The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-14 00:00:00

ARMY ESTIMATES.

Lord PALgEttSTON moved for 14,4741. 15s„5d.
to defray the charge of allowances to the Com-
mander-in-Chief and his personal staff, secreta-
ries, assistant-secretarie, and Clerks.
Mr. liumE rose to propose a reduction of
2,0001. on this, vote: In 1807 the salary of the
commander-in-Chief was • 3,4571., or
.9 guineas
a day ; and so it continued till 1815, when it was.
raised to 16 guineas:a:day. --'Then there ;was a
principal Military Secretary. with a. salary -of
2,0001. a year, with which he should not meddle',
though be thought'
,it greaterthan the duty re,
quired. •IBut. he found a private Secretary with
3651 a year, and in assistant private Secretary
With A. a year ; and , the latter of these he
would abOlish altogether. In 1807 the first.
Clerk had a salary of 3701., and now he was al-
lowed the double of that Sum. The established
Clerks in 1807 had 1904 another 1601. and an-
other
1201. ; and now they were all •as high as
4001. The junior Clerks, who'in 1807 had 801.
and 90/..,- were now allowed 2001. The esta-
blishment altogether in 1807, taking the Military'
Staff of the Commander-in,Chief and the. Whole
contingencies, cost only-12,0751.; so that in the
estimate of this year there was an increase of
2,400/. He was unwilling to fix the reduCtion
on any partiCular part of the establishment ; but
he should propose a diminution-of 2,0001. on the
whole vote, and leave it. to the' Commander-in-
Chief to distribute the remaining 12,474/. as he
pleased. The Honourable Gentleman conclud-
ed by moving that the. sum of 12,4741. Iss. sd.
be substituted•in the resolution for the. sum origi-
nally propos-ea:: • • -•-
Lord PAL KERSTON understood the Hon. Gent.
to propose a reductiOn of 2,0001. a year in the
allowances and e•tablishment of his Royal High-
ness the Duke of York, -as compared with 1807.
On whatever principle.this motion was meant to
be, founded, he (Lord'Palmerston) should main-
tain that there was no ground for any such re-
duction ; but that with reference to the great re-
sponsibility of the office, the salary could not be
considered as being too" high. The question to
be considered was, whether au officer, at the head
of the-ariny; Who had all the patronage connected
with so extensive a trust, should not be in the re-
ceipt of so large an income as he at present was.
Now, supposing for a moment, fOr the sake of
argument only, that an officer could abuse such
a trust, surely the very factor there being vested
in him so -delicate a responsibility, afforded the
stronaer reason why his pay should be a large and
an adequate one. And so much for the military
allowance of the Commander-in-chief. Now
With respect to his civil establishment,. if the'
Honourable Gentleman would look back at'
former estimates, he would find that the
charge for this department was, in 1807,
7,5601., and in 'lB2l, 7,6661. ; leavin an in-
crease of 1061. only in the estimated charge
of-the present year.—(Hear, hear !)—Therefore,
on the lion. Gentleman's own showing—referring
to the general-principle upon which he contended
for the propriety of various reductions in the
public expenditere, namely, the great proportion
In which it had been enlarged=—on his own show-
ing.there could be no very good ground adduced
for the present motion. As for the duties of the
Secretary of the Commander in Chief, there was,
perhaps, no situation in the whole range of public
offices of a more laborious nature. They occu-
pied him, generally, for eight hours every day,
not even excepting Sundayi; One of his principal
duties consisted in interviews. Three days in
every week were devoted regularly to them ;
and on each of these days he had to communicate
with no less than 60 officers. Besides this be had
to advise and consult upon, and forward petitions,
and to maintain 'an extensive correspondence with
' the staff for instance, .upon foreign stations, and,
in short, with every department of the army.—
Nobody, he thought, upon consideration, would
maintain that the ialary attached to such an office
was too large, The Asiistant Secretary, hOw-
ever trwch the Hon. Gentleman had chosen to
cavil with.. the name, had also a great deal of bu-
siness to perforrri. Among other things he
had to manage the details of that correspon-
dence which• the 'Military SOcretary had afterr-
wards to dispose of. . With regard to the Chap.
lain, 014 was ••an appoiattnerit generally
,given
to the • Chaplain-general,; and _it formed a part
of his.- emoluments;.'imOunting in the whole
to about 3001. a. year ; at_wilicli sum his salary
(of which this appointment:Wis contemplated as
forming a part) had been, on a former occasion,
regularly.settled.
,The Vouse would perceive,
then, when they were called upon to make a re.
, duction in this establishrneht, that there•was a
. difference-in the charge-of it, between the-year
1807 and the year 1821, of 1001. only.—(hear.)
• Mr.BERNAL did not consider that to be the
; question for the If onse. The vote which they
were called upon to pass was for a sum of 14,470/.
.What the country desired to know was
,this—
Why was not this. estimate a great deal less ?
. (Hear.)—Why was the- same vote always to be
. brought forward with6nt regard to existing cir-
. cumstances ?—(Hear.).
I Lord PA-EmEasToN explained. The argument
I of the Hon. Gentleman Ai.* not perfectly' cor,
; rect. The charge for. this I:stablishment, far
from being of the fixed nature taentioned by the
• Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bernal), tild varied after
this ratio :

