GENERAL HISTORY. 



[57 



services ; and he deemed it pecu- 

 11 liarly ungenerous that an officer 

 should be deprived of it, unless 

 he swore that he had no civil em- 

 ployment whatever under the 

 „ Crown from which he could de- 

 rive any additional means of sub- 

 sistence. On this principle he 

 objected to the affidavit, and the 

 extraordinary restriction to which 

 it referred. He appealed, there- 

 fore, to the liberality of the 

 House, and to that of the govern- 

 ment itself, in favour of a body 

 of gallant men who had served 

 their country amidst so much 

 danger, and with so little profit. 

 He appealed with the more confi- 

 dence of success, because the 

 removal of the restriction to 

 which he objected would be at- 

 tended with no additional expense 

 to the country, while the govern- 

 ment would still have the discre- 

 tion of appointing any military 

 man to a civil office. 



There was another point to 

 which he also felt it his duty to 

 call the attention of the House. 

 He understood that a circular was 

 issued, or about to be issued, 

 from the War-office ; stating that 

 no widow of any officer who had 

 died since December last should 

 be entitled to the pension of an 

 officer's widow, if it appeared 

 that, from any source whatever, 

 she derived an annuity equal to 

 double the amount of such pen- 

 sion. This arrangement he thought 

 peculiarly unjust, because itmight 

 happen that the annuity which 

 was thus to deprive a widow of 

 || her pension, might be the effect 

 of an insurance upon her hus- 

 band's life, which insurance was 

 paid for, perhaps, by a material 

 sacrifice of the means of subsist- 



ence by both husbarid and wife. 

 Would that House then consent, 

 upon the ground of such an an- 

 nuity, to exclude an officer's 

 widow from her pension ? Yet the 

 circular alluded to would have 

 that effect. 



Lord Palmerston observed, that 

 as the affidavit alluded to was 

 provided for by a section in the 

 Appropriation act, the case did 

 not apply on the present occa- 

 sion. He denied the justice of 

 the hon. gentleman's statement, 

 that the half-pay belonged to an 

 officer as a matter of right ; as it 

 was in fact granted merely for the 

 subsistence of officers during 

 the cessation of their services, 

 and as a retaining fee for future 

 services. But if officers were al- 

 lowed to accept civil appoint- 

 ments, it was justly felt that it 

 would be difficult to recall them 

 to military duties when occasion 

 should require it. This affidavit 

 was nothing more than persons 

 connected with other establish- 

 ments of the public service were 

 called upon to make ; for those 

 who enjoyed superannuation or 

 retired pensions were obliged to 

 make the same affidavits. As to 

 the circular letter alluded to by 

 the hon. gentleman, the regula- 

 tion to which it referred did not 

 originate with government, but 

 was recommended by the finance 

 committee, which was of opinion, 

 that the same rule which prevailed 

 in the other departments of the 

 public service should be applied 

 to the army. 



The report of the committee 

 was then brought up. Upon the 

 putting of the first resolution, 



Sir W. Burroughs rose, and 

 urged with additional force the 



objections 



