The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-09 00:00:00

rest secure and set itself up against the cause and reason of all law ; but such a case very rarely happens, and this meat certainly is not such a case." To which my Right Honour able Friend interpolated—" I perfectly agree in that sen timent as being perfectly applicable to the present motion." The mere time of the reform is by no means worth the sacrifice of a principle of law. Individuals pass like sha dows ; but the commonwealth is fixed and stable. The difference, therefore, of to-day and to-morrow, which to pri vate people is immense, to the State is nothing. At any rate it is better, if possible, to reconcile our economy with our laws, than to set them at variance—a quarrel which in the end must be destructive to both." Now this was the quo tation which my Right Honourable Friend made use of from Mr. Burke in 1834 ; and he objected to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member, because the direct assertion of the persons in authority, because the report of the Committee, because the sanction of Parliament, because the unvarying assent of every authority to which any human individual could look for security to his property had given to these persons on the Pension List the right, according to the plainest sense in which the most indifferent words could be used, of believing that they bad a claim which Parliament would terminate only with their life ; and I defy the Government, and any member of the House, to point out a single passage used by a single Member of Lord Grey's Government which was either at variance with, or which did not positively maintain that con struction and that interpretation. I know, however, that my Right Hon. Friend will say, " Oh, but this was in 1834; the Act had passed, the compact was made with the Crown." I know that, as far as the case of compact with the Crown goes, there was a distinction between 1834 and 1831. But there was also a distinction between 1834 and 1837. But as to the compact between the law and the indi viduals on the list, as to the case between the faith of Parliament and those persons, show me what is the distinction between 1830 and 1834, or between 1834 and 1837, if the distinction be not this, that all your acts from 1830 to 1837 have given them additional reason to be positively certain that they will remain in possession of their pensions. —( Opposition cheers.) The principle of the Pension Act was to be applied prospectively for the benefit of the public, but not retrospec tively to the disadvantage of individuals. I know not what course the Government intend to take upon this point, so mys tified, so obscure has been their conduct as to the line they in tend to take, or the measure of justice or of favour which they intend to deal out to those miserable persons who are to be cited to the bar for their acquittance before the Committee. I know not whether you mean to take the pension from a single one of these individuals. I should like to hear whether you mean to deprive any of them of these pensions which you—indivi dually you—( Opposition cheers)—when you asked for a change in the law, and pledged the faith of Parliament— told them that they were entitled to receive, so far as you as a Ministry could control it, for the remaining period of their lives.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Do you mean to take one of these away ? If you do, I say without hesita tion you violate the faith of the Parliament—you commit, as Lord Althorp told you it would be, an act of fraudulent injustice.-- Opi..osition cheers.) If you do not—why, what a mockery—( Hear, hear)—what a poor, what a wretched pro ceeding is this! In what terms can I characterise it strongly enough, if you really mean that you will only cite to your bar those individuals who for a period of sixty years have been in the receipt of the pensions, more or less merited, I care not— but to which they believe that they have a right, but of which in many cases it would be impossible for them to produce any proof—if you only mean to call upon them in this way, with no serious design of taking away a pension from a single one of them, can anything be more shuffling, can anything be more disgraceful, can anything be more unjust ?—( Opposition cheers.) But fortunately for me I need not take the trouble of seeking for any expres,don of mine to qualify such an action. I find it characterised in the forcible language of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment in April, 1836. The Noble Lord on that occasion said, " The question was, whether the House, on the bare state ment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, unsupported by any witness and unaccompanied by any proof, would be in duced to enter into an examination of the Pension List, and to go through it name after name, and person after person, in order to hunt out some circumstance which might show that at the time the pension was granted it. was not conferred for meritorious services, or that the person on whom it had been conferred was not in circumstances which entitled him to the benefit." Do you mean to take that course now ? Is it not the very mildest course suggested by the most moderate supporter of the present proposition ? Hear, then, how it was characterised by the leader of those who support that proposi tion. The Noble Lord exclaimed; " Could any proposition be more odious or degrading ?—( Opposition cheers.) Could any proposition be better calculated, by raking up the per sonal affairs of individuals, to ' eTatity private animosity and mali g nity? And all was to be done without any object." The Noble Lord goes on to talk of the poor end miserable saving which would ha effected even if )ou were to diminish the amount of existing pensions to the extent pr, posed. " Let," said that Noble Lord, " that House compare t'ne small amount which could by possibility be deducted from the Pension List with the great and mighty reduction of ec arly 5,000,0001. effected by pursuing the honest and stnight forward course of reducing only where they had a right to reduce, and where no expectations had been enter tained, and justly entertained, from interference. Let that diminution be compared with the small diminution that alone could be hoped for from acquiescing in the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's petty and unjust proposition. The one had the features of wise, great, and national retrench ment, while the other assumed the appearance of private pique and miserable malice."—( Opposition cheers.) These are the terms in which, in 1836, the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department qualified the miserable saving which would be effected by this petty and degrading proceeding as compared with that great saving which had been effected, without compro mising the honour of the Government and the public faith, by making reductions only where no expectations of freedom from interference had been entertained. And when is this proposition made?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Why, when my Noble Friend the Member for North Devon (Lord Ebrington) is apologising for the altera tion of his opinion, and for the vote he is about to give, and for which he expects to he severely commented upon, but which I only deeply regret without for one mo ment entertaining the least doubt of the honourable ness and integrity of that change of opinion. What was it ? Why was he of a different opinion now than ha was in 1834 ? Because the Poor-law Bill had since passed.—( Hear, hear.) The circumstances which have since passed, even if it were strictly accurate to give such a reason, is the strangest argu ment which I have ever heard uttered why a difference of opinion should now exist, or why we should now commit an act of injustice.—( Hear, hear.) Bet I will strip him of this argument, if argument it can be called, for the new Poor law had pissed in 1834, and was therefore just as much a reason then as it is now.—( Loud cheers.) And, for the further sa tisfaction of the Noble Lord the Member for North Devon, and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheshire, and that no Hon. Member may be induced to institute comparisons between the Poor-law and the Pension List, and for the information of the supporters of the present motion, I will read another passage from the same speech of the Noble Lord—(Loud cheers, cries of " Oh, oh !" and " Order !") in which the Noble Lord replies to this argument, and after most justly deriding it, and showing that there is no analogy between the two, proceeds to point out the difference between the principle of the Poor-law and the intention of its provisions, and then adds:—" A more odious comparison—(Cheers)—and one less founded in the real nature of the two subjects, I think that I never heard attempted to be palmed upon any public assembly--(Hear, hear)---than that drawn by the Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark between the principle of the Poor-law Act and the Pension List."