The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-19 00:00:00

p PRICES OF STOCKS THIS. 3 flak Stock 206% • 3 3 , Pee Cent. R ed. 92$ _b % r 'Con t. Con s . i e Fe r Cen. ..- ........... 99% 74i Red. t••..••• v 914% .• ,1101,. . 3 34 per Cent — r•lrlai p e r • ••..' .. 4 1 1 k Lon tr Annuitiestoempire ' l O. 5, 1960 — ° Ce• 10. 185 9 l4 9-16 41 1: 5, dik a 5 1860 Jan. 5, 1990 _ , isso — ars- 5. 1 670.- P,RI/CES 8 0nd5 0 . R . E .. 1 : 24 FUNDS ' alt &nazi ....... 'el Oen Bonds lOl% IlltaE kttO Account......• ..... ••• - tßian Bonds ...,.... . D Itto Account — .ut mos Ayres Bonds — 1./itro Account ........-••••-•• Thinia ti I) Jrids , Ditto Account . ..... -----•— , liiintibi• in Bonds — L 'itits Account .. ....... .....- CslurrilY.an Bonds, 1824 .. .. Di,, * .t. Account . — ..,11".isl•t Bonds ....... „ r Atto I Account uieek Bonds -•••••• —Di 4.0 Bonds, 1825 ...... .. •••••••••..... .... ...Ili to Account .... ......... ..... Alexi ean Bonds, 5 per cent.... bitti , Account .-..............— Ditts,, 6 per cent ‘, Ditto Account ' eVe5 tan....—............- IJ - AA- --- ) N - 1 1 t.,,,k)-; 1 / 4 A . 1.. L? -...... 4 ,11.,_•:Z.4. '.• -.=.0 0 s Sit",i ci" , -, ;S°"- - - -%11 ... • - -- .1'1;- -- 1 eb.a. •i: s ir*: ,%.,,,, ) ~,,,. '4l ‘ VigAt. %.: kr--CA./1.4, •'' q ,-- _- ,p , - ~ ,5_ ',./0." ''6 .. 41 ---- -. ..,.,;:if-f,1,..... . ‘v.,, ~. . r. , ~ ~ i.. ,..,- ,, , ; 7 4 . .. : 77.44amis le z , \, ,.(4. . ::: 44.3. S , tr ., --____•-•*&-...,4..,c,,,,_ _ ? at.... • • ~ ••,, •,.. ______._ ...„ ~, . • -0 , ,..:7.. , --., ) 1 ... . R ..,. _.-..,-,..„ , , , :...?„,., ~.;„,....„ ,% . his opin i ons, howestre erronKus they might be, were opi nions that he sincerely entertained, and which had been the subject of much reflection and consideration on his part. He waded to state distinctly, that the person who . spoke in this debate with whom by most agreed and almost wholly concurred, was the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. In the first place he did not think there was any great force in the special arguments that had been used by his Hon. Friend the Member for London, and which appeared to have influenced the votes of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. If the amount of reduction on the Pension List was small, the argu ment of his Learned Friend might apply. The argument of , I t tt h hatte a.t e ssl h eo, i n id, u s eeto paao atnry otportion Honourable nnt oof the important i n F t Friend et e h n e d t pensions result, en h r se a o t nut csh i ft they oyhtnha had been oo l ubf a l ebaeotnuhl lead e s ad po misapplied, e f t ons t it h oh e nes Committee resultc a t u n ng m ah t t 0 be made.—(Hear, hear.) But he • could not conceive the Committee would come to a result that they could not bestow ' 49,000/. a-year on pensions. It might be said that out of 75,000/. a great deal might be misapplied, but he could not conceive how they could, therefore, draw the inference that not one half of that 75,000/. could be properly applied. He thought the reduction proposed was as large as the country could wish to have. He (Mr. B.) did not agree with the Right Hon. Barone: in thinking that 1,200/. was too small an amount to be granted in each year. His Hon. Friend the Member for the City of London 'rad not only brought the circumstances of the times to bear against this grant, but he objected to the principle of pensions being granted by the Crown altogether. In this matter he wleolly disagreed with him, because he thought the power of granting pen sions ought to be somewhere. In his opinion, a literary man ought to be encouraged by the hope of reward. He likewise thought that be might defy his friend to mention hardly a single literary name from the time of Chaucer to the present day, that had not received support and encouragement either from . the Government or from private individuals. He would ask the House to look at those names who had received support from the Earl of Eesex, Queen Elizabeth, and even the profligate Charles Jr. It was true that you might find such men as Hobbs disdaining to receive rewards from a Duke of Devonshire, or such a mind as Locke's refusing relief -from an Earl of. Shaftesbury; but the greatest. character of his day, Dr. Samuel Johnson, did not object to receive the bounty of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) In the case of very great men—ea Lord Chatham—grants of public money were made by that House for their families not al ways mast wisely. But was it fair that distinguished merit should alone receive reward, and that such men as Colonel Stewart, who had passed a life in laborious, though obscure, exertion for his country, should not have his wife and children provided for at the public expense. But where should the power of granting pen sions be placed? He thought that it certainly ought not to be vested in a representative assembly like • that House , but in the Crown; for in all matters ;requiring individual discretion, it "was considerably better to rely on the judgment of one person than of many.