Star.
London, England, 1823-03-15 00:00:00

'Y

uoe

leave—than which nothing Was more common up to
this day, nor more justifiable. He hoped he had said
enough to shew that this power existed in the Crown,
having been derived to it from a very ancient date.
In UM, a -measure was attempted to be passed
through Parliament to limit the exercise of the
power, shewing that the power itself was recognised
wen by -those who questioned its limits. He had
thenonly,to show that the prerogative was necessary
to the dignity of the Crown, to the safety of the sub-
rct, and to the security of the Constitution itself.—
To illustrate this, he would suppose an Officer in the
command of a regiment guilty of gross tyranny and
acts-of cruelty towards his men. Did this preroga-
tive not exist, the Crown, unable to dismiss the Offi-
cer, Inust refer his conduct to a Court-Martial. This
Court-Martial, composed of Officers in the daily
practice of committing the same acts of tyranny and
cruelty, of course would acquit him. Thus the sol-.
(her would be compelled to submit in' silence to what;
! would render his life intolerable, or he would be:
driven to acts of insubordination to which the most
passive might be forced by a long course of oppres-
-5100. This would be the state to which thoie who,
fought the battles of their country would be reduced.
' by those who made the walls of that House ring from:
Tear to year with their tirades against opprvssion,,
and their harangues about liberty. He would nest`
suppose the case of an Officer guilty of some viola-
tion of the civil law. How would the Honouiabie
Member proceed in that case ? Did he suppose that
a constable armed with a stak, would be a match for
the object of his search, backed by six or seven hun-
dred bayonets. lie would suppose any other case,
in which an Officer had put himself in opposition to
the decencies of
civil law. civil life, but not answei able to the
His Majesty being appealed to on this oc-;
casioa, would naturally send him to be tried by a
Court Martial. A corporate feeling would be excited
and the Officer acquitted. Thus, then, it appeared
that the civil past of the community were to have
their tights violated, their persons insulted, and pro-
perty infringed by the system which was to be intro-
doted by those who
canons, professed themselves, on all oc-,,
the champions of the People—(Hear, hear).
lle would suppose another case in which the Crown

maintenance of .thos, cnts,r4t• tiou icseV—(Hear. hhar,l
hear). The Hon: MeMbei bad Said-1114.1r did not
wish tntake from the eimin :mating vibieh'iddesr
•to its splendour. In reply to this, hitt:Ord' Palmer-
ston) would say, that he was onewho would not ac-
cept a prerogative shackled with such, conditions as.,
the Honourable Member proposed with regard to '1
this pi erogative. The prerogative was given, as was
all prerogative, for the-benefit of thepeoPle—('Hear.
Ian)). He wed not •go into any research -to prove
that the prerogative in .question was• derived from the
earliest practice of the Monarchy—he need only re-'
'ler to the Statute Book of the Realm. It would there
be found, that an Act passed in the beginning of the
reign of Charles the Second, declared, " that the sti-.1
preme government of the Militia, and of the whole ofl
the and sea forces, is, by.the laws of England,
and ever was, the undoubted.right of. his Majesty ;"
further went on to say, 64 that neither House of
Parliament, nor both, can pretend to the same." This,.
Pre considered, was, as clear as language could make
the matter, that the power of commissioning and dis-
;lacing had from ancient time been the right of the
Cro.,vn. If the Honourable Member doubted such
was the construction of the context of the Act he re-
ferred to, he would advert to an Act passed in the next
year, which, in giving Lords Lieutenant of Counties
the power to appoint officers, left it to the Crown.,to
dismiss them. The way in which the Crown exer-
cised this prerogative of governing the Army, was by
framing articles of wai'l ,r its regulation. Accord-
ingly, in the time of Elizabeth and of Charles the
Second, articles of war were drawn up, all of which
chewed the power of the Crown to dismiss officers. It
appear ed, indeed, perfectly immaterial to this question
v:hether the officers were dismissed by sentence of
Court-Martial or otherwise, since Courts-Martial
themselves derived all their power from theCrown,and
the Crown could not give power which k had not itself.
If, then, it was the right of the Crown from very early
periods, they had only to look into the Mutiny Bill
to see if anything tended to abrogate such a power,
and if not, it must still remain. He would here take
occa-ion to observe, that it was quite a-mistake to re-
present that Bill, as it frequently was in that House
and elsewhere, as a Bill for the protection of the'
Army, and the maintenance of its rights and privi-
leges.
In his view, it was directly the reverse. It
gave the Crown, with respect to the Army, what it did
not possess before, summary modes of proceeding
which were not possessed by the ordinary course of
law. And, indeed, it did not require much argument
to shew that it was absurd to resort to the ordinary
process of law with men who were in rebellion against,
the Laws and Government with arms in their hands.
The Mutiny Bill set forth, that it was against the law
to maintain a Standing Army in time of peace,: but
nevertheless declared, that such being necessary, it
was requisite they should devise some means .of bring-
ing to more speedy punishment than by-the forms of
law those who belonged to it, guilty of any violation
of law. The Bill then gave the King powef to esta-
blish Courts-Martial for the purposes of suniniary
tri:il and punishment. Thus it appeared the Mutiny
Act did not abridge the prerogative of the Crown.—
It then went on to give power to the Crown to make
Articles of %Var. But in no case did it speak of limi-
tations, further than to forbid the punishinent of death.
being adjudged by Courts-Martial, excepting for cer:
tain crimes specified in the Bill. lire Hon. Member
had contended that dismissing was adding to the pu-
nishment awarded by a Court-Martial. This he Iliotd
Palmerston) denied ; the King must have the power
of dismissing his own servants in whatever depart-.
ment of service, and the motive must remain in his:
own breast. 'lt might be used as a punishment, and
in the case quoted of Captain Coffin, possibly .the
Crown was erroneously advised; but it was not to.
be said. that the Admiralty dismissed that Officer.
In many cases the exercise of the prerogative, by dis-.
missal, in place of the sentence cif the Coutt)Martiat,
was on the side of mercy. When the Hon. Member
said that the 989 Officers who had been dismissed the
service since 1795, bad been the victims of tyranny
and oppression—[Colonel DAVIE;S here intimated
that• he had said" injustice."j—Well, supposing it.
to be injustice, and -that there were no tyranny and.
oppression in injustice, still he denied that that was a
just assertion. The majority of those Officers had
been.dismissed on account of being absent without