In 1815 it was .
1818 .
lal7
1818 .
1819' .
1820 .
And now in 1321 .

. £1x.207
• 9,v0
• B,BNO
. 7,5(k
• /3,000
• 7,700 ,
• 7,66,6.7

It was never meant to effect no reduction in any
of these estimates as Circumstances might render
it practicable ; on the contrary, this statement
would prove that the Estimates were always made
out with regard to the necessities of the current
year.—(Hear.)

'Col. bAvtEs contended that in the statement
which had just been made to the Houn_,_, the No-
ble Lord had forgotten to -allow for,a great re-
duction of officers, clerks, and salaries, which
had, at different times out of the period which it
embraced, been effected in this department ; and
which, being added to the , several sums men-
tioned in that statement, would bring them to
very nearly the same amount as the amount of the
vote proposed.
Mr. SYKES thought the present a very ungrate-
ful subject to address the House upon ; for,
whatever was the objection to be offered, and
however it might be supported, it was always
met by some ingenious theory intended to ac-
count for any. item in question. Yet he would
confess that it did exceed his ingenuity to imagine
how this department could equal, much more ex-
ceed, in its charge for the present year, the
charge of 1807, when we had been for some
years at war, and had many thousands of men
under arms.—(H ear, hear, hear !)—According to
the principle upod which the Noble Lord would
justify the rise of salaries, the Commander in
Chief himself ought, in 1807, a time of war and
busy application, to have had just three times as
'large 'a salary as he had now.—(Cheers ana
laughter.)—At a time of general distres's like the
present, their table loaded with petitions, the
.country earnestly soliciting relief from the bur-
dens which pressed so heavily upon her, every.
lion.. Member ought to consider that economy
was, of all others, a most sacred and most impe-
rative duty.