—(Cheers.) Those pensions were not always the most proper which excited greatest popular animad versions; the contrary was often the case, as in the instance of Dr. Johnson.— (Hear, hear.) There was one instance of which he wished to remind the House. There was a person who most deserved a pension of any of those who had received it during the last few years, and upon whom one Administra tion had conferred it ; but it was taken from him by another composed of persons with whose general politics he (Mr. B. ) agreed. He spoke of Mr. Coleridge.—( Tory cheers.) There was no man of the present time whose writings had had a greater influence upon the literature and philosophy of the age. That gentleman's writings had influenced the minds of half the thinking men of this country ; but he had made himself obnoxious to a large party in the country, and an outcry was raised against his pension, which the Government took away. He (Mr. B.) strongly disapproved of that course, although in- saying so he was speaking against his own party.--( Hear, hear.) A most illiberal outcry had also been raised against the appointments of Mr. Southey and Mr. Wordsworth to situations under Government, and the case of those gentlemen and Mr. Coleridge convinced him the less public feeling of the day was allowed to influence the granting of Pensions the better.—( Hear.) But it was said that the Crown was enabled to corrupt literary men by bestowing upon them places or pensions. But how was that the case with Wordsworth or Southey ? If the Crown desire.l to corrupt those men it could not have done po more effectually by giving them such places as Stamp Distri butors thin by giving them pensions. The danger of corrupting literary men did not belong to the Pension List—(Loud cries of hear, hear, hear.) A !nolo"' which he considered b be of a mischievous tendency had grown up in the public mind ; DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK, India Stook...—. Ditto Bonds 25 27 pm South Sea Stock OldAnnnities ..... ...... -- NEW . Ditto •--- 3 per Cent. Annuities, 1751 — Exch. Bills, X 4000........ 47 45 orn Ditto 500 45 49 pia. Ditto Small Ditto Commercial — pin. Ditto Advertised — P. Bank Stock for Account. ..... ... 2(.6N Indll Stock for Acc0unt.,....... Coneols for Account 93%% 1 . „ . I : i" -- I • 1 , -,, ; _. • \ . , LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1837. THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. Peruvian Bonds Ditto Account .._.»......... Portuguese Bonds ....... ......... No. 14,124. PRICE sd. Ditto Account nue New Bonds...—. Ditto Account 1)&0, 3 per cent 19% Prussian 80nd5.... ......... Russian Bonds, 1822 110;4 7,', Mt° Account of the petition in a speech in which he ridiculed with great happiness of expression and illustration, the dread which century. The objections, in fact, are much less. In the one case there was an ancient kingdom jealous of its in dependence, laws, and religion, and consequently re luctant to be united with a rival kingdom supe rior i n population, wealth, and power. In the other a portion of the population was conquered by Eng land—but a vast number of the inhabitants, now, are of British descent, or are natives of Britain and Ireland, and are sincerely desirous to maintain their connexion with the mother country. Of all our Colonies, those in North America are the best fitted for the experiment. Their in terests are as much identified with those of England, as were the interests of Scotland and Ireland at the unions in 1707 and 1801, and their " increased proximity" to the British Crown by means of steam navigation places them in point of distance on a footing with Scotland at the period of the union. The advantage, indeed, is in fa vour of the Colonies. The difficulty and delay in travel- Eng from Glasgow or Edinburgh, in the middle of the last century, are well known, and even so late as 1783 little