§ Resolutions reported.
§ MR. BAXTERsaid, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lea) had on the previous evening asked for an explanation of the expenses incurred in connection with the investment of distinguished persons with orders of knighthood. He had himself been struck with the largeness of the amount charged, but was not able at the moment to give an explanation. He had since looked into the matter, and found that no less than 104 gentlemen had last year been invested with the Order of the Bath, which accounted for the unusual amount of the item challenged.
§ MR. LEAsaid, he altogether objected to large payments of money being incurred for investment of distinguished persons.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the expenses borne by the public in connection with the investment for the Order of the Bath were very light, the principal burden being borne by the persons invested.
§ MR. HUNTwished to know upon what principles the expenses of the patent of the Peerage was sometimes borne by the new Peer and sometimes by the country. He observed in the Supplementary Estimates that the expenses of Sir William Mansfield's patent were borne by the country, while in the case of Lord Ossington they were not.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in the case of Peerages conferred for military or naval services, it was the rule for the expenses to be borne by the country. In the case of civil Peerages, such a rule did not exist; and he further 104 thought that it would be difficult to draw a line in regard to such eases.
§ Resolutions agreed to.
§ House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.