that last year the House had an opportunity of fully considering, and did fully consider and fully testify, by the unanimous opinion of those best qualified to judge the value of the services performed by Lord Keane. Like the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) opposite, I put aside the question of policy. I do not ask you to give any opinion as to the policy of the expedition in which Lord Keane was employed. I will even go further, and suppose that that policy was entirely wrong—that the Government at home, and Lord Auckland in India, were wholly mistaken in the policy which induced them to direct a British army to cross the Indus, and to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of deposing Dost Mahomed, and of placing Shah Soojah upon the throne. I will suppose that policy to have been wholly mistaken; but tell me if Lord Keane, having crossed the Indus —having even surmounted the difficulties of the Bolan pass—had found the hostile tribes too numerous, or the dangers and length of the march greater than his small force could accomplish—if, under such circumstances, he had failed in that courage, fortitude, and perseverance, which distinguished him, and had retreated from the enterprise, what would then have been the dangers to which our empire in the East would have been exposed? And if we had been obliged to comedown to this House, as probably we should have been obliged, to ask for an addition of 5,000 or 10,000 men to the army, to restore the moral force which Lord Keane's abandonment of the enterprise would have weakened, if not lost—and if we had proposed an expense of 120,000l., or perhaps 300,000l. a-year more to support that addition to the army—would it not have been necessary for the House of Commons to have incurred the expense, however great, to support the integrity of our Indian empire? Be it recollected, that this is on empire comprising 90,000,000 of subjects; and a military expedition undertaken that should not be successful—which should not have the brilliant results of Lord Keane's, in which such a place as Ghuznee was attacked and taken in a few hours, would be followed by most calamitous effects, and not only by most calamitous effects to the empire itself, but by most expensive votes in this House. Therefore, with the view to economy alone, to acknowledge these great services—to tell men who have deserved well that we, the House of Commons, concur with the Crown in thinking they have behaved well—and thereby to encourage other men to behave in a similar manner, is, after all, upon the mere consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence, the wisest and the cheapest course to pursue. So much, then, for my noble Friend's argument, that the services performed in this case are not of sufficient importance to call for any high reward. I come next to the statement of my noble Friend, that he regrets very much that we have proposed to continue this annuity to Lord Keane's two next heirs. I have already stated that I followed, in this respect, the example that was set in the case of Lord Lake, and of many other distinguished military men who served in the great war which terminated in 1815. But, I think, it is a reasonable course to pursue. It seems to me that you cannot well offer a peerage to a man whose circumstances are not affluent, and who would not have the means of supporting the dignity you proposed to confer upon him. I know that Lord Seaton, and Lord Keane, and many other distinguished officers, would say, "If I am offered a peerage, and a peerage alone, I must consider that, if I accept it, I shall be placing my son in a conspicuous situation, as a peer of the United Kingdom, and, at the same time, deprive him of many walks of professional life in which a respectable income might be acquired; therefore, with all deference to the Crown, which offers me this reward, I must beg to decline it." This would be the common operation of the offer to confer honorary distinctions unaccompanied by pecuniary reward. My noble Friend says, that the peerage should not be offered till the grant from the House of Commons had been first obtained—that is to say, that the prerogative of the Crown should be submitted to the decision of the House of Commons. I differ entirely from that doctrine. I hold it to be an unconstitutional doctrine. I will never, as a Minister of the Crown, bring forward a proposition for a grant of money with the view of taking the opinion of the House of Commons as to whether any individual should be made a peer or not. I would