—( Loud cheers.) Why, Sir, the argument derived from the comparison between the Pension List and the Poor-law Bill, if even it can be called • an argument, made in the speech of the Honourable and Learned Member for Southwark, is calculated by the most plausible sophistry to create the most mischievous feeling in the country—( Hear, hear)—an argument more calculated to drown unfounded and invidious distinctions between the rich and the poor, or more likely to lead to the supposition of degradation to the poor, and of excess on the part of the rich, I never heard than was contained in that speech. —(Hear, hear.) Does, Sir, the Hon. and Learned Mem ber mean to carry out in the revision of the Pension List the principles of the Poor-law Act ?—(" Precisely so," from Mr. Harvey.)—( Loud cheers.) This, Sir, this I say, that I do trust and believe that her Majesty's Government will never sanction the Honourable and Learned Member's principle of interference. I believe that they will not be influenced by this comparison, and I believe that they will never place the Pension List in such an unjust and false position.—( Hear.) What is the object of the Poor-law Bill ?Is it not to pro vide from the public funds, as a last resource, for those who through misfortunes have been led into unavoidable distress? —( Hear, hear.) I for one, would never have supported the Poor-law Bill if I believed that in carrying out its provi sions I was pressing with hardship upon those who are in penury and in distress.—(Hear, hear.) There are persons on the Pension List of all ages, of both sexes, of every class in life ; there are persons who have received a pension either for their own services or the services of others ; and are all these to be dragged before the Committee and to be examined, according to the leaning of the Members, either in the strict manner pointed out by the Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark—( Hear, hear)—or are they to be subjected to the more limited inquiry which I flatter myself will be recom mended by the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer? Are all their rights, is all their fortune, is all their property, and are all their characters to be subject to this most searching investigation and inquiry ? (Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark has hinted to us the course of examination which he would pursue. He tells us, first, that among the names of those on the Pension List there are several hundreds who receive be low the amount of 451. a year, misinterpreting the powerful speech of my Hon. Friend behind me, and he sneers at the feelings of Hon. and Right Hon. Gentlemen who would ac- cept such paltry sums; and the Hon. and Learned Member ' would then ask of these persons whether they have no near relation who can support them, whether they receive their pensions from mere necessity, whether they have no wealthy relative basking in the sunny clime of Malta who can afford them assistance, whether they have no friends to keep them off the parish ; and lastly, he says, that, having made these inquiries, he would look with kindly favour upon those who came before his tribunal; and after, by your vote this night, subjecting these parties to this delicate cross-examination of the Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark, you will, on .4 4; WN PA I- , presentation of the report of your Committee, bring them e the House of Commons and in the face of the country f2 . : 4 ; ;t :T1:.7 - to intain their right to what they have ever t e h ons m idred yi A '1:: Minis r' ,_.!;..:,;-: . t ti e ie . l nnddoclaeteerds from theinheritance Opposition p ? posi N tio o n benches) — and an e d unless lI T I Y '''."..l4ltiO . prove that they are without father, that they are' i ettoptc :.' .•)( v A., r- '‘ 111 A 9 THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1837. to in the course of this evening, and so much was founded on what he said in this House, that I cannot forbear from reading to the House the opinion which he expressed in 1834 with respect to some of the pensions. He said, " He was aware that many persons held pensions who had public employment for which they received re muneration, or who had other property on which they could de pend for support ; and, although he could not enter into the feel ings of others, yet he was ready to declare that if placed in such a position, in being possessed of means of supporting himself, and at the same time that he was entitled to receive a pension, he would not, under such circumstances, consent that the payment of the pension shouldbe continued to bim. The question then before the House was simply this, would the House, by its vote, deprive those of their pensions who had a legal right to receive them ?" That was the argument then employed, and in what position does it place the ar gument now? The state of the question as regards that argument is this. In 1834 the parties had a legal right to their pensions, and because they had that right they could not be taken from them. That legal right now exists no longer, as it ceased en the demise of the Crown. Then what equitable claim is there ? None and there is only that demand can be made for the pensions which Lord Althorp declared he should be ashamed to urge. Now I do say that this is a case for inquiry. The obstacle in 1834 was that there was a legal bar to the removal of the pensions. The pensioners then had the law in their favour, and they could not be deprived of their right. Now there is no legal right, and there is so little of an equitable claim that no injury would be done by the loss of the pen sions, because if it were so, how could Lord Althorp say that the per sons in the receipt of pensions were in affluent circumstances, and that they ought to abandon them? In my opinion it is the con duct of these persons in not following the advice which was given by the Noble Lord, that is the great cause of the want o f p ublic confidence.—(Hear.) There are occasions, although I regret that they are not frequent, when persons having a right to pensions make a voluntary surrender of them ; and I cannot but say, that in most instances the persons who thus sacrifice their own interests to the general public welfare are those who have the least right, from various causes, to keep the pensions which have been granted to them for past services. Lord Sidmouth was an honourable in stance of this ; for he was a person who had a perfect right to re tain the pension which he gave up, from his long services to his country ; and to instance two other cases, Mr. Graham More and Mr. Marsden were gentlemen, who, with equal generosity and liberality of feeling, refused any longer to accept funds from the Government for their support, and they also voluntarily gave up their pensions. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I do not believe that the Committee would have refused to continue some of the pensions ; but with respect to those persons, whose claims, as compared to those I have referred to, are as nothing, and who retain their pensions, is no inquiry to be made ? The Noble Lord has referred to a denial which I made that this case could be compared to those under the new Poor-law. Ira of that opinion still ; I think with some exceptions, which are where pen sions have been given on the ground of distress, those are the only cases; and when the regulations under the Poor-law Act are compared with those cases in which pensions have been earned by long service, and have been given on that ground, I have no hesi tation in saying that there is manifestly not the smallest analogy. —(Hear, hear.) But it is asked what is intended to be done with regard to the pensions, and whether the proposition is to continue them all, or to take them all away ? I say that is the question which this House will give to the care of the Committee to deter mine, and on which 1 think the Committee will come to a fair de cision, and in their inquiries I have no doubt that they will act with due regard to the feelings of the parties called before them. The benefit I look for is, that the public be satisfied with respect to the question, and if they are satisfied, I, personally, should be content to continue the name of every pensioner on the list ; but I think that the public have a right to ask for an inquiry when a strong feeling intervenes, and in a case in which no injustice shah be done, and I do not agree with those who say that this House, or that a Committe of the House has not a right to be liberal or to be generous upon the . subject. I thi n k they have a right to represent the people in this respect a s i n ever y other ; and I think that , if it were possible to place this question before the people in the first place, there could be no d ou bt o f t h ere being a majority in favour of the inquiry ; and, secondly, if the whole people had this case before them, and they w ere t o k now a ll the circumstances connected with the business, I think there could not be a provision more liberal, more beneficent, that that which would be made by them, if, on the ground of public service, any one had claims on their generosity or liberality.—(Hear, hear.) In putting the question, therefore, before the Committee, I would put it as I would before the whole nation. Suspicio ns h ave pre vailed, with regard to the Pension List in the minds of the public, which the frequent refusals of the House to grant an inquiry have tended to increase. Had it been a question of justice I should have felt myself bound, on theidemise of the King, as a questi on o f j ust i ce to maintain it ; but it being now not a question so founded, that argument must be put aside. I say that the question of the justice of the case no longer exists, the pensions have ceased by law, and Lord Althorp having declared that the persons by w h om many of them were received should in justice have given them up.