._ :'.y.~~.~

should have infurtitatien•of tTeaton able-Otto 1n:1-the
per dia oT tottwof • its.loaitteta.. detorriewtv, •
_not {be „Krr 04,4e..(100404t .tgwst staff'
then to a .cout 0 /lentil
fellesi-cOUspiiatcirs; or if nor the Co—wn bee
foried to disclose that Irtftfitttetiekt bf'
wise it might be able to save the country.'flethis
.course were not pm sued,he should like to knOW"how
the Ijonourable Member would proposerty seurove
an Officer from a garrison town in rebellion,againsc
Abe State ? The mistake of'the Honourable' tette.:
man was',- that he applied the piesent'statelrtliiitis'
to the system which he proposed to establish; Whereas
the obedience at present found in 'the Army was due'
to the existing laws by which that Army was
.nowl
governed. As in the case of Colonel Allen, whiih:
had lately been discussed in that • Houst, Wholsted
to be brought to a Court-Martial upon tertain eliaiget,•l
and then complained that he was 'tried upon 'diffe-
rent charges. The next step in the regulation of the
Army would be, that. Officers should only be.pied
upon charges framed by themselves. 110.4 d. not r.
stated his reasons for opposing the Hon..Gentliiparcs•
motion. He again stated in short, that these *bie,
because he thought it went to abridge.a most ancient
and useful prerogative of the Crown ; and that the:
system proposed to be substituted by the Honourable;
Gentleman, was one which would tend to convert
our Army into a corps of Mamelukcs, lb the annihi-
lation of the Constitution—Meer, hor,), .
Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON did not rise to dispute
the prerogative of the Crown, which he thought was
very properly placed in the hands' of 'the' Crown.
Cut he could not go along with the Noble Lord in
the defence he had made for an extended exercise of
that power ; for to do that, he must suppose with the
Noble Loud, a whole army of mutineers. The Noble
Lord had employed himself in supposing cares for
the purpose of answering them. He asked the Noble
Lord how it happened, 'that the late Emperor of
France, Napoleon, had never once exercised hispre-
rogative of dismissing his Officers without trial by a
Court-Martial? He believed it had not happened in
any one instance, and it would not be said that his
troops were in that disorganized state represented by
the Noble Lord. Even Louis the Eighteenth did not
attempt to dismiss his Officers without trial by Court
Martial, even when accused of treasonable practices.
He agreed with the Noble. Lord, that the CtoWn'
should possess this power for the benefit of' tbe ta;
Lion ; but, at the same time,' it was liable to many
abuses. An abuse he thought it was which had canted
it to be exercised in the case of his gallant fl:iei d 1
(Sir It. Wilson)iast year. He was saus4kl. that .his
gallant friend was the victim of mis4ite,.. -When he
saw him covered with- military. dialnetiona front
every country, and when be reflected elt hi,kaidbiftis
and brilliant *services. in the 'ran k not iiiily4fOritiilt
troops, but of other countries,-he4o3iUmseglelseve,
that any Court-Martial would hay.e't4OUlssid
And he was sure his Majesty's Milftteris'iribrt riot
themselves aware of the facts qf:tho,7cike' when his
dismissal.took place. lie was satisfinikfiat hitexer-
tions On the day in question had only tencltid to pre
vent much confusion and bloodshed. And when the
moment 'of calm arrived,' he did the'bilief
that he would be restored to his-1;104..4W ahae 'the'
professiOn- would have to cougyatitiateitaiift vn :the
recovery of so.gallant, huManece*perjeittecti and la-
lented-arr Officer. fie said this in the warMilt.:Pfbis
feelings towards his lion, anifgaliaut•Pxiend;'sena be
'hoped, in. Aloing, so, be • hstdadliotbing calculated
to wound the feelings of any - one. .. • •
Mr:II:GURNEY said, Abe efllters,iitificitiMy
being men of high family, Iniditorilkg.i.iilkoce, it
was necessary that this prerogative Id•eaist, in
order to restrain them. •