not put into the Speaker's hands the question, "ay" or "no," whether Lord Keane should be made a peer of the United Kingdom. With the respect that I undoubtedly entertain towards this House, I do not think that that would be a course proper for me to pursue. Unquestionably the Crown would do no such thing. I tell you what the Crown would do, and what it would be obliged to do— it would grant peerages to those meritori- ous officers who happened to possess sufficient property to maintain the rank in which they were raised, and who could, therefore, accept the honour without difficulty to themselves, or injury to their families, and it would not offer peerages to those meritorious officers who had not sufficient property to sustain the rank. I have said, that the doctrine of my noble Friend was not consistent with the just and acknowledged prerogative of the Crown—is it a doctrine favourable to democracy? Suppose the Crown had said to the Grahams, the Hopes, the Cottons, and others of the distinguished officers who served in the last great war, "You are all possessed of large estates—you have great property—you can support any dignity, any honour that we choose to confer upon you; therefore, you shall all have peerages; but with regard to other officers, whose services have not been less valuable, nor less brilliant, we find that they have very little property and would not be able to support the peerage, which otherwise they have well earned, and we should be quite ready to confer, without going to the House of Commons for a pension, and as the House of Commons is not disposed to grant pensions for services of this nature, therefore they shall not have peerages." If the noble Lord's views were adopted, that must be the doctrine of the advisers of the Crown; and a doctrine more hostile to the true rights and merits of those who rise from the democracy of this country cannot be imagined. It would be at once to say, "The great naval or military officer who obtains a brilliant victory, and has, at the same time, a large amount of private property, shall be made a peer; but he who has not this advantage—who is a younger brother or a poor man, shall be refused the distinction to which his services would justly entitle him." It has been a favourite doctrine with some gentlemen—amongst others, I think, with the hon. Member for Kilkenny—a doctrine in which I have always been very happy to concur—that in the army the opportunity should be given for men to rise from the ranks—that commissions should be given to them—and that the private soldier should not be deprived of a share of that promotion which is the proper reward of merit. That doctrine is a just one, and of late years it has been acted upon by the Commander-in-chief. Let us suppose that one of those men who hare risen from the ranks—the son, perhaps of a small farmer, or of a labourer—suppose him in a situation of command, and that it falls to his lot to achieve one of those brilliant victories that immortalize his name, and associate it with the history of his country by services that can never be forgotten— suppose, in such a case, the advisers of the Crown were to say to him, "If you were a rich man, we should feel it our duty to advise the Sovereign to confer a peerage upon you; but as you are a poor man, and an obscure man, having no fortune to support any dignity that may be offered you, and as the House of Commons are not disposed to make any pecuniary provision for men in your situation, we are under the necessity of refusing you the highest honour to which a British subject can aspire—the honour of being admitted to the British peerage." I think, upon all these grounds, whether with regard to the comparison between ancient and modern times, or the comparison between the times of our fathers, and those in which we live ourselves, or with regard to the services performed by Lord Keane, his admirable fortitude—his indomitable courage—his happy maintenance of discipline, and his brilliant conquest at Ghusnee—I say that, upon all these grounds, and upon the ground of supporting the Crown in a grant of this nature, by a vote from the House of Commons as due to merit, whether it be merit in a rich man or a poor man, and lastly, upon the ground that the vote is not proposed by her Majesty's advisers for any object of a party or political character, but simply and purely for services rendered to the nation;—upon all these grounds, I confidently ask the support of the House to the resolution I have had the pleasure of submitting to its consideration.