— (Criec of " Oh, oh !" from the Opposition.) I will read that portion of the speech of Lord Althorp which I have already read, in which this is stated : " Though he could not," said Lord Al thorp, " enter into the feelings of others, he was ready to declare that if he were possessed of funds sufficient fur his own support he would not receive any pension from Government." Well, then, when he says that the pensions ought not to be received, does he not say that they cannot justly be taken?—(Cheers.) Such being the case, then the only question is, whether the inquiry shall take place or not, and on this point not one single gentleman opposite has said a word—they have all been silent. There will be this satisfaction, that it being felt that it is proper that an inquiry shall be gone through with respect to all the pensions, with regard to those on which the Committee shall be satisfied the public will be satisfied, and the persons thus selected will receive their pensions to the end of their lives, and the public will feel no further curiosity on the subject, know ing, as they will then, that due inquiry had been made. I am sure, however, that if we take the opposite course, and refuse to grant a Committee, that we lay the foundation for another motion with respect to this subject—for increased mistrust in the minds of the public—for increased difficulty with respect to the Civil List. 1 am confident the people wish to do justice to the parties, and if, by the inquiry taking place, they should think injustice would be done, I am sure that they would have instructed Hon. Members not to participate in permitting such a proceeding to take place. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The proposi • tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite is this, that provi sions shall be made by which the Crown can continue the whole of the pensions which are on the list, and which were conti nued by the Crown on the accession of the late King, or which were granted by his Majesty. This amounts, then, to a sug gestion that the House shall vote a sum of 120,000/. without any inquiry, to meet the demands of the Pension List, while the propo tition which I make to the House is that the whole shall be voted if, on inquiry, it s'aall be found to be justified, and that at all events every part shall be voted which the inquiry shall prove to be just and proper : that is the proposal, and on the part of every individual on this side of the House I believe I may say that there is not one who votes to-night that does not do so with a sincere desire and resolution of making provision for every one of the pensioners whose claim shall appear to be founded on justice. The Noble Lord opi,o , ite, with whom I was tong on terms of intimacy and fr e . dship, and to whose remarks, therefore, I will make no answer, I trust, on his being undeceived on the point to which he has referred with regard to the M niste: s, he will be the first to acknowledge the error into which he has fallen—hej made: use of the speeches of the Ministry, and of the opinions which he alleged they expressed; but in doing so he excluded altogether those portions of the speeches which were of an opposite tendency to the point which he desired to urge, but which, if I had taken a different view of the question, would have been quoted against me. My Noble Friend—for I must still call him so, notwithstanding what has taken place this evening in the first place, says that the question which I now sup port is the very proposition which I before resisted. I say it is not.—( Cheers. ) The proposition of the 18th of February was that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and consider each grant on the Pension List ; but the terms of the present proposition are of a far different character. They are, that a Select' Committee shall inquire how far pensions granted ought to be continued, " due regard being had to the just rights of the parties, and to economy in public expenditure."—(oh, oh, from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) Are Hon. Gentlemen indifferent to the distinction be tween the two cases? For how often have we been asked, on our bringing forward any proposition of this nature, to insert the clause, " subject to the just claims of the parties."—(Cries of Heir.) Again, Sir, I am taxed with inconsistency, inasmuch as that it is said my present course differs from that which I pursued on the 6th of May. Sir, the proposition on the 6th of May was, " for a Select Committee to inquire how far the rules adopted in February, 1834, were applicable to the whole of the Pension List, as it then stood." I say that it would have been most unjust to apply those rules to the whole of the Pension List. We had no right to adopt rules made in 1834 to pensions granted fifty years antecedently.—(Hear.) I repeat, therefore, that neither of the propositions referred to was at all similar to the present one ; there is a clear distinctian, moral as well as verbal, between them.— ( Hear.) Sir, the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman have been good enough to quote more of my expressions in Febru ary, 1835. Sir, when I was taunted with what my own constitu ents would say, as to the vote I then announced it to be my intention to give, my answer was " I have already told the electors of Cam bridge that I was not prepared to resume what had been conveyed to individuals by the law of the land, and by these sentiments I am willing to abide. Be the origin of the act rightful or ob jectionable, as relating to those who advised it, have not these parties who hold under these grants the security of an Act of Parliament—passed after full deliberation, with all means of inquiry in our power--passed, too, above all, with the character of a compact ? I say that these parties have a peculiar right, and a right, too, that from our engagements with the Crown is of the nature of a compact entered into by the Legislature, after full de liheration and with all the means of judging in its power ; for during all the discussions on the Civil List Act and the other Act aLuded to, this Pension List was in the hands of Hon. Members, who were then, as now, aware of all the objections existing against it. The question . was then an open question—till these Statutes it partiesbe m made, oughteo,m thisl list, framed, , b b e ut toeeu s n u o v t e ss t i h t h e a H v o i u e s w e atstrike Go vernment o were passed—but it is no longer so.—(No, no.) At present the for nd . passing these Acts. I have said that these engage srnet:nal.letfnre in the nature of a contract. At the time of the acces sionmvmoeueortntucitmoe of his present Majesty, we obtained from his Majesty an entire andabsoluteabandonnent, not only of the hereditary revenue which upon any former occasion had been surrendered by the Crown, but of other revenues which, up to th a t momen t, h a d b een k ept w i th i n it s uncontrolled dominion. The House of Commons looked na turally, but it looked justly, to the restriction of this vote for pen sions ; and therefore the Committee suggested, and th e H ouse an d Legislature acquiesced in th e suggestion, that there s h ou ld b e im posed a limit a tion on the Civil List pensions greater than was ever think it undoubtedlyadvisable to o'paeluter to . any Up agreed to by any. former Sovereign. A n d ye t i t i s now expected, the compact having been executed, th a t we s h ou ld procee d to re- ' contract,s we may St was tvoisesueh prtmfnof such i h t a Hon. Member to raise such objecti ons as h e m i ght think proper ; but I say that his Majesty s faithf u l C ommons, having made this the period o o compact with his Majesty, the case is now far different, and the time for inquiry has passed away. I a ga i n say that I object to this motion, because I think it is opposed to the Acts we have passed— because I think it is contrary . to the . compa c t we have made with the Crown—because I think it will lead to fruitless and painful personal discussion—and because I am of opinion, that, with out a forcible viclation of existing right s , it cannot be productive o f any beneficial result.' —(Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I appeal to the House, to those who heard the Noble Lord and Right Hon. Gentleman, whether the grounds I then rested on, namely, the circumstance of a compact having be en entered into with the existing Sovereign, does not precisely leave the question an open one at the present moment, when we have no compact on the subject with the Crown 7—(Hear, hear.) Were such a compact now in existence I would again as strenuously insi s t upon our strictly adhering to it as I then did ; but there is no such compact with the Crown. But, Sir, have we no compact with the people also.—( Hear, hear.) What is the question that i s to go forth to the people ? According to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, we are to vote for the lives of those parties annuities of 150,0001. a-year ; and I say, too, let us vote these annuities if they be just ones, bat let us first enquire whether they are just.