Mr.'HUME was willing to give every attention to
the cases put by the Noble 4°l\4_ 0ut,..)0 could not
come to the same conclUsion as the Noble Lied.- He
denied thaitheArmy was.his Majesty's,-bat .belonged
to. and was paid by the State, antt:titerefbre he ought •
not to dismiss Officers The Xing
had no prerogatives except such as were given to him
by Act of Parliament. The very circumstance of
this Act being passed annually, shews that without
it the Atm), would cease, and the King could, there-,
fore, have no pterogative over it. It the King's au-
thority were to ride over Acts olParliament, in what
a state would they be ? Our ancestors were always
very jealous of the maintenance of a standing army,
however small it might be. He contended that it
was an illegal act to dismiss an-Officer without a
Court-Martial, for the Articles of War required that
everything relating to the Army should be laid before
that House ; but that was never done. There could
be no law to enable the Sovereign to heap-injustice
upon any man ; for the life of a man was as good to
him as that of the whole community. In garrison
they knew that Officers were beyond all. power, and
therefore the Noble Lord's comparison must fall to
the ground. He should support the motion of his
gallant friend; andhoped that there would be a clause
to that effect introduced into the Committee.
Mr. W. WYNN said, it was the first time he had
ever heard that the prerogative of the-Crown-existed.
by Act of .Parliament. He wished the Hon. Member.
would shew the Acts of Parliamentlgiving the crown
the power.of making warideclating peace, or tatting
or dissolving the Parliament. The King enjAyetrail
his prerogatives excepi they tvere taken away by Act
of Parliament. He &did not 'find it.intllefrlotiny_Aci
that the King had the potter to discharge a private
soldier, or to disband a tegimerit when in a state of
mutiny ; but who.did doubt that thq Crown possessed
the Rimer of dismissing hixhrft was a matter of
safety 10 couniry to anon' the disinissal of
yers ; :hut ,that was not to be considered as punishing
him as the laws wculd do, were be brought to trial..
'lt was wastirit the time di die House to argue against;
this, for he aid not believe that this country couldi
without' this power being vested in the ettnart. I
Lord HOTHAM, iborigh a military man, mould;
say that thi; prerogative was perfectly. legal; -arid,
never was exercised with partialityind caprice. Be
maid assure his Hon. Friend that he never regretted,
the vote he gave on the qcrestion of.the_ dint:heal of
a gallant Officer. If the Army were toiken trlv Its
dependence on the Crown there was ,knowit.as
where the consequences would end—(iiatr, hear),
Sir FRANCIS i3LAKE could not agree that his
Majesty possessed no power over Superior Offiegrs,
when Colonels'hail the power of redUciog
charging non-commissioned officers, which be ,bad..
found beneficial to the service, iu the regiment to
which he belonged.