Mr. Hume

rose amid cries of "question," and "divide." He said it appeared to him, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, looked but a short way before him when he called in question the arguments of the noble Lord below him (Lord Howick.) That noble Lord had objected to the granting Peerages except for great and extraordinary conduct; and more so, to the giving a pension in the present state of the dead weight and burdens on the people. He (Mr. Hume) agreed with the noble Lord. He (Mr. Hume) wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who supported the present motion, whether in the appeal he had just made to that House, he meant, that they should create hereditary Peers at the present day, and pension them now with the certainty that they would have them beggars at the third generation? When notice of the present motion had been given, he (Mr. Hume), had at once intimated his intention of opposing it, and was not then acquainted with the charge made by the Indian newspapers against Lord Keane—that had not originated his opposition. In the first place, he objected to the principle of an aristocracy pensioned by the people, as it was proposed to do to Lord Keane, because he had not fortune to support the rank conferred upon him. He did not, by any means, object to the prerogative of the Queen. Let her create as many Peers as she pleased; let her make shoals of Dukes, Marquesses, and Viscounts. The more she made, the less value would be attached to the Peerage. He made no objection to that; but he objected strongly to the practice which had of late years been adopted in this country, that of creating peers who had not the means of supporting the dignity of the station to which they were advanced. He could not suppose that the noble Lord meant to say, that the Queen of this country could be properly supported by an aristocracy, who were to be supported themselves by pensions from the people. If the noble Lord's argument meant anything, it meant, that as the Queen had created Sir John Keane a Peer, we were bound, by a vote out of the taxes, to support the family of that Peer. According to the noble Lord's observations, it appeared, that the son of Lord Keane, being the son of a Peer, would be prevented from engaging in any professional occupation to provide the means of supporting himself, and that it was, therefore, incumbent on the nation to give the son and grandson pensions: and thus, by only providing for the dignity of the Peerage, up to the second generation from Lord Keane, they were in a manner admitting, that the fourth Peer necessarily must be a beggar. Thus, to support that dignity, the noble Lord appealed to the representatives of the people, and called on them for a pension. Did the noble Lord, he would again ask, mean to say, that the honour and interest of the Crown would be best supported by an aristocracy which should be supported by the vote of that House from the taxes of the country? There was a sufficiency of experience before them, to make them careful in such votes as the present. If he was asked for examples, he could point to the pension list, and there they would find whole families, widows, sons, and daughters, annually receiving money from the taxes, because their husbands and fathers were poor, and had been created Peers. The House of Commons ought not to allow the public money thus to go to the pensioning of Peers, who would be hereafter, of course, pensioners, and subservient to the purposes of the Government, and depend upon the Crown for their support. If the creating a Peer was such an honour as the noble Lord described, could he not adopt the plan of making life Peers, and limit the pension, if any was given, to the one individual. By that system of creating pauper peers, they destroyed the value, if any was attached to the honour; and he could not but think, that it would have been more honourable to Sir John Keane to have made him a life peer on his military allowances, than to make him and his family pensioners, as they were now proposing to do. The right, hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, had said, that he approved of the justice and policy of the present motion; that was, he thought, the reward of a peerage was not too great, and that it was sound policy to make Peers, who had not income enough to support that station, and render it necessary that the people should be taxed to enable them to support the dignity of their Peerage. This was the ground upon which the right hon. Baronet thought this motion just in principle, and sound in policy [Hear, hear! and Laughter.] He (Mr. Hume) thought, that the present was not a time for levity, but a time in which they should look to the distressed state of the country, and take care what they were about. This was not a time for increasing in such a manner the present burdens of the people, when misery and wretchedness existed to so great an extent in the kingdom. Was it to be supposed, that the officers of the British army wanted such inducements as those to make them do their duty? Did the soldiers require, or did they ever receive, such for their gallant conduct? His second objection, then, to the present motion was, that it was not a well-timed one. They had a heavier load of taxes and debt already than they were able by their present income to pay; and the House should observe, that for the last four years, they had a deficiency in the revenue to the extent of five millions sterling, together with a considerable increase in the military and naval expenditure of the country. The noble Lord had spoken of the glory and success which attended the arms of Great Britain in foreign parts; but he (Mr. Hume) would call their attention to the great degree of misery and distress which existed in so many of their towns and villages at home. This House was always ready to tax industry, and not property in that House, and to take money out of the pockets of the people, whenever it was wanting. As an increase of taxes must take place to meet the increased expenses, and to pay for this pension, he (Mr. Hume) hoped the rich would lay on a property tax, and not further to burden the necessaries of life as they had so heavily done. For his part, he regretted the noble Lord below (Lord Howick) had not expressed his opinions against pensions and pauper peerages, when Lord Seaton was created a pensioner, and he (Mr. Hume) would not have had to fight that battle as he had had on that occasion, like the present, almost single-handed. In conclusion, he consoled himself, that he had done his duty to his constituents in endeavouring to prevent the extravagance, and he would add, the injustice of the House, by this act; and he announced his intention of dividing the House upon the motion, and placing on record his opposition to so profligate a grant of money.