--(Loud cheers.) I will go farther. The principle of im mutable justice has been loudly appealed to. Now, let me ask you—you who take upon yourselves so high a tone in speak ing of the decisions of Parliament—do you mean to put such a judgment on the proceedings of Parliament as to say that the iappointment of a Select Committee is synonimous with injustice ?—( Hear hear.) Whatever Honourable Gentlemen opposite may think, I have a better or higher opinion of the Mem bers of this House than to concur in any such judgment.—(Hear, hear.) Ido not believe that its recommendations will be unsup ported by authority and reason. I will say for myself, that, no more than Lord Spencer, will I ever be a party to injustice, towards any individual ; but I say that I consider, in ju sties to the pension ers themselves, we ought to grant the inquiry.--( Cheers.) Let us grant the inquiry, and go through it seriously and discreetly, but at the same time honestly and searchingly, for by these means—and do not let it be said that the two things are inconsistent—we may reach the truth, which is all we wish to reach.—( Hear, hear.) Let us act with the greatest consideration, with the greatest deference for the delicacy of the feelings of all parties; for this way of pro ceeding, so far from being inconsistent with the attainment of truth, will be found the best mode of attaining it.—( Hear, hear)—and having so conducted the enquiry, that the pen sions remaining have borne the brunt of searching investigation. dispose of them at once, by putting them on the Consolidated Fund, and let us have no more annual discussion on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) You may rest assured that the persons whose names are deservedly on the Pension List, will be very delighted at the altered state of things. I thank the House for the opportunity it has given me of making this brief personal explanation. The point on which we are about to divide, I repeat, is this :—The Noble Lord and Right Honourable Gentleman ask us to vote annuities of 150,000/. for the lives of these parties, without au inquiry into the merits of the respective cases : we tender him an inquiry first, accompanied with the pledge to vote all or any part of these annuities, which shall appear on inquiry to be just.—(Hear, hear.) The House then divided— For the motion ... . ...295 Against it 233 Majority The announcement of the Majority was received with loud cheers. Committee to be —inated on Tuesda• nonainateu _ .y. CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS BILL. Mr. C. BULLER moved the commitment of this Bill pro forma. He intended, he said, to move its recommitment on the 7th of February. Sir R. PEEL had not the least objection to the motion pro posed. As he found that the Bill was not intended by the Hon. lover to have any reference to pending elections, he should give it his best consideration, and in the discussion of it he should, as far as possible, endeavour to allay all party differences. The House then went into Committee, Sir R. PEEL wished to know from the lion. Member for Lis keard, whether, in the amendments he intended to propose, he purposed to leave out the last clause, by which it was declared that the Bill was not to come into force during the present Session. Mr. C. BULLER had not the slightest intention of leaving that clause in the Bill. Its insertion in the Bill was a mere mistake from a copy of a Bill of last Session. He should propose no change now, as the Bill was only pro forma in Committee, nor should he propose any change without affording the opportunity for a full and fair discussion upon it.—( Hear. ) The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted on the 7th Feb. without mother, that they are without brother, that they are without any sisters, and without any relation of any kind, or at I least, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who reproaches me for sneering says, unless they are without any legitimate claim ' on any person—( Hear, hear)—unless they are very wanderers on the face of the earth, they are to be subject to condemna tion ; and to this condition, to this investigation, and to this trial, is to be subjected every person who has any claim to the gratitude of the public.—( Hear.) When the Hon. and Learned Gentleman hinted at this debasing inquiry, not de basing to the person subjected to it—(Hear, hear)—but to the party making it, I could not suppress my feeling of disgust at such a proposition.—( Hear, hear.) I have been taunted with possessing an indecent pride of ancestry, and with an indecent arrogance of station. I hope that lam not fairly subject to that imputation—(Hear, hear, hear) — but whether I were moving in the highest or the lowest rank of society I should consider myself disgraced if it had ever entered into my imagination to subject any of my fellow-creatures to such a degrading inquiry.—(Loud cheers.) Now, Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, states that be would deal with all parties most tenderly, and that he would take for inquiry only suspicious cases; but when the Right Hon. Gentleman has carried his present motion, will he be master of his own Com mittee?—(Hear.) Will he be able to prevent inquiries by Members into this or that pension ? Why, the Hon. Member for Southwarth says that such a limited inquiry will be a mere mockery, and that it will be better to have none at all, than such a curtailment ; and if the Committee is granted, I are persuaded that there will be a full and searching inquiry into the domestic circumstances of every person in the List, and into pensions which, if they have not the sanction of the law, have at least the authority of prescription, and by the recorded declaration of this House. But the Honourable and Learned Member sneers at the idea that these pensions are made the subjects of family settle ments ; and he asks how can you expect that a settlement will be made of a pension of 451. a-year ? Why, Sir, nobody supposes that such a pension is so used, and the notion would not have entered into the brain of any Member of this Hoei., except the Hon. and Learned Member himself. But, Sir, he does treat lightly the claims which arise, not perhaps in the strict legal form of a family settlement, but still in effect the same, upon these pensions. Let us remember, Sir, that many a faithful servant of the public has been cheered in his last hours, after a life of labour and responsibility, for which he has been poorly recompenced, and has closed his eyes in peace, secure, under the sanction of his Sovereign, of Parlia ment, and of the law, that those whom he has left behind would not after all his toils be left entirely destitute—( Hear, hear) — that for his services, which had perhaps hurried his dissolu tion, a remuneration would he bestowed on those whom he valued more than himself.—( Cheers.) If, Sir, such a person has closed his eyes in confidence that his wife will not be entirely destitute, and his children will not be beggars, how would his peace of mind have been shaken, how would his last hours have been disturbed, if he believed that, through any technical rorm, any Minister of the Crown would be found who would propose or any Parlinment who would sanction, the appointment of a Committee on the claims of his widow or his orphan, or that they would ever be subjected to an examination or cross-ex amination before such a tribunal ?—( Cheers.) I know, sir, that a Committee will be appointed—l know that they will have before them persons of all ages and of both sexes, that they will demand of them an explanation which will not be given, that they will pry into family circumstances which many must be naturally anxious to conceal.—( Hear, hear.) and I know, sir, that many persons who have been pro vided with little more than the mere necessaries of ,life, and who can scarcely exist with the help of a paltry so/ pension in that decent competency which their birth, their education, and their former station have entitled them to expect, rather than subject themselves to such a degrad ing inquiry —(Hear, hear,)—will threw themselves upon some scarcely richer relative, will part with those few comforts to which they have a right to lock, and will go back to not disgraceful poverty.—( Cheers.) But what, sir, will be thought of the justice of Parliament which shall compel them to do this? How shall we answer for adding to the bitterness of their declining years by de priving them of their small allowance, without any knowledge of the facts of their case?—( Hear.) You say, that unless they subject themselves to this strict examination, that if they are not acquitted on their trial at the bar of this House, they shall not be entitled to their trifling pensions, you will receive the abdication of their miserable pittance, and you will conic down and congratulate this House on the economical saving which has attended your great measure of practical "reform.— ( Loud cheers.) But even in the cases in which you continue the pension, will you call before the Committee those who have passed a long life in the service of their country? Will you summon before this tribunal the veteran officers of our army and our navy ?