Generai.,,GASCOYNE bore testimony to the
severe duties of the.office of Military Secretary
to the Commander-in-Chief, and could not think
it was overpaid. He believed the present holder
of that important office had been there so early
as the year 1793 ; and surely the same principle
of remuneration which prevailed in the arrange-
ment of -every other public office, might very
reasonably be applied to the office of Comman-
der-in-Chief. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr.llume)
having proposed in this particular department, a
saving, seemed to leave it to the Commander-in-
Chief to decide in what quarter of it the saving
was to be effected ; for. the. Hon. Gentleman
seemed to be indifferentiwhether it were to be
derived from the salary:of that illustrious indi-
vidual, or of his Military Secretary. When the
Duke of York was. firA nominated to be Com-
mander-in-Chief, his salary and allowances were
lower Than at present, because his own rank was
then lower. When the Duke of Wellington was
made Field Marshal, he insisted upon his full
pay for - the -SituatiOn as well as for his rank.—
(Hear, hear!) ,
Lord .PALitEas'ros begged to correct a slight
inaccuracy:which kid just fallen from the Hon.
andlGallant General. It was due both to the
Duke of York, and to the Duke of Wellington',
to say, that so far 'from the Duke of Welling.:
'ton's hating insisted upon his full pay for his
situation and his rank, that arrangement . was
made without an previous communication what-
ever to or with his Grace, by the Government
at ,home, as • a testimony of the sense-which-they
entertained of his eminent services.—(Hear !)

Mr. DENNIS BROWNE made one or two obsev.
vations, which we could not possibly hear in the
Gallery.—General GAscoYNE explained.

Mr. Alderman WOOD, though he should cer-
tainly support the Amendment, differed very
much in one particular from what seemed to be
the intention of his Hon. Friend. If the 2,0001.
proposed to be reduced were left to be a scramble
perhaps the reduction would fall' upon those
humblen htlividuals Who could least afford to be-
come the objects of its operation. He would
rather that it should be effected on the salaries
and emoluments of those Noble Persons who
were so much better qualified to sustain such a
reduction.

LORD MILTON never could hear in that House
a proposition to give the same salaries ❑ow as in
former years, _however large their amount. He
must repeat,-over and over again if necessary,
that the situation of the country was very much
altered from what it had been when those sala-
ries were first allotted. His Lordship contended
that it behoved Parliament to look into the diffe-
rent statutes by which increased allowances had
been made to the Royal Families, the salaries of
the judges, and so on ; and into all the other
acts passed during the Grenville administration)
at a time when the state of the currency and the
rise of prices made -such provisions necessary.—
He called upon the landed gentlemen in that
House, particularly, not to lose sight of this very
important duty. They could not collect their
rents; the farmer could not dispose of his pro;
dace ; and almost every class of men had to de-
plore the same overwhelming depreciatiOn. -He
therefore saw no reason why persons in pUblic
offices, and they who were annuitants upon the
public, should be exempted alone from any de-
eiease of means or fluctuation of property.
Mr.'GounivaN contended that the principle
of the Noble Lord was not applicable to tht
present case. If he complained that persons Li
public offices were more exempt than others fiorn
the operation of those circumstances which caused
a depreciation of income, he (Mr. Goulburn)
would refer' him to the case of the fundholders ;
who, as compared with the landed proprietors,
enjoyed at least equal advantages. .
Lord MILTON and Mr. GOULBURN mutually
explained.

Mr; ABERCROMBY was afraid so much extra-
neous matter had been mixed up in this debate,
that the question was not likely to Pe fairly dis-
cussed. lie certainly thought that, under the
peculiar circumstances of the times, the establish-
ment of all public offices ought to be revised,
and the salaries of all clerks employed in them to
be reconsidered.

• Mr. MONCK thought that the argument of the
Secretary. for the Colonial Department bore no
analogy whatever to_ the present case. He felt
himself boundsto support the amendment..
Sir li. PARNELL was of opinion that the same

_ . . .
p4inciple of remur.ertiori..couLl.np •po3sibly.w-
iili now, whichmight have been ex.pc..,nt.enough
at a former period. Many very
.0,„-iL8;Si and
important reductions might he. eqsect“t_
salaries of public officers, and,. undec ttii inipres
sion, he was inclined to vote fnrithe
Sir C. LOVG opposed the
Mr. HUME informed the Gallant General (Gs.
•
coyne (that Mr. Dighton now received 7001. haV-
ing had only 1501. in 1198,.4.heir he euiered on
office : there wei=e others in a similar sctuation.
As the Hon. General admitted that the chaplain-
ship to the Duke of York's staff was Merely an
honorary office, he must vote for the red uction-, The
Hon. Gentleman expressed his entire concurrence
in what had fallen from the Hon. Alderman. He
required that the Commander-in-Chief should
begin the reduction, and not the ininnr clerks.