Sir Hussey Vivian

bore testimony, from a long and intimate acquaintance, to the merits ef Lord Keane. In answer to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, he could say that the officers of the British army were influenced by considerations as pure and honourable as the officers of any service. Nine-tenths of them gave their services to the country gratuitously, for they bought their commissions for a sum which would purchase an annuity equal to the amount of their pay, and the only reward they sought was the acknowledgment of their country that they had done their duty. But when an officer was placed in an important and hazardous situation like Lord Keane, and that officer, after discharging with signal success the important duty confided to him, was honoured by his sovereign with a call to the peerage, he did think that officer had a right to look to the country for the means of enjoying his dignity. When the noble Lord (Viscount Howick) said, that to grant the proposed rewards would be the means of increasing the same sort of rewards in future, he forgot that the argument cut both ways; for, although the present instance might be taken as a precedent in the bestowal of future honours, yet it at the same lime served to stimulate and encourage the service to honourable exertions. The noble Lord had also complained that the order of the Bath had been kept up to its original number; but the noble Lord forgot that there were many officers who had commanded regiments in the Peninsula and at Waterloo, who well deserved to be appointed 10 the vacancies as they occurred. With regard to what had been said as to the gallant lord, the subject of the present discussion, he could only state that he firmly believed that he fully deserved the honour proposed to be conferred on him. He would not go into the history of Lord Keane's services, but be would advert to some circumstances well known to himself, to show that. Lord Keane had fairly earned the honours bestowed on him. The advance to Candahar was through the Bolan pass—a pass of the most formidable character; and it was hardly possible to imagine the degree of fortitude and discipline necessary to surmount its difficulties and dangers. After arriving in Candahar his noble Friend found it necessary to halt and refresh his army. When he again advanced he discovered that he had not the means of transport for his heavy artillery and his commissariat, and it being necessary, above all, to provision his army, he was forced to abandon the heavy guns. Having been told, that the fortress of Ghuznee was not very strong, he thought it advisable to march upon it, but was surprised at finding how strong it was. Having opened a fire upon it he found it perfectly hopeless to attempt to carry it except by assault or breaching a gate. He, therefore, having found a gate, put into requisition Colonel Pasley's plan and blew it down, but in consequence of too much powder having been employed, the beams and part of the masonry were brought down with it, and the breach was so small that the troops were compelled to creep in on their hands and knees. Fortunately a few companies were enabled to form before the enemy rallied from their consternation, and the British bayonet did the rest. It was entirely owing to the decision of his noble Friend, who, when it became a serious question whether he ought to obey his orders or not, that he was enabled to carry Ghuznee at a moment when the whole of the peasantry were prepared to take arms against him, and when Dost Mahommed with 12,000 troops was within a few miles of him. Had he failed or abandoned his attempt, it is impossible to say what the consequences would have been; as it was, he triumphantly succeeded, and placed on the throne the sovereign whom he was ordered to restore. He thought his noble Friend had well deserved the honours bestowed on him, and he trusted the House would agree to the vote.

Mr. Muntz

could not consent to give a silent vote, because, although he felt it to be his duty to vote against the motion, he did not wish any one to infer from that, that he meant to disparage the services of Lord Keane. On the contrary, he thought they ought to be amply and nobly rewarded, but still he could not agree to the present motion. He conceived that Parliament had a right to tax the people of the present day, but had no right to tax a future generation. It was on this principle alone that he would vote against the motion.

Sir H. Hardinge

recollected, when the military sinecure appointments were done away with, the hon. Member for Kilkenny getting up in his place and stating that he would support the claims of military Gentlemen to rewards. "Take," said the hon. Member, "the military appointments from the Crown, and any officer who comes and claims from the House of Commons a reward for his services shall have my vote." Several hon. Members concurred in these views, but now, when a strong case was made out for compensation, the hon. Member turned round and said he did not choose to create a pauper aristocracy. He thought such conduct to say the least of it, not fair.