•
e Arnettilminft wh's dittr•iiitttivtd 'tfidingt
ilitetlble4.l64lMl eMtrltiltier. - •
•":•430ionel:11141046 .baidositer bad merr litelb to say:
an answer to.,tifeliopje.44l,l•but he contended
..thap
the Act of the 18th-anctilil.d.3 of Charles 11. bad no-.!
441iiitiPtetisgsitive of ' the Crown,
the FttliiiiiflAettlolf4bevelerere Inch• an antiquatee
prertgateire;••whrtbesertauth a hurry in passing tale'
•Alutitts liillrytiebeottwhich.the Kiog womld hive nP!
..power over -she my at all? •He maintaitted,.!tbat..
whatever prirotative of the Crown was .in existence
-fietlikeitte Mittrtiyiktt; he would say that it was an-
11'ed 67114137th PlirtielehFehe Ninthly gill, which
said- that no tater was toile panished but under the
:sentence of a Court Those who maiutaitied
,the•contrary might as well have said that the King
'Might imprison,- or Othetivise punish any individual.
without a 'trial. 'There was no Act of 'Parliament'
against- dismissing Amy Offer of the Crown, such es,
a ,Secretary of:State but there was one against di s.
,missing an Officer. in the Army without a.Cssurt Mari,
eta'. ..The Noble Lord would brand the Officers of
ifie-Ariny as perjured traitors, and suppose the whole.
Artitylcsebe•tatintedi- that 'nothing could keep it 'in.
obedlettee except by the power of the Crown to dis;-
miss any Officer at pleasure. The Army might say'
to the Noble Lord, " Hr.evex defend me from msi
friends, and I will defend myself from my enemies:,
It was from a consfiousness of his
.duty that lie-
brought this forward, being, as he knew, • With bine
out of ten in•the House against hiM.
Lord PALMERSTON- saw all the danger•which
would result from depriving the Crown of the power
of summary punishment. He denied that the Silh
section said anything'against the'poWer of the trotin
to dismiss Officers or others. •It Only,gave to 'thi
Crown the power of bringing Officersmecisrbollar-
tial. The Crown might pronounceanythiog to be a,
military offence, which was not so in a civil point of
view ; and the Crown might punish such offence
•
otherwise than by life or limb. Ile denied that he
had ever argued that the Army wasa vet of perjured
traitors. Never was so unfounded-a charge; but all
musses in what a state they would be, it the Officers
of the Army were made independent oldie Crown.
Mr..HITNIE wished to know if was a copy
of the list Act ?

Lord PALMERSTON said, it gauge thepower of
adding hard labour 'to sentences of imprisonment
passed on soldiers. •
Mr. HUME wished to know, what was meant by'
the absurdity of keeping up the balance Of.power 'in
Europe, as 'spoken of by the Bill ?
Lord PALNtERSTON said, that was' inserted in
tbe reign of King William, when' it was generally
weli.enderstood.
The EiII-then went through the. Committee; and
was otdertd to be reported on Monday. •
NAvy 'Utile/att. •
• The House then went into .a'dotntnittee Of-Siipply
on the'Nary Estimates.