—(" No, no," frem the Ministerial benches.) If you will not do this, will you call before you their widows and their orphans ?—( Loud cheers.) And if you will not do this, you are not about to apply the pure principle of the Poor-law, and your inquiry will he useless. And how many a veteran officer who has faithfully served his country, and honourably earned a higher reward than a paltry pension, when he is called upon to .recount his services, and to justify the honour conferred upon him, will, in the words of the proud and high-minded, but perhaps mistaken, Coriolanus, exclaim— " It is a part That I shall blush in acting— To brag unto them. Thus I did, and thus; Show them the unaching scars which I should hide, As if I had received them for the hire Of their breath only."— (Loud cheers.) It is not however, among the rich and great alone, but among the poor also that the degradation will be keenly felt of being called from the retirement in which they have lived in compa rative comfort, and of being dragged before the tribunal which you now propose to constitute, and to give before your Com mittee la detail of the pecuniary remuneration which has been bestowed upon them in gratitude for the services which they have rendered to their country.—( Hear, hear.) It is you who give this Committee, and on you must rest the responsibi lity of departing from the pledges which you have given, and if I had given a silent vote upon the question, I should have felt that I participated in the reproach and the guilt which, though I say it with regret, I l et think that her Majesty's Go vernment have incurred by their patronage of this motion.— ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud cheers. Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. llumE rose together, and there were a few cries for the latter, but he soon gave way, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL addressed the House. I re member perfectly well, Sir, that when in 1829 the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, after a long debate, began his reply to the observation which had been made upon the measure of Catholic Emancipation, his first and most impressive observa tion was, that three-feurths of the debate had been filled with personal recriminations—(Cheers)--and I must say, Sir, that, considering that the only motive for their present opposition avowed by lion. Gentlemen opposite is a deep sense of public justice, and judging from the speeches of the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord, a love of justice to an oppo nent is marvelously prevalent among them.—(Renewed cheers.) It has been contended that the Government, in giv ing its support to this motion, entirely abandons the principles which they formerly professed ; but, at the same time, I must point out that notwithstanding this the Government may not so entirely concur in the terms of the motion, but that they, nevertheless, may think it matter which the House may adopt in its discretion ; and the speeches of the Honour able Members on the other side having been directed to show the injustice and impropriety of the proposition, they have sought to fill their periods and to round their sentences with quotations from the speeches of the Ministers, to fix the sen timents which they contend are ours upon us.—( Hear, hear.) Surely that is not enough for the House, and I cannot but conceive that the subject is grave and important ; that even now, when I rise on my defence, some Hon. Members will say, " We do not care for the particular imputations or the defences which may be made ; we wish to know whether it is, or it is not, the duty of the Members of the House of Com mons to decide whether an inquiry and investigation should or should not take place"—( Hear, hear, hear)--and on that subject I must say the Noble Lord has given little light to the House—(" Oh, oh," and cheers)—or, at least, if he has, it has been entirely reflected light.--( Hear.) But I must say that these attacks and these imputations which came from the Noble Lord are not new from him ; nor is it only upon the Members of the present Ministry, upon those who now oc cupy the Treasury bench alone that this censure has fallen. He speaks of himself as having been cast out with Lord Grey and Lord Althorp. Ido remember when one of, I think, the least justifiable attacks possible was made on the Ministry, in their being compared to " thimble-riggers," and that was made when Lord Grey was Premier, and Lord Althorp was the leader of the House of Commons ; and therefore, although the present Ministry have fallen under the censure of certain Members of this House, yet I must say that the imputations now cast upon them are mild, that the accusations preferred are as milk and water, when compared with those with which Lord Grey and Lord Althorp were assailed.—(Cheers.) The question now is, as I take it, whether this House ought or ought not to appoint a Committee with regard to the pensions ; and I must agree with the Right Hononrable Gentleman op posite, that if it could be made out that this was a case of jus tice in 1831, and that in that year justice absolutely forbade an inquiry taking place then, that it should equally forbid it in 1837.—(Hear, hear.) But I can not find, except in answers given by Lord Althorp to the present Lord Port man in the House of Commons, in any Act of Parliament, and least of all in the Report of the Committee of the House, which the Right Hon. Gentleman quoted in his amendment, anything to make me think that it is a case of in justice. The Committee stated generally that the Pension List had fallen on the death of the Sovereign ; and at the eairie time that it would be a harsh measure to adopt a new course in a subject on which the practice had been long esta blished. In making this statement, however, that they did not condemn such a measure, I do not mean to say that it may not be liable to objection : a harsh measure may be ex treme of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Report of the Com mittee, then, having gone on to state some particulars with regard to the amounts of various pensions, proceeded to say that, adverting to all the circumstances, no doubt could exist that in some cases severe distress and actual injustice would arise from taking away the pensions.—( Hear, hear.) That proved that in their minds there would not be actual in justice in every case, for if that had been their opinion they would have gone on to declare their sentiment, and to have pointed out the cases to which this opinion referred. If in some cases they say that there would be injustice worked and distress produced, we must presume that the Committee would not have stopped there, and would not have overlooked the other cases in which also injustice would be produced. If the inquiry is not injustice, am Ito suppose that the Committee of 1831 would not have been as well able to see that injustice as the Committee appointed in 1834 ? The authority of Lord Althorp has been so frequently appealed PENSION LIST. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it was his intention on Monday to propose the names of the Committee to consider the Civil List Pensions.—( Hear, hear.) CUSTODY OF INSANE PERSONS BILL. Mr. BA RNEBY, at the suggestion of Lord John Russell, con sented to withdraw this Bill, which stood for a third reading, til after the recess. The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two. PENSION LIST. The following is a copy of the circular sent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to parties now in the receipt of pensions from the Crown :—. Downing-street, Nov. 24, 1837. Sir—As it will be my duty in the early part of the present Ses sion to move for a Committee to inquire " How far the existing pensions ought to be continued, having due regard to the just claims of the parties, and to economy in the public expenditure," I take the liberty of addressing you on the subject. As statements and inquiries may be made in that Committee with respect to the original grant of such pensions, or the circum stances now attending them, to which the parties interested may have the means of giving a satisfactory reply, and as much of mis apprehension on these subjects has prevailed,whicka reference to the facts of the case may remove, I am most anxious to express to the par ties interested not only my willingness, but my anxiety, to be favoured by them (if they shall so think fit.) with any information which they shall feel it desirable to submit to the Committee, through me. I make this communication with the view of saving the parties from any trouble, anxiety, or inconvenience which it may be in my power to avert. When the House of Commons undertook an inquiry into the existing sinecures, I wrote a letter to the same effect with the present to the several parties interested, and the facts and explana tions which were then given me enabled me to remove misconcep tions which had operated to the prejudice of some of the holders of the offices under examination. Should my present communica tion lead to the same result it will be gratifying to me. In respect to the extent or nature of the information which may be sought for by the Committee it would be extreme presumption on my part to express an opinion, but I take the liberty of adverting to the declaratory words of Mr. Burke's Act (22d Gco. 111., cap. 82), in which it is expressly stated " that it is no disparagement for any persons to be relieved by the Royal bounty in their distress, or for their desert, but, on the contrary, it is honourable on just cause to be thought worthy of such reward." In all cases (and I am well aware tliat such cases arc numerous) where the origin of these grants can be traced to the public service of the parties, their families, or re latives, or to other causes creating a just claim on the bounty of the Crown, it will be most desirable that these eases should be stated, in order to afford the most conclusive avid satisfactory information to the Committee. I must again repeat, that the object of this letter is to afford the parties interested the greatest facility in making any statement which they may be desirous of submitting, in reply to objections either to the grant or the continuance of their pensions, and that in so doing 1 am far from expressing any opinion with respect to the course which the proposed Committee are likely to pursue. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your very obedient and very humble servant, T. SPRING RICE. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. JOHN DARKEN, builder, Norwich. CHRISTOPHER RICHARDSON, timber-merchant, Lime. house. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. GEORGE ELEY, wholesale jeweller, Thavies Inn. BANKRUPTS. JAMES BOGIE LAW, warehouseman, Bow—lane, Cheapside, to surrender Dec. 18, at half-past one, and Jan. 19, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Lackington, Basinghall-street, official assignee; Goddard, Wood-street, Cheapside. ' SAMUEL ANDERSON, merchant, Wigmore-street, Dec. 15, at half-past one, and Jan. 19, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Pennell, official 'assignee ; Roy, Blunt, Duncan, and John ston, Liverpool-street, Bishopsgate. JOHN WESTWOOD, steelyard-maker, Wolverhampton, Dec. 26 and Jan. 19, at twelve, at the Lion Inn, Wolverhampton. Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London; Foster, Wol verhampton. WILLIAM STARIE, builder, Houndsditch, London, Dec. 14, at twelve, and Jan. 19, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pen nell, official assignee ; Lawrence and Blenkarne, Bucklersbury. JOSHUA RAWLIN, slater, Sheffield, Dec. 19, at one, and Jan. 19, at twelve, at the Town-hall, Sheffield. Rodgers, Devon shire -street, Bishopsgate-street, London ; Unwin, Sheffield. WILLIAM BEAVER WALKER, victualler, Drury-lane, Dec. 12, and Jan. 19, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Goldsmid, Ironmonger-lane, official assignee ; Martineau and Co., Carey -street, Lincoln'i Inn. JOSEPH TOVEY, corn-dealer, Church Lench, Worcester shire, Dec. 20, and Jan. 19, at eleven, at the office of Mr. Oswald Cheek, Evesham. Bousfield, Guildhall-buildings, Lon don ; Cheek, Evesham. JOHN WILLIAM BORWICK, corn-dealer, Munster-street, Regent's Park, Dec. 19, and Jan. 19, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee ; Burt, Essex-street, Strand. PARKER JOHN HARRISON, jun., stationer, King's place, Commercial-read, St. George's, Dec. 19, at half-past one, and Jan. 19, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Gibson, Basinghall. street, official assignee ; Willey and Morris, Bank Chambers, Lothbury. THOMAS UNDERWOOD, lithographic printer, Birmingham, Dee. 22, and Jan. 19, at one, at the Union Inn, Birmingham. Holme and Loftus, New Inn, London ; Parker and Lowe, Bir mingham. JOHN PRICE, GEORGE MORGAN, and HENRY WIL LIAM ROLLASON, glass-manufacturers, Birmingham, Dec. 15 and Jan. 19, at eleven, at Dee's Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Whateley, Birmingham ; Stubbs and Hollings, Birmingham. GEORGE KING LONGDON, stonemason, Cheltenham, Dec. 20 and Jan. 19, at two, at Mr. Gyde's Office, Cheltenham ; Gyde, Cheltenham ; Blower and Vizard, Lincoln's-inn-fields. THOMAS PARRY, drysalter, Manchester, Dee. 23, at eleven, and Jan. 19, at two, at the Commissioners'-rooms, Manchester. Adlington, Gregory, Faulkner, and Follett, Bedford-row, London ; Law, Manchester. JAMES WILSON, sen., WILLIAM NEWTON, JAMES WILSON, jun., HENRY NEWTON, and GEORGE WIL SON, colour-manufacturers, Derby, Dec. 19, and Jan. 19, at eleven, at the New Inn, Derby. Capes and Stuart, Bedford-row, London ; Flewker, Derby. JAMES CLARKE, stock-broker, North Brixton, Surrey, Dec. 13, at one, and Jan. 19, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Phillips and Conquest, Size-lane. [Dividends, Certificates, &c., will be given on Monday. [ THE QUEEN'S CROWN. (From the Court Journal.) The Queen's Crown is now a subject of interesting discussion. That a Monarch must be crowned before he has the right of wear ing the Crown is established ; and therefore so long as the Queen continues uncrowned, the size and weight of the Imperial diadem are matters of secondary consideration ; but as the weeks and mo nths wear on which lead to that august ceremonial, it becomes n ecessary to make provision for the circumstances which will attend the opening or closing the Parliament immediately succeeding the Coronation. Our readers of course know that the Crown worn by the Sove reign in the House of Lords is what is called the Parliamentary Crown, and is Rot that with which the ceremony of Coronation is performed. It is the construction of this Crown, and the mode of wearing it, which occupy some attention among that vast multitude which have nothing of their own to think about. The Crown is of course to fit the head destined to wear it; and as one of the News papers observes, if the existing Crown were used for the purpose, it would not sparkle brilliantly on her Majesty's fair and serene brow, but literally cover her head, and rest upon her shoulders; there fore the Parliamentary Crown is to be made smaller, but equally splendid in its adornments. One difference will, we hear, be made in its formation ; no coloured jewels will be used in it s cons t ruct i on ; t h e whole w i ll present a dazzling mass of diamonds of the purest water, emble matic of the heart and mind of the Illustrious wearer. The effect produced by this simple splendour will be most dazzling. Then how is it to be worn ? All sorts of authorities, graphic and pictorial, have been consulted for the purpose of ascertaining what has been the custom heretofore ; because, although the pic tures of English crowned Queens certainly represent the Crown as worn at the back of the head, that mode of placing it may have been considered by the artist as more becoming, or picturesque, than the way in which it might have been on state occasions actu ally worn. We understand her Majesty will hold a Council at Buckingham Palace on Monday next, PRICES OF STOCKS THIS sank Stock. 3 per Cent. tie..a. 9 2%%14 3 per Cent. Cons. - 3b4 per Cent ..... .... - Ditto Red 99i4 `/(2 New 356 per Cent - New 5 per Cent... - Bank LongAnnuitiesto expire Jan. .5, 1860 l4 13-1644 Oct. 10, 3859 l4.?:f; Jan. 5, iB6O Jan. 5, IEAW April 5, 'SS; Jan. 5, 1870 - pm. PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS ' A,,truto Bond Belgian Bonds — Ditto Account Brazilian Bonds ......... ...... 78N !';- I.l,itto Account Buenos Ayres Bonds Ditto Account ;:hillian Bonds ... ........ „.„„ Ditto Account - :,olunibtan 80nd5.... Ditto Account. C)lumbian Bonds, :824 Ditto Account Diniih Bonds ...... Ditto Account ......... G:eek .......... Ditto Bonds, 1825 Ditto Account . Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent — Ditto Account Ditto, 6 per cent. Ditto Account Neapoiit ..... PRICES OF SHARES THI; B-ighton Railway Company Brighton Railway (Rennie's) L lidon and Birmingham Railway Company 9O Ditto IA Shares London and Croydon Railway Company North Midland Railway Company 25 .South Eastern and Dover Railway Company 7 DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. India Stoeti iitto Bonds 2B 29 27 th Sea Stock Old. Annnities Nov Ditto 3per Cent. Annuities, 1751... - Exch. Rills. £l,OOO ....4 47 49 pm Ditto 500 19 47 49 pm. Ditto Small 49 47 49 pm. Ditto Commercia — pm. Ditto Advertised poi Bank Stock for Acc0unt......... Indt3 Stock for Account COPSOII, for Acconnt 0 THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. 'Peruvian Bonds Ditto Account .....«.......« Portuguese Bonds 7l Ditto Account Ditto New Bonets 3;1% Ditto Account DAL°, 3 per cent 2,1% 1 ,8 Prussian Bcnds... ............ Rusaian Bonds, 18d ' Ditto Account D. tto Metallic Spanish Bonds Ditto Account Ditto Bonds, 183 D tto Account French, 5 per cent........... —f --- 4 per cent 3 per cent. Exchange f. Dutch, its, per cent 54 DIM Account ..... ..... Ditto, 5 rer cent— ...... 102%%1f, Ditto Account [S DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK Paid. 5 Per Share 2% si 704 Ffs. Ils. 150 2.2 18' 13 14. 3 The publication of THE SUN NEWSPAPER commenced this day at 10 minutes past Three o' Clock. 'l*i. -- )AF . ss , i 'L : 1 7 ' • 6 1 . 1 t, ~,-. ~‘ ' M, ‘ 1 ~.' ik if',' "A , 4 • ~ pi , :,,,. ' ' 1 4 X -7:12:164::".1.. , -' , '" ''''..4l/..ttin ~ , : ~. ',Z.1...a, ,b , LONDON : SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 9, 1837. The question of the Pension List came on for discussion last night in the House of Commons. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought it forward, by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject—a motion which the Tories opposed with their ut most skill and energy, but which was nevertheless carried against them, by a majority of 62. It gives us pleasure to state that this inquiry is intended to be in every respect a bona fide one—no sham, partial investigation, got up merely for appearances sake ; but, to quote the language of Mr. SPRING RICE, " the fairest and the fullest enquiry, unfet tered and unrestricted." Such being the determina tion of Ministers as regards the matter in question, what wonder that the Tories are in arms about it ; and that Sir ROBERT PEEL, as Coryphmus of the faction, tasks his utmost powers of sophistry to prove, that to meddle in the slightest degree with the Pension List, is to violate one of the first and most sacred prin ciples of justice and honour ! The Right Hon. Baronet is a dextrous special pleader ; no man can make more out of a rotten cause than he can, or show with greater inge nuity the worse to be the better reason ; and last night he had a subject every way worthy of his Jesuitical abilities. It was his duty, as an accomplished Tory sophist, to con found the eternal distinctions between right and wrong, truth and falsehood ; and it is doing him no more than justice to say, that he would have succeeded in his task, had success been possible. But the question was based on too adamantine a foundation for even this practised engineer to undermine. It was impregnable to his covert, as well as to his open, assaults, even though he strained every nerve to gain his point. " Will you," he asked—and the question is a characteristic one—" will you interfere with pensions granted thirty years ago, in conformity with public feeling ?" Conformity with public feeling indeed! Was ever such intrepid so phistry ? So the aristocratic pensions —granted dur ing the CASTLEREAGH Administration the most no toriously unpopular and anti-national one that ever swayed the destinies of England —so, the pensions granted to grasping, needy, and undeserving Tory sycophants during this detested administration, were in " conformity with public feeling !" Why, public feeling never had a voice in the matter ; was never consulted ; but, on the contrary, held in sovereign contempt by all who then exercised Ministerial authority ! Look at the long list of titled Tory mendicants, who figure on the Pension List, and whose nearest and dearest friends and kinsfolk never gave a vote but against the people—look at this scandalous List, and ask if it be possible that " public feeling" could ever have placed them there ? No, " pub lic feeling," from a natural wish to award impartial justice, would far rather have sent them to the work-house, or put a hammer in their hands, and set them to break stones upon the roads ! It is curious that Sir ROBERT PEEL, of all living statesmen, should be ig norant of what is, and what is not, " public feeling," when it is notorious that this feeling—and this only— turned him out of office the other day, and still keeps him on the shady side of the Treasury Bench. But the truth is, he is an incorrigible Tory, and to hope for any amend ment in his political temperament, is as absurd as to hope, by a process of scrubbing, to wash the blackamoor white. If the Right Hon. Baronet and his colleagues be really as desirous as they profess to be, to keep up these Tory pen sions ; if they really think that many a deserving object will be reduced to penury by being deprived of what lie or she has so long enjoyed, they have the remedy for such a calamity in their own hands. Et is well known that the Tories are a wealthy faction ; let them then subscribe for their brethren in affliction. They can subscribe to injure purity of election ; they can subscribe to blast the rising prospects of Ireland by their SPOTTISWOODE combination ; why, then, can they not subscribe to befriend those of their own faction, whose just rights they think will be jeopardicd by an enquiry into the Pension List ? They are always talking about generosity ; here, then, they will have a fine opportunity of putting it into practice. But no ; this is a species of generosity of which your thorough-bred Tory has no idea. He can be generous enough with the public money, or even to promote the interests of his party ; but as for putting his hands into his own pocket, in order to assist those from whom he can expect no assis tance in return—this is a generosity far above his com prehension. Mr. HARVEY, who made the best speech of the even ing —indeed the best that has been made this Session—put the question on its proper footing, when he instituted a parallel between the principle of the Poor-law Act, and that of the Pension List. " What," inquired the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " what is the principle upon which the Poor-law Act proceeds ? That no man nor woman shall be allowed to live upon the labours of others, whose strength or years enable them to labour for them selves, or whose relations are in a condition to extend to them that support which nature requires, and kind and proper feelings prompt. Upon what principle, then, do those gentlemen, who are so anxiou s t o ma i nta i n these pensions, defend them P I ask you to apply the same rule to these State pensioners that you apply to your parochial ones." This is sound, just reasoning, however sophistical and inconclusive it may appear to Tory intel lects. If the labouring community are expected to sup port their decayed relations, surely the aristocratic classes have no right to be exempted from such a burden ? Why should a Tory Duke's mother be quartered on the Pension List, when her son is fully qualified to support her—indeed, ranks among the wealthiest Nobles of the land ? Is this seeing fair play be tween rich and poor ? To our thinking, the Act that was passed for the express purpose of elevating the moral character of the labouring classes, is quite as much needed for the aristocratic orders—as the abuses of the Pension List demonstrate beyond the possibility of question. The Bishop of EXETER is never in his proper element but when he is in a state of warfare. The quiet and peaceful atmosphere of Christianity suits not his restless and turbulent spirit. If he cannot find occasions for gra tifying his pugnacious propensities, he will create them. No matter how frivolous the pretext, the Bishop's pur pose is answered if he can fasten a quarrel on a political opponent. Then out comes a furious pam phlet or a letter in the Times as long as a pamphlet , and as tedious as one of his Lordship's own sermons. We have a g larin g instance of this infirmity before us. Lord MELBOURNE, in the debate on Lord RODEN'S motion the other ni g ht, remarked upon the unfairness of certain parties who alw a y s quoted an expression of his respecting the Irish Tithe Bill, without the qualifications with which that expression was accompanied ; and mentioned among others, the Right Reverend Dr. PHILPOTTS, as having done this in a late charge of his. The Noble Lord left no doubt as to the person of the charger, for he expressly named the Bishop of EXETER. Well, what does this pompous dig nitary do, but sit down and formally write a letter to the Premier, merely for the purpose of asking whether he (PaiLrorrs) was the Prelate alluded to by his Lordship, although, in that very letter, he says he knows he is the person meant. Having obtained this information (we refer our readers to the letter and answer, in another part of The Su n), he sets to w or k an d wr it es a di sco urse of an interminable length, dull as ditch-water, and stuffed with all sorts of irrelevant matt er . Th e pre t en d e d o bject of this second epistle is to vindicate hims e lf f ro m the charge of unfairness, but it is easy to see, that its real intention is to afford this Is - champion of clerical abuses, an opportMiiity of venting be spite towards Lord MELBOURNE. He does not vindicate himself from the charge of unfairly quoting and nasre for con senting the words of the Noble Viscount ; but on the on trary, stands by this very defence, self - con victed — he is obliged to acknowledge, though indirectly , that the meaning of the words " heavy blow and great discouragement to the Protestant religion i n Ireland, was qualified by what followed, the cont ext clearly shewing that in the opinion of the Noble Viscount, this effect of the Tithe Bill would be but temporary. N c ' w it is unnecessary to say that this completely upsets the whole fabric of factious vituperation which Bishop PIM' POTTS and his calumniating coadjutors have be en so dustriously raising upon the adini,sion of Lord MELBoußtss' It is needless to bestow more time upon this pitiful effu sion of spleen. There is, however, one passag e in the lon ii, g letter of the Bishop that we think will amuse our reader and therefore we give it. It runs thus : " Your inconsistency of sentiments can , I f ear, only be "tat_ tributed to that disregard of principle when opposed tofault wib fancied expediency of the day, which is too co mmon a fa°,b among politicians to require to be visited on your Lordship extreme severity." We have heard of Satan's reproving Sin ; but we never imagined we should have lived to see so complete an illus tration of the adage. There was once a certain Memhe of the Church militant who assailed with Quixotic self - de ; votion all who presumed to advocate the