Mr. Brotherton

expressed a hope that he might be allowed to take that opportunity of suggesting to her Majesty's Government that it would have an important influence on society, if they would establish some mode of conferring honours on those who distinguished themselves in saving life, and not confine the highest honours to the naval and military professions. It might not be expedient in all cases to confer the honour of knighthood for such services as Captain Clegg performed last year in rescuing from destruction upwards of one hundred persons; but he would have our Sovereign imitate the conduct of the King of the French, and bestow gold and silver medals as honorary rewards for acts of heroism in saving life. Such honours would be highly estimated, and stimulate men to cultivate the arts of peace, and illustrate their country by acts of usefulness.

Sir R. Jenkins

said, that he had had the honour, at a meeting of the directors of the East-India Company, to propose a vote of thanks to Lord Keane; and after what had occurred, he could not conceive how any person could object to reward services which had been of so great importance to the country.

General Johnson

said, in voting against the motion, he did not mean to detract from the services of Lord Keane, but only to do what he conceived to be his duty to his constituents.

Colonel Sibthorp

thought, that on an occasion of this kind, it was the bounden duty of every Member to support the proposed grant. When the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Howick) objected, as he understood him, to military men being raised to the peerage, he thought there were certain cases in which this had been done, particularly in regard to the noble Lord's own relative, Sir Charles Grey, who had been rewarded for his distinguished services in the West Indies. Another relative of the noble Lord's, during the period of Earl Grey's administration—he meant Sir Henry Grey—had been made a Knight Commander of the Bath. The noble Lord was also a member of that Government which granted a pension to Sir John Newport, to make room for the appointment of Lord Monteagle. He thought, then, that the noble Lord ought to have been the last person to object to a motion like the present, which he hoped the House would at once agree to.

Viscount Howick

said, he did not think it was quite consistent with the rules of that House, that any Member should make personal reference to any other hon. Member. Besides, the hon. and gallant Member should recollect that the parties he had alluded to received titles only, not pensions. With respect to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, he thought his noble Friend had not done justice to the observations which he had made. What he stated was, that they ought to reserve the high rewards of a pension and peerage to the greatest service. In illustration of that, he might mention the fact that Lord Nelson, notwithstanding all his brilliant successes in the naval service, did not obtain his peerage or his pension from Parliament till after the battle of the Nile. Previous to that engagement he had only the ordinary pension granted for wounds received in the service.

Colonel Salwey

said, he must vote against the motion, merely because the proposed grant was continued to the successors of Lord Keane. He regretted that Government had proposed anything so directly contrary to their principles, but he had been long enough a Member of that House to know that the contrast between professions out of the House and acts within it, was melancholy in the extreme.

Mr. Protheroe

wished to declare that he should support the motion.