The Committee then divided on .the .motion for reduc-
ing the expences of the Commander-in-Chief's office from
14,4741. 15s. 5d., t010,4741.155.5d., when there mere--

Ayes, 23 I Noes, 94 I Majority against the motion, 71.
It was then proposed to reduce them to 12,4741. 15s. 5d.,
when the numbers were—

Ayes, 27 1 Noes, 91 Majority against the motion, 83.
The next motion, it was understood, was to redne.the euti.
mates to 13,8741. 15s. 5d., when there were— -
Ayes, 401 Noes, 125 1 Majorityagainst the motion, 85.
On re=entering the gallery we-.. found Lord
PALMERSTON moving that ,a sun? ,not,exceeCting
6501. shOuld be- granted -to his Majesaty for de-
fraying the expences of Deputy Judge 'Advocate
ot- Scotland.:--The, grant, was: 'opposed on. the
ground that the otficewa.s unnecessary, consider-
ing the large salary paid to,, and, the small ser-1
vices perforated by, the-Advocath-Geheral. It
was-also, objected to, on, th 4 ground, of its being
nothing else than a Scot,ch,job, which ;hlciorigin-
ally been devised as a job, and was in future to
be 'voted as a job. 'The grant was defended upon
the plea of. necessity and expediency.—The fol-
lowing gentlemen took a share in,the discussion::
—Mr. Bennet, Captain 'O'Grady, Mr. Sykes,
Mr. Beckett, Mr.lßernal, Mr: Htnbe, Mr. Gipps,
Mr. Hutchinson (who said that he had long since
seen that Ministers had been rednced.to-their,last
shift)., but that he did-not-know till the present
debate that they were left without a rag.to cover
their nakedness—(laughter)—the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Sir Ronald Fergusson, Mr.
Ellice, and Mr. Goulburn. The gallery was
then_cleared for a division, when_ there appeared

For the motion, 111 I Against it, 7:2 I Majority, 39.
On being re-admitted to the Gallery, we
found Colonel DAVIES opposing the grant of
12,6421. to the Comptrollers of Army Accounts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in op-
posing the amendment, contended that the duties
of Comptrollers of Army Accounts were three
times as great, at present as they were formerly.
Mr. BANKES was in favour, of the original mo-
tion.

Mr. CREEVEY, in support of the amendment,
observed, that as on a former evening he had
said he should like to see one of those clerks
who liad 1,400/. a year called to th'i.)ar to make
good his claim to that sum, so on "the present
occasion he should like to see one off' the Comp-
trcillers of Army Accounts make good leis claim
to the sum of 2,000/. a year ; and then he shonld
be glad to compare that claim with that of some
brave officer who, having purchased his commis-
sion in the first instance, bad fought up his way
to' honour and promotion, and having at length
for his service beeu called to the Peerage, re-
ceived only 2,0001. a year, as compensation for
his services and to support his dignity as a Peer.
lie should be glad to learn what' comparison
could be made between the services of the two
Sir It. FERGUSSON observed, that as his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Creevey) had mentioned the case of
Officers in the army, he could not 'avoid com-