Sir J. OSBORNE said,' the Committee having on
a former evening voted Of,
.Weat and Tear, he hod
now to move the sums for the Timber, the Victual-
ling Hoard, Clerks, &c.' -k would be seen that con-
siderithle inductions hiidttlett effected in** different
Offices, by the Navy being brought toLgreat perfed-
tion. -, There was- an additional charge for Greenwich
Haapital,,-asulter for' the,Sveranntsation of Officers
,
'diselfarged 'Crotit tie Dock-yards. There was a de-
erease of £216,864 fiems: the Estritilate ti Wit Pier,
'though there were 4000 men more "itnisldjesi thin
, last year; and when the 1-louse heard that the-Navy
was never in a More efficient state, it would be highly
I satisfied. He then, moved £55,400,,, for the exrenses
of the Admiralty. Office.
Mr. HUME would rather intim seeirtwo or three
millions taken from the-Army and gilded totheNav y.
He was dispOSed to differ. Crotn the assertion that the
reduction was owing to the efficient state of our
Navy. He understood that the civil officers might
have been reduced seven years ago. Therewas also
a'great redUction in the rate of wages. 'ln this esti-
mate they had no credit given for old stores. Having
congratulated the House on the reduction, be had to
notice the difference of 2,0001. between the vote of
the present and that of last year, but he had to object
to the. Paymaster of Widows' Pensions and other
Officers. The Pay Office itself might do all the duty
of various offices which he had pointed out in a for-
mer Session. Many things, however, had been re-
duced by noticing them in the Committees, and
therefore he should propose the reduction of this
branch by the sum of 3,6501. There were. 8,000
marines, and when on board ship they were paid
by the Navy Board, and yet the Paymaster of Ma-
rines hail 1,0001. a year and six clerks allowed to him.
The whole establishment might be got rid of, and he
should take the sense of the Committee on the subject.
Sir O. CLERK thought there was no Officer in the public
service bad. more duty or responsibility. than the Paymaster of
Marinas. It was true that the duty aught be transferred to the
Kay Pay Office, but that would be no saving, for then there
mast be a similar Officer, with clerks under him. If the Hon.
Member saw the quantity of correspondence every morning at
the Office of the Paymaster of Marines, he would see also that
be had not too many clerks. Te Paymaster of Widows' Pen-
sions paid some hundreds of tbnusands a year for the small sum
of 4600 a year, with one clerk at A'Bo a year. This would
stew that the Hon. Gentleman himself could not propose a more
economical mode of doing the business of these two Offices.
Mr. HUME said, the Treasurer oldie Navy was originally the
Paymaster of WidoWs' Pensions, and mlghr be so again. He
wWied.to have the Marine and the Army Barracks tinder the eon-
troul of the same Board. This need only to be attempted to be
Worried into effect, and wills-great economy too.
Sir J. I.)SBORNE said, that When the Navy Treasurer was'
Paymaster of WidoWs' Pensions, they did not amount to 1-loth
oT what they Were now ; and now too they were paid four times
as.car in any,part of thecountrf they pleased.
Si, J. YORKE thought the Secretary of the Admiralty ought
to be the Payhutster orthe Widows' Pensions.
Mr. CROK ER denied that the cfscespfthe ph, yrnes‘et orate
Navy, and of Widows' Pensions, were ever joined in the sense
intended by the Hon. bleniEler for Montrose. The Widows'
'Pensions was a ptivate 'charity ifftegetber. Very *stir oe his
r coming into office, he had his sitteotion drawn, so the office of
Paymaster of Marines. By habits of indoleipoysitay Arleen/iglu
ire ritide a sineeuri; lb ill-be-pledged fiint wise trot any
, JJOlcerin.hiCklajtatea.oervice o( more vsr amiss( thoreonono-
eakal use, than the Paymaster of the Maritiesiffear, Inas).
TT* Nyniistii df the Myr was'mliy Vided•Cteri 10 the T era-1
inffi• 4 Ckf bevy, .. otWu a t infietraisilillity ietraisilillity, but ,ilk •Psria•
inast=rlsteitgavt secutity -to the amount of ttventy thew.
riiita. 'O(lE4 SI Ihrie and holintraille body 'roittentl'
des Oa * d**lolll4-Sktils. 'abe 'salary.. of that Olficer -hod .. .
~ . .. •
lateia,paid to the
..'si.
_lrlic..srver and pverfear,4, the saving he
Bird igertediti tie likrreili•-of the It esaa:(flear, hear).,-
The„Matipe: Barrack:a- were :nee like lan, tUrrecksi foe they
weft the Head. tuners of the Corm-and could not be assail:-
laiedlitiaoili► - With. tfii.'.irrny Bart:acts witliettreitoireoiy
tem
. Niaatpvit• V. Atirmeiliss:44 AiarY3viSiCeo Oiseneorctary to the
lend for the lief df Offiters' 'Widows, be begged leave to sty
a few words, as the ainoeut• of salary had been ebjeeted to.. It
wail known that it was a Corporation which had the 'name-
. .• -.