The Committee divided; Ayes 195; Noes 43: Majority 152.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral	Colquhoun, J. C.
Alston, R.	Corry, hon. H.
Anson, hon. Colonel	Courtenay, P.
Archdall, M.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Ashley, Lord	Crawford, W.
Bagot, hon. W.	Damer, hon. D.
Baillie, Colonel	Darby, G.
Baldwin, C. B.	Donkin, Sir R. S.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Doltin, A. R.
Barnard, E. G.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Basset, J.	Duncombe, hon. W,
Bateson, Sir R.	Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Bennett, J.	Evans, Sir De L.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Feilden, W.
Bewes, T.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Blake, W. J.	Filmer, Sir E.
Blake, M.	Fitzalan, Lord
Bodkin, J. J.	Fort, J.
Boldero, H. G.	Fortescue, T.
Botfield, B.	Fox, S. L.
Braraston, T. W.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Bridgeman, H.	French, F.
Broadley, H.	Gladstone, W. E.
Brocklehurst, J.	Gladstone, J. N.
Brodie, W. B.	Gore, O. J. R.
Brownrigg, S.	Gore, O. W.
Buller, E.	Goring, H. D.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Burr, H.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Campbell, Sir J.	Grant, Sir A. C.
Canning rt. hn. Sir S.	Grattan, J.
Cantilupe, Viscount	Greene, T.
Carew, hon. R. S.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.
Chapman, A.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Christopher, R. A.	Gimsditch, T.
Clay, W.	Grimston, Viscount
Clerk, Sir G.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Cochrane, Sir T. J.	Harcourt, G. G.
Collier, J.	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Hawkes, T.	Pigot, rt. hon. D.
Hawkins, J. H.	Pigot, R.
Heathcoat, J.	Planta, rt. hon. J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Plumptre, J. P.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Polhill, F.
Hodges, T. L.	Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.
Hodgson, R.	Praed, W. T.
Hogg, J. W.	Protheroe, E.
Holmes, W. A. C.	Rawdon, Col. J. D.
Holmes, W.	Reid, Sir J. R.
Houston, G.	Richards, R.
Howard, hn. E. G. G.	Roche, E. B.
Howard, F. J.	Russell, Lord J.
Howard, hn. C. W. G.	Rutherford, rt. hn. A.
Ingestre, Viscount	Sandon, Viscount
Ingham, R.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Scale, Sir J. H.
Irving, J.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Jackson, Mr. Serjeant	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L
James, Sir W. C.	Shirley, E. J.
Jenkins, Sir R.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Jones, Captain	Slaney, R. A.
Kelburne, Viscount	Smith, R. V.
Knightley, Sir C.	Somers, J. P.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Somerset, Lord G.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Standish, C.
Law, hon. C. E.	Stanley, E.
Lennox, Lord G.	Stanley, Lord
Listowel, Earl of	Stauntun, Sir G. T.
Litton, E.	Stuart, Lord J.
Lockhart, A. M.	Stuart, W. V.
Lowther, J. H.	Stock, Mr. Serjeant
Lushington, rt. hn. S.	Style, Sir C.
Lygon, hon. General	Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.	Surrey, Earl of
Mackenzie, T.	Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant
Mackenzie, W. F.	Tancred, H. W.
Macnamara, Major	Teignmouth, Lord
Marton, G.	Thompson, Alderman
Maule, hon. F.	Trench, Sir F.
Meynell, Captain	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Miles, W.	Vivian, Major C.
Morpeth, Viscount	Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Neeld, J.	White, H.
O'Brien, W. S.	Williams, R.
O'Connell, J.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
O'Connell, M. J.	Wodehouse, E.
O'Connell, M.	Wood, Sir M.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Wood, Colonel
Ord, W.	Wood, Colonel T.
Ossulston, Lord	Worsley, Lord
Paget, Lord A.	Wrightson, W. B.
Paget, F.	Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Palmerston, Viscount	Wyse, T.
Parker, J.	Yates, J. A.
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.	Young, J.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.	Young, Sir W.
Perceval, Colonel	TELLERS.
Philipps, Sir R.	Stanley, hon. E. J,
Philpotts, J.	Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Busfeild, W.
Ainsworth P.	Currie, R.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Duke, Sir J.
Brotherton, J.	Duncombe, T.
Buller, C.	Ellice, E.

Ewart, W.	Philips, M.
Fielden, J.	Pryme, G.
Godson, R.	Rice, E. R.
Hawes, B.	Salwey, Colonel
Hector, C. J.	Scholefield, J.
Heron, Sir R.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hindley, C.	Strickland, Sir G.
Howick, Viscount	Thornely, T.
Hutton, R.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Jervis, S.	Wakley, T.
Johnson, General	Walker, R.
Langdale, hon. C.	Wallace, R.
Leader, J.T.	Warburton, H.
Liston, E. C.	Williams, W.
Lushington, C.	Wood, B.
Molesworth, Sir W.	TELLERS.
Morris, D.	Hume, J.
Pattison, J.	Muntz, G. F.

A brief statement of Lord Keane s Services will be found in the Appendix.