iitaining. of the condUct of Government to Ge-
neral Officers of a particular clasS..;
.By a foriner
regulation, an allowance was rhad4 tbuGeneral
Officers without regiments. 110 would not say
whether that regulation was wise or not; but it
was now withdrawn, and thereby' he 'considered
that the public faith was broken -with those Of-
ficers. At the close.of the war it. was determin-
ed that only a certain number of General
Of-
ficers shoduld be kept up ; and those who were
reduced had only a claim to the halipay of that
rank which they had held in the 'arts y before
their iiromotion'as General Officers. This, he
conceived, was a great injustice to the very many
meritorious General Officers, some 'of whom had
spent 30 years—the best of 'their lives—in the
service. Many General Officers,' who, before
the termination of the war, and before their pro-
motion, might have made `a considerable sum by
the sale-of their commission's', were-now living
(some of them with large farnilieS) Upon their
half-pay as Majors. This he conside-red as not
fair.and just treatment to Strdese'ithig a clasS of
men. Major-Generals were deprived of all pay;
except the half-pay which they tict before they
had been promoted. Ite knew many who were
without any pay but the'half-pay of Majors only.
lie. thought they ought.to be paid according to
their services.
Sir H-. PARNELL spoke at .some length -against the ex.
pehces of Comptrollers according 'to the present steivii.•
Air, HUSKISSON defended the mode of controlling and
auditing as 'necessary, 'where'such large sums Or money were
conveyed through the Bands of aiimblic officer.
.._.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sUpported
the motion, and entered. into several details to show the fitness
of the existing system.
Sir R. FERGUYSON explained. •
Mr. HUME
_spoke at some length cf the comparative
amount of the Army EStimates, th6.tiiientit of midit-
ing at different periods, and contended. that the, reduction in the
Controlling of Army Accounts ought to 'keep pace with' the re-
duction of-the Army itself. • ' •
Mr. HUSKISSON again explained.
The Committee then divided, when the•numbers were—
For the amendment, 45 Against it, 105 1 Majority, 60.

e
The House resumed, and the Report was or.
dered to be received on Monday next.. -

REVENUE LAWS.

Mr. LUSIIINGTON moved for leave to bring in a
Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the
Irish Revenue Laws.
Mr. BERNAL was much disiatisfied with the
system of revenue protection at present acted
upon in this country. .
Mr. lioimousE requested the attention of the
House to the alarming state of danger and dis-
turbance into which the whole
,coastof England
was thrown by the operation, of
.the existing sys-
tem. The late case of England, Who, after being
found guilty of murder by 'a-Jury, 'had'been re.;
commetcled to mercy by, aJudgeir had-.produced
such an effect at Hastings, that the fishermen had,

. . . . .
actually dra7n-up,...their,... boats and teasedf-their
trade; and unless Some convincing proof were at
once given that conduct,like.,England's was dis-
countenanced by Gorernmen,t, the whole coast of
Sussex would into a state of actual.. %rap»,
faie, He (Mr,Hobb.:)use.). by no means intended
Ito interfe.re. conduct.,Of. the
.judge. rgho
Nit thed England ; 1114 he doubted whether the
caS.l ought-not-to be laktformally before Parlia-
ment.. he
.present System called for imrneatate
reformation, for no newer than eighteen persons
had fallen on the Sussex Coast within the.last
months in frays bet Ween. smugglers, or_ supposed
sniuggleis, and 'persons .eMployed in` what . was
called the protection .of the revenue.

The CHANCELLOR of the E,Rj. in
.a.&
verting to the case of England, declared that a
judge would be unworthy of :his Seat who should
fail to exert him Self for the preseivationof a
man's life, when that lifts was endangered by the
prejudices of a jury. The frequent 'disputes al-
luded to by the. Hon. Member opposite: (Mr.
Hobhouse) went chiefly to prove the unhappy
propensity of the SuSsek men 'for smuggling.-- It
was equally the wish as the duty of Government
to prevent, as far 0' PO6sible„ such unfortunate
occurrences ; but 'the law Must not be infringed,
nor the revenue defrauded,. withitnpunity.:•.
Mr. R. GORDON joined *with 'the Hon.'nein•-
berfor Westminster in deprecating the existing
state, of the- Reyenue Laws-, and assured:. the
House that the coast of Dorsetsiiire and 'Devon-
shire mere in a state, quite7.as disturberfaa.the
coast .i,f:Sussex: cpultl:.peSsi ofr. be.
• Sir G. COCKBURN 'defeii&O the conduct of
England, and asserted that, however the resul
of the quarrel was to be'deplored, that indiviilual
had merely.acted in his
,owtidefence. Unfortu-
nately smuggling was a crime to which nearly the
Whole population of the.,Sussex: coast was_ more
or less addicted. He (sir G. COekburn) had.
particularly
,wished to protect the:fishing-boat:l,
from search, and had catned inquiries to-be
:made-.
us to the feasibility of such an exemption. The
effect, however, of, his examination had been to
discover that there were belonging- to Hastings
alone, sixty fishing-boats in which run goods had
at different times been found, and that almost all
the fishermen were either smugglers on their own
account, or
.leagued with those who were smug-
glers Ziy_profes7.ion.