im provement had taken place. Before Mr. PALMER laid his reckless hand on the pace of the Post Office horses, according to Lord BROUGHAM, Members of Parliament came, by the sure and steady mails, at the rate of three miles and a-half the hour. At this rate, taking stoppages for rest into account, the Members for Glasgow could not arrive in leis than eight or nine days, and the Hon. Baro net the Member for Caithness would be in purgatory for at least twenty, and consequently unfit for any earthly duty for probably ten days more. In the new steam ships about to traverse the Atlantic, the voyage will be made in less time, and with less fatigue. On the score of distance therefore there can be no objection to the union ; and, taking it always for granted that the Cana dians were still to have the management of their municipal and local affairs, they would be infinitely better off by hav ing iu the House of Commons men representing their real interests, than they are at present with a paid agent, and with their heterogeneous legislative assemblies, or with any thing they are likely to get for some years without a revo lution. tor's political principles were. There stood up in that House, individual who was not indifferent to the princi d les of the Consti tution, or to the interests of literature to defend tkat p-nsion—he alluded to Mr. Fox. An objection was made on the part of a friend of Air. Fox's to the grant of this pension on the ground of the ob noxious political principles of Dr. Johnson. Mr. Fox said " that he objected to the pension, but on a different ground, because he thought it an insufficient reward for such distinguished merit ; and further, that the bounty of the Crown ought to be extended in all cases to distinguished literary and scientific merit where ne cessity called for it." NOw he thought Mr. Fox was not only a great authority on any matter relating to politics, but also as regarded literature. With respect to the service pensions, the Honourable Gentleman would excuse him if he denied that in such grants there entered any of the considerations which he had enumerated. Poor-laws were not intended te confer rewards for public service, but as relief in cases of want and desti tution. If the Hon. Gentleman was really of the opinion which he said, he ought to have come to the House and say, that. because the relatives of those parser's who had received pensions for t heir ser vices during the war had since become rich, these pensions ought to be rescinded. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the case of Capt. Ross; that was a case of need, but it was a case where the Crown would not have made any grant without inquiry, but so eager wore the House of Commons to grant that Gallant Officer relief, that it actually made the grant, and instituted the inquiry into its necessity afterwards. That case skewed the liability of the House of Commons to commit abuse. If the House excluded the clause from. the Rill it would leave the Sovereign in tlfat situation that a Mo narch of this country had never been paced before, namely, with out the power of granting rewards to scientific and literary men ; added to which it would make the House of Commons the source of all appointments and dignities whatever ; taking away one of the highest and greatest prerogatives of the Crow n.—( Cheers. ) For these grounds, therefore, he should undoubtedly oppose the motion of the HOn. Member. Ditto Metallic .........«.« Spanish Bonds ' Ditto Account Ditto Bonds, Mit atto Account French, 5 per —f —c 4 per cent........... —c 3 per cent. f. —c Fzitchany f. —c. Dutch, 254 per cent Ditto Account Ditto, 5 per cent. 1013„ 4 Ditto Account lOl% P RICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK. aid. Rea iem Monte Mining Co., Registered 63/. P 10s. (Id. Per Share Fitt ei Unregistered B lrrni.nham and Derby Railway Company 2O areat Western Railway Company 55 Bright m Rallway Company 5 nrightm Railway (Rennic's) Lerutoil and Birmingham Railway Company 9O London and Southampton (New) Railway 5 A ....._ nti Drerne. Company ---- 141 i WA 7 356% 18s. 16s. 1:98 16 12414 HER MAJESTY'S MAILS by'STEAM to VIGO; OPORTO, LISBON, CADIZ, GIBRALTAR, MALTA, GREECE, TILE lONIAN ISLANDS, EGYPT, and INDIA. THE EMERALD ISLE will start from off East Lane Stairs on THURSDAY, tho'2lst December, at Twelve o'clock at Night, and from Falmouth on MoNnAT, tho 2.5 th De cember. The PENLVSULAR PACKETS start weekly as abovo, being met by her