' meat of these funds; And that Crotitiollttoo for Mini year' put.
Indeed be believed thaw tliCitat X714;.-o*-dfflDPVlliest The
ry Secreta to the Admiralty Plienctry the Fund. The salary
appointed in 1754 waVp2oo d year, an although the pensioners
had increased from Zolato 11000; the pensions from aeSOOO to
X 150,000 a-year. and the carrespgodenfe.irortt 309 or 400 letters
to 30,0000 r 46,000—f0r so man be believed he received annu-
-1 ally—there had been no increase whatever in the salary—{clear,
heir i)--thittbese grauads be thong* that grruAjection could
be fairly prgfd ...zaiest it. tie contended, Ara, that the Pay-
'Master of the Maridef-was a mint effielent liidlleassary (Miter;
mein, that tbe tiOnVet.Aollo,wits:noetootoombilliethe Paynamoir
of. Widows' Pensions, and consequently that the arrangenmet of
1819 ought not to bc.aliakdasaed..- • -or
Sir F. MI 3I A NAY was against the ieduction. proposed by
the,ltinourabie Atetn,)er fof Montrose. 'He spiike in retro:kr of'
the Widows of Assiscatitlittrgeons ill the Navy; • but • wben'be
advocated their cause with the Secretary to the Admiralty..*
answer was.—". Sir„. take .no trouble about it : ;realer men Ilion
you have thought'of it." "If he din notgeta satisfattory answer
from the Adintrioltr wiihht-a 'proper' tithe,•beshosild move Isis
Address to his Majesty, that the.:Wilows of Augstoste &nem,
should he
*placed upon the Widows Pepsine List. He shoidd
move, that tOOO/. be added to the
Mr.IMO C IfIEN slid, it was irregular to add tntfie Resolut4oe.
Sir J. YOR KR said,. that if he tin:keit the 'Estiniates -too
low, he conceived he had a right to move an addition.
Mr. BROGQRN again 'said, :that ;Mush the Committee
might diminish the sum, it could not add to it, without a fresh
communication from the Crown. .
Sir F. 031 MA NFX-thought, if the Menil4r for Aberdeen-toe-
ceeded in taking off 20001. he might be allowed to replace 10001.
• Sir J. YOILKR contended, that if the sum appeared tcrlaim too
be Baas ai liberty to move an addition.
"•• Mr. CROK,BR seld,•tho Boa. Atember hact•tvenevabered
' Nogdailhat itc (rlr. Croker) bad not used, and had forgot others
that he (Mr. Cooker) had used.
Sit R.0311111A wohid nut put hjs Parliamentary el:pa
Oenc,r-inApikaiiiou to thpt of the Seeretar/ of the Admiralty,
but he would' put -his veracity. He hid been told by the Score-
• tarfogthe'Adnilrlig that greater tarn than he (Sir F. Ortraa-
: siey) had considered thogaubject. Ile wished for five Lords of. the
Admiralty,and on that at eentnit he Indproposed the additional aunt.
Mr. Rl.LlVRabOuldOoedsliftb his Hon. Friend (Mr. Raise),
should be persist is his Itesolutism. He felt it Isis duty to support
any reduction that would not•hnerfereWith the publfc service.
Mr. HUM R stated, that if the subject should' be allowed tO
go to i Committee, he should withdraw-the motion.
Sir J. COFFIN said, that in the eventbf a War, If therewere
no Navy, no Member of that House woild iitquiet in his war.
Attempts were constantly making to grind dowttAbe Navy.
Sir J. I Of: homed the gallant Admiral wulnd make the
anien.le Imoorolde, and retract what he had said.
_ ____

Mr. HUM declincd to rire,s a division, and the Resolution
was carried.—The following sums were then voted:
X;.,^_,4:;4, for the Navy P.ty Office.
64,519, for the salaries and contingencies of the Navy Office.
.18,657, for Vie expense of Deptford Yard;
ta,:so9, for Woolwich Yird.
24,504, tier the expense: of Chathani Dock.
16,1:,4, for Sheerness Yard.
• :Sti,sll, for Portsmouth Yard.

30,905, for Plymouth Yard.
8,860, fur the Out-ports.
.505,500, for the building and repairs of Ships.
40,000, for Pilots.
52,108, for Officers in Foreign Yards.
64107,g-or the Victual!lig 'Office.
• • 51,331, for the Medical Establishment.
6,227, for. the Royal Naval College.
164;484, for Ship-keepers and Ships in Ordinary.
933,400, for half-pay of Naval Officers.
137,735, for Superannuation- of Chaplains and others.
1,590, nOuttty for Chaplains. .
7,000, for Widows and Orphans of Officers on the Com.
passionate List.
100,000, to make good the deficiency inthe. Funds for the re-
lief of the Widows of (Kficers in the Royal Navy.
300,00, for the Out-pensiorrtrs of Greenwich Hoopla/.
176,449, for Superannuation half-pay.
20,000, for the building of ships of war in India.
205,000, for provkions for Troops on Foreign Service.
184,300, for the Transport Service. .
124,000, for improvements in the Dock Yards..
The' House then resumed, and the Report whs ordeMit to*
received on Monday. •

NATioNAL DEBT REDUCTION BILL.
The CIIA of the EXCHEQUER nibied the
'third 'ridding of the National Debt Redaction 13i13. .
Aftiv some observations from Mr.:Bessri and Lord A. HA..
)noon, the third reading was postponed to Monday.