measure calle:ai Catholic Emancipation. Pamphlet after pamphlet issue from the nimble pen of the ecclesiastical hero—whether they issued as fast from the publisher's shop we no a t undertake to say—until he found himself transplanted intl corner of the vineyard, yielding, in the good things of this 11 , e ' somewhere between four and five thousand pounds by the year. A fat rectory is a good thing, but a bishopric 0. a better. So thought this worthy successor of the to An odes and to secure this happy consummation, he e n g aged e d " digest the venom of his spleen" against the Catholics' t° bridle his tongue, sheath his pen, and look through his w fingers, while the C a th o li cs w e re emancipated, a nd --4 cording to his f o rmer d oc t r i ne —the fence of Protestantirl 3 thrown down. Does not thi s l o ok something l ike d 'sregard of principle when o pp os ed to the fancie d God , diency of the day?" Can the Right Rev. Father in HENRY, Lord Bishop of Exeter, guess who this recrea was ?nt The unrortunate declaration of Lord JOHN R USSSI' L L against the Ballot has called forth a Manifesto from t h e a Council of the great Birmingham Political lr' alay which will be found in our columns of th is the Sympathizing, as we most cordially do, wit - a g • members of this Union in th e i r struggles to °V the Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, a n Extension of theo Suffrage, the unqualified Abolition of Corn is and of monopolizings restriction upon trade , " fig ' with a degree of pain that we fi n d ourselves conWe't.b-e by a sense of public duty to express, in oposition t o f t he Council, our conviction that the immediate downfall th e MELBOURNE Cabinet would p rove mos t injurious to e best interests of this country. W e h ave , perhaps, 8 , 5 Id. Ad confidence in the abstract sincerity of a purely Whtl ea l ministration as the Council of th e Bi r mingham r°" -- ( 1,/ Union, and whatever be the opi n i on o f that great lAie•'; we will not yield even to it in att ac h men t to the Pri eeil3 of honest, straight-forward Radicalism ; but we d° tend, nevertheless, that the very position of the eh it Government—that the peculiar circumstances in tvil le- i ; e y is placed—must lead to the developement of a P A ° A - ' more liberal than any that could be obtained by a suui e : change in the Cabinet. The Birmingham Unionists, a3i: examining the question . .on British and Irish gr °° , ll „ r si deny that " A Tory Ministry would be either a 113- a t or a necessary consequence of the dissolution of the Pre ° e s Cabinet." Their reasons for such a denial a ppear t° very inconclusive. "W e h a v e no suc h mean opinion ," 1 :;,. they, " of England and Englishmen as to believe thatT4 lack of other choice, our youthful S overe i gn must, i n 1.11 " - .; missing Lord JOHN RUSSELL, f a ll b ac k on Sir B ° l s o - re PEEL. We trust that there is ample store of men t"us worthy of their principle s , an d more capa bl e by theirl en i . e . of guiding the free ene rg i es o f our d ear nat i ve l an d." re br spotlit this expres,ion o f con fid ent h ope as to t h e n umber of be nest patriots and men of genius in England, but Ice e laY lcl permitted to doubt whether th e Q UEEN a t present e ° " o .. reject the Whigs without taking the Tories to her ells. Her MAJESTY might, it is true, appoint a 118"- d Administration, but could a Government s o constitute. carry on for a week—nay, even for a single day--theAbiuslis ness of the country ? Most assuredly not. The R a ea tY must bide their time. They are now powerful ag a i r :tb; because there are two other nearly balanced partie s : o - - er° State mutually ha.ing and oppaLing each other • sb they in office, Whigs and Tories, would combine ' te l , e ru ge them—and crush them the yiwould, In the event 0 14 C ;;:le• of Ministers, a dissolution has been spoken of as ine s l -b ot Were such a change to occur before Christmas, We -- „ i e l sts believe that Sir R. PEEL, if invited to chang e to with Lord J. RUSSELL, would think it necess ifi coe advise such a measur e . Th e Ri g ht H on . Barone t' : of of policy would of course be different after a rnaj °r ; the House had pled ge d th emse l ves t o the carrY' n v; measures hostile to the views of his party. But , w e er th peat, were the Right Hon. the Member for Ta ttis i.reati now entrusted with the seals of office—were he at the " 00 . of the Government, before the waverer!, the hangers-00ff; Providence, the neutrals, and the hungry expectant's ef a g oa cial patronage, had committed themselves by their Of 'f o r support of the Whigs—we do consider it possibl 0 0, him to continue, in spite of the people out of 7. e t he Prime Minister of England during the existence el l to present Parliament. This would be a great e ci all England and Scotland ; but to Ireland it would h e ic i t h but absolute ruin. That country is worn out with but her long struggles against oppressio. She Wants repose that she may Increase her moral, and recruit her Phy d s ee ri )(I energies. The absence of political agitation is to the beneficial operation of the proposed Poor .4ev j a y a 'oB Municipal Bills, to the cultivation of wastes, th e :fo i e' down of railways, and, above all, to the progress w tional education—th a t grea t mora l l ever by Whiebb:. re' social abuse must, in the p rogres s of time , ""Dir moved. For these reasons we are opposed to t he of mingham Political Union's views as to the dissolutionith the MELBOURNE Cabinet, while entirely ag reeing der its Members upon every other point. We c t m erits wou ld of present the best time for canvassing th e - o ula of• the Ballot, which we think the Reformers f t he act prudently in discussing apart from any ° yet other two questions usually mixed up with It• no us obtain the Ballot first, and we will ba c " an d difficulty afterwards in obtaining short Parliaments'oirsg an Extension of the Suffrage. The danger is i n g a e r s `t.b° at more than we can c at c h a t a ti me , a nd so ristonoopeo loss of all. Be the Ballot the watchword of evel. b _ dt he Reformer, and we s h a ll soon o bt a i n it, notwithstaintalubart• P4P f declaration o f th e N o bl e S ecretary f or the Home th e ment—aye, and obtain it, too, w ithout a dissolution ° W Cabinet. nA IL.) LLOYD'S SHIPPING. (THIS DEAL, DEC. B.—Wind S.W. to S , moderate, 7. " rai sTrob sl. rived and sail e d f or th e r i ver the Scourfield,. Evans, from 1,i00°,: Arrived 3 from th e r i ver and proceeded the Soho steamer, Pf, i , slit" ORTSMOUTH, DEC. B.—Wind S. S.W. to N. W., sq ue ' 1! Od rain—Sailed several coasters.bre eze s FALMOUTH. DEC. 7.—Wind E.N.E. to N., light Freoe fine.—Arrived the Allitries, Hayes, from Fayal. Gaitedthe e An" steamer of war Pharr, for Havre de G. ABERDEEN, DEC. 6.—Arrived the race Si r William Wall 6" Pe , S. derson, from Quebec. t FLAMBOROUGH HEAD.—Off, the Sylph, Barlow, °ell' tersburg. THE FUNDS.-(THIS DAY') ()Cl ( ' Cl7' Y. T WEL VE O' C arr iols th is Owing to contrary winds we are again without and morning, with the exception of the usual foreign malls' i the Pence 'The debates last night in the House of Commons ° it i c ians• lion List are perused with much interest by the city P ° to. THE FUNDS. but d Consols in the course of yesterday b ecame rather be s/ a l ti 'd clns p e . w ards the afternoon th e y h a d a more firm appearanee'money s teady at 93i- 4 for the Acceunt ; opened at the sa me ; f_ ooc i bli tinues plentiful, and may be obtained at an easy rate for: sills 4y Reduced Stock closed rather heavy at 923 ; Ex cheqg w ith 49 In ; India Bonds, 28 30; Bank Stock, 205 206. t In the Foreign Market Spanish Active closed hea/iAseniaedr,.. Coupons ; opened at same. Portumiese Stock was in , to 24 : terday and improved to W I ; Three per Cents., I‘lo l opened the same; Dutch Two-and• a-Half per Cents. , a 4 can, 281 ; Colombian, 251. Consols at present 931, but no business d oin g . 0 C l{ HA LF - PAST ONE the a nd n o, Consols are not so good as in the early p art of eitY] di , non receded to 9314 from 931. Exchequer Bills, 47 49 ; 4 , ye -28 30 ; Bank Stock, 2051 2061. ' 2OA 1 ; Spanish Active, 191 20, with Coup ons ; Passive 4i ; Di v ferred, 741 ; Portuguese, 301 1 ; T hree p er Cent s. t. 54 , zilian, 781 4 ; Mexican, 281; Dutch T;ck-a i li gE a -11 6* . E, 0 4 Cx Consols for the Account, sa t i a r, LIVERPOOL COTTON NIARICET, YESTEItu: —O ur mar k e t continues exceedingly sensitive easily excited fe ate any increased activity in the demand, and as easily depressed bl want of it. Surats, from their comparative cheapness, tracted more particular attention from speculators, who are wilaniss buyers at id. to id. advance, and have taken 6,500 bale: i i,o oo 5,000 Americans, Amecans, and 500 Pernains. The b sales to-day are ales, chiefly Surats. Just published, to be had Gratis. NEW MUSIC.A Quantity of MUSICAL Box List playing upwards of 400 Airs, Overtures, Bcc., being for Sale, a 11• • ;. of the Music is now published ; also the prices of the Musical Be had gratis, The List can be sent by post, as a single letter. May ` be . a ker from T. COX SAVORY, Goldsmith, Silversmith, atcnin &c., 47, ('ornhill, London. London Printed and Publ i s hed by ItIIURDO O U NG, of 14 4!. 1 [2, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, i n the coup T J of Middlesex.—Saturd a y , December 9, 1837.