Majesty's Packets at Gibraltar. Furth Tr particulars may be obtained on application at the Penin- Sular Steam .Navigation Company's Offices, 51, St. Mary Axe. WILLCOX and ANDERSON, Managers. URSUANT to a Decree of the High Court of n Chanef?.ry, 'made in a Cause of KENT so - ain't BURGESS, the Creditors uff RICHARD KENT, l a t e of Ra msgate, in the Isle of Thanet, in the County of Kent, M.D. who shill in the month of January, 1837, are f ort h w i t h to come in and prove their debts before air GIP.Fix T ermson, one of the Masters of the said Court, at his Chambers in. Southampton-buildings, Chanoery-lane, London ; or default th area they will be exeluded the benefit of the said Desiree. The COURT and TIMES of QUEEN ANNE. Just ready, in 2 vols. Bvo. with Portraits. T HE DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH'S PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. Illustrative of the Court and Times of Queen Anne; WITH HER SKETCHES and OPINIONS of HER CONTEMPORARIES, &c. Henry Collmrn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS DAY.) Jiist ready, in 2 vols. Bw. NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE " 8 OF GEORGE IV., AND QUEEN CAROLINE. WITH NUMEROUS LETTERS OF HER LATE MAJESTY, and. other Royal or Distinguished Persons. Henry Coliiurn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEXICEIL took the Chair shortly after 12 o'clock. CIVIL LIST BILL. MT.t. G. P. R. JAMES'S NEW WORK. Immediately, in Two Volumes Bvo., embellished with Portraits of Louis Xi V., Anne of Austria Duchess de la Valliere, Cardinal Mazarin,, th e P r i nce d e Condi, and Marshal Turenne, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF LOUIS 'rHE FOURTEENTH. By G. P. R. JAMES, Esq. Author of " Darnley," " Philip Augustus," " Life of the Black Prince," &c. Richard Bentley, New Burlington street, Publisher in Ordinary to her Majesty. that pensions to literary men were liven by way of compliment. Now he by no means looked upon them in that light. He thought that the Crown had, in the r ower of granting such pen- lions, the means of greatly benefitting posterity, by plac ing such persons in circumstances to prosecute their labours. The Fusion, howzver. that he most objected to was that of Mrs. Somerville, which, although granted by both Whigs and Tories, was a waste of public money, for she was in affluent circumstances, and her husband enjoyed a good salary. Such a Pension as that was not only a throwing away needlessly the public money, bat a cruel perversion of the purposes for which Pensions were granted.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was the more cruel when they called to mind that a Pension was refused to Dr. Wallace, the professor of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, a man This day, Bvo. ss. THE NAUTICAL ALMANACK for 1840. • John Murray, Albemarle-street. The publication of Tim SUN NEWSPAPER commenced this day at 10 minutes past Four o' Cinch. . .. , , . -,•:..,_ „ I s, ~,,,,_ , „ 4,0?, ~,---,,', `is:- ' 4, '`'. , 4 - 0.. . X",...,44', ... 0 . 3 `J.s... •r , ' , it,... ,_ dt, Rho was second to no one in the empire in scientific attainments, and who, after wearing oat. his life in research and in the writing of books which had conferred great benefits on science, found him self now in his old age in want. The Honourable Member con cluded by thanking the House for the patience with which they h•td heard him. Z'fle aun. LONDON : TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1837. We beg to invite the serious attention of Government to the petition of the principal Printers, Publishers, and Booksellers of the United Kingdom—a copy of which will be found in The Sun of to-day—praying for a large reduc tion in the present exorbitant rate of Postage. This peti tion, which was presented in the House of Commons, on Wednesday last, by Mr. WALLACE, and in the House of Peers, on Friday, by the Earl of RADNOR, is from a body of men as distinguished for their general intelligence as any in the country ; and as they are all men of business habits and much practical experience, the decision to which they have come ought to have great weight with the CHANCEL LOR Of the EXCHEQUER, and the POST MASTER-GENERAL. We refer, of course, to tho conviction they express, that a reduction of the present rate of postage would not materially affect the revenue. More sanguine than the petitioners, we are persuaded that a reduction of the post age duty—provided it be large