Mr. H. G. BENNET thought that so long as high
duties were continued, and prohibited goods
eagerly purchased, no degree of vigilance could
put a stop to smuggling. The Hon. Member
then commented upon the immense military force
employed upon the revenue service in Ireland,
and declared that, under the cloak of protecting
the revenue in that country, such scenes had been
acted as could only be equalled by the transac-,
tions in La Vendee during the French Revolution.
Sir G. COCKIIURN said that when smugglers
appeared in bodies of one or two hundred strong.
mere revenue 'officers could do nothing against
them.

Mr. F. PALMER disapproved of the present
system. . _

Mr. F. ROBINSON believed that a good deal 'et
the present rag'e 'for sionggrling arose out of 'the
operation of the prohibitory system--a system to
which he (Mr. F. R.) bad always been adverse.

After a few words from Mr. Alderman HEY -
GATE, the House went into a Committee, and
leave was given to-bring in• the Bill.
. The other Orders of the Day were then dis-
posed of,.and the House adjourned at HALF-F.4o'
ONE. O'CLOCK. •

MAJORITY AND MINORITY
AGAINST MR. HUME'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING IN A Ernu-,
DISQUALIFY CIVIL OFFICERS OF
.THE ORDNANCE FROM VO/r.,
AT ELECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

. _
MAJORI'f Y. ' '
1.
A'Court Doraville, Sir C. Nightingale, Sir ' 1
,
Banker, G. • Drummond, "J. Oilslow, A. '
I3ankes, H. Dowdeswell, J. E. Osborne, Lord
Bathurst, C. Ellis, C. 11. Pole, Rt. Hon. ‘S'''
Beckett, J. R. EFllticootuAti,o'nr.. G.W. Paget, B.
Beresford, Sir J. P.
Browne, J. ' Finch, G.
Browne, I). ' Fleming, J. Pitt,
yW.
Browne, P. Forbes; C. - Perc ,
Hon H.
•
Bruce, It. Graves, Lord Pearce, J.
Bernard, Visc. Grosett, J. It. Penruddocke, J.
Brydges, Mr. All Gladstone, J. Prendergast, W. -(-1'
Brandling, C, J. Gordon, It. Phipps, Hon. E.
Brogden,J. - Grant, A. C. Robinson, F. , .
Burgh, Sir U. Ilardinge, Sir H. Rae, Sir W. '
Buchanan . Hare, Hon: R. Russell, J. W. -'
Calvert, J. Hart, W. Ricketts, C. i.
Courtenay, W. Holford, G. Palmerston, Lord
.n,
Rocksava,ge, Lai'
Courtenay, T. P. Hotham, Lord Somerset, Id. G.
Clerk, Sir G. Holmes, W. Scott, H. J.
Copley, Sir J. . Bill, Sir, G. Shiffner, Sr G..
Clive, H. • Iluskisson, W. Strutt, J. G.
Collett, E. Inaes,.Sir H. Stewart, W.
Cheer; E. M. . Irving, J. - Sotheron, F.
Cholnieley, Sir M. Lester,'l3: Shaw, It.
Cooper, B. - , , Lewis, %V, . Suttie, Sir.J.
Cooper, Ei S. " Long, Sir C. Sneyd, N.
Cumming, G. : :Loclaiart,, E. . - . Twiss, H. : ' '
Clements, J. Lushington, S. R. Townshend, —"''
l, 4',t
Canning, : Luttrell,: H. : • Vansittart, Iti
G. F.
Calthorpe, . Martin, Sir B. . Hi.?l. N. .-
cat, W. - "Martin,R.(Gilway) Wallace, T.
Cost, E. --, ~- • Marryat; J. ' . Wemysao.
Coin, P. . , .:. Monteith, kJ. G, Walker, J. • .
Corbett, P. Money, W. T. Wyndham, ''S,''.
Cranborne, Lord Macnaughten, E. A. Ward, J. W-
Cockbur.n, Sir G. Metcalfe; .H..J. : Wetherell, C.
Congreve, Sir W. Musgrav, Sir J.
Dent, J. Nolan, M. Varinotith, UK"
Dobson, J.
TELLEa:i.—}-1. Goulburn and R. Ward..
. MINORITY. • , .
•S`r n'' Allan, J. H. • Grant, J. P. Parnell, I
„ j (.7
Alfhorri, Visc.- • Haldimand, W.-- Ramsden, ' -d.,
Barratt, S. M. . Hamilton, Lord A. Ricardo, pa `C.
Nc.
Bennet, Hon. H. G. neron, Sir B. ' Ridley, Sir ''''.-c
Benett, John '' • ' Iloblunise; J: C. • -Robarts,-/".,.•
Birch, J. .
...,,, Ilornhy-,. E. , ~_ ,1-1,,,
Bright, EL Hurst,
,Itobt. _Roberts,
Itunibold, .V.
Bury, Visct: : IlutchinsOn, 'Hon. Rickford, '
Cavendish, Henry C.. 11. .Searlett......L.
Chetwynd, G. ' James, W. Smith, w-,_
Colburne, N. It. Jervoise,-O. P. Sniith, J.051' 17.•
Crespigny, Sir W.D. Johnson; Col. Smith, Don- ''''
Davies, I'. H. . Lambton, J. G. Stewart, W• ~..
Denman, Thos. Lennard, 'l'. 13. Stuart, Lord .1
DunCanlloll , Visct.
AiVliaai.ctitinintoiLSir
.3.,
,Si.)3,kyeloir,,/.
.i. 1.1. 0.
Ellice, Ed.
Fergnsson, Sir R.C.. Majorb'anks, S. 'fierneY, n'' -. O.
'Whitbread, NV ~,..
Gordon, Itobt. - Monck, J. B.
Whitbread, S. (..,'
Grattan, J. Moore; Peter
Graham, Sandford • Palmer, C. F. Williams, W.
Pares, Thomas
Guise, Sir W. Pares, Thomas NVyvill, Al•
TELLEILS.It. Bernal and J. Hnme.

biß3Fee
arTiuin' . LIST 00 THE MINORITY •
E-lilo n:Ytt
4,
ITTpuh. RI,R:,' O;'
:'1;11-11:5irsserQ: US:tistr)::°V.s. sA LAIII.
• O F THE, COMMAND2X-IN•CHIET.),-4 11:3•1)ritycanTitiri.l.rE.
Ord, .Wm. 11.
•
Rennet, Hon. G. Ilarhord, Hon. E. Parneoll,. Sl,i"
Benyon, B. • Hume, Joseph. Pryset Pryse
Ricardo, P.
Carter, John Johnston, Otlonel SYktss Li* I
Denman, T.• - Milton 'Lord • Wood, AldertrZ
Gorton; R., . : Mona, J.. B. • Wptilli Al. ':•• ''' •
Grattan, J. .1.,,i ug.evt , Lord