enough—will materially in crease the revenue at present derived from that source. On the contrary, however, a small reduction, or one of partial and limited operation, will be productive of no good to the country, while it must. embarass the Government by creating general dissatisfaction. Such a peddling line of policy w;11 only occasion a defalcation in the Reve nue, without being of the slightest advantage to any party law suffering from the gross mismanagement of the Post-office authorities. Better leave matters as they are than touch them with a hesitating or unwilling hand. By far the best plan will be to establish an uniform rate of postage throughout the kingdom, as that, in the first place, will relieve the country from the burthen of any of the Clerks who draw large salaries for the performance of du ties which can no Longo- be required. Every shilling thus saved is so much gained ; and ought to be taken into ac count in inquiring into the beneficial operation of any Post office experiment that the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER may adopt. A simple plan like that of stamped covers is not to be partially tried by a complicated expensive machinery, and then taxed with not realizing benefits which could only accrue from it, and which it only pro mised to realize, in the event of its general adoption. We do not contend that it would be necessary to reduce the rate of general postage to a penny, in order to satisry the country—we believe that a rate of fourpence on letters by the General Post, and a charge of a penny where twopence and threepence i s n ow d eman d e d, wou ld give universal satisfaction. Stamped covers, specifying the weight which they would carry free, would be far preferable to the old single and double sheet system—so liable to ob jection on account of the official pretext which it afforded for a violation of seals, and the consequent abstraction of valuable enclosures. Were weight assumed as the standard of charge, the Post-office could dispense with the services of the official fumbkrs, and the whole of the members of the blue-tight board—for a knowledge of whose practices the country is indebted to the indefatigable exertions of the Hon. Member for Greenock. After the statement set forth in this petition we question if there will be any official wiseacre silly enough to Contend that a reduction of the postage duty would not increase the number of letters transmitted by the mails throughout the country. The petitioners state that were the postage duty reduced, many of them would circulate, in the regular way of business, from 20,000 to 50,000 letters in the year more than they do at present! What an impulse would not this addition to the usual correspondence of the country—extending as it must in a limited pro portion to all other branches of useful and ornamental industry—give to the trade and commerce of the nation in the course of a few years ! Presuming the additional let ters sent by any of the petitioners not to exceed 37,000 a year, this, at a penny postage, would amount to upwards of 1501., a sum sufficiently arge in itself to tempt the cupidity of a CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. To maintain the utility of the Post-office, the Govern , ment must reform it, and that speedily. No law will be able to secure to it the monopoly which it now enjoys, after the country is intersected with railroads, unless it be placed on an equal footing with other Establishments. This is the age of competition and of change—the age of quid pro quo. The Post-office must keep pace with the progress of those whose servant it professes to be, or it will soon be loft so far behind as to be regarded as the last relic of by-gone barbarism. The people of England will not be such dupes as to pay three or four shillings for the con veyance of half an ounce of paper a distance for which they might get half a hundred weight carried for six pence ! To talk of enforcing obedience to laws at once unjust, impolitic, oppressive, and restrictive of trade, is mere moonshine, after the country shall have th e means of evading them provided by extensive lines of railway. The Government may rely upon it, that when th e different lines of railway now in progress are completed, there will be an immense falling off in the number of letters now sent by post, unless an extensive reform be effected in the management of that establishment. In the House of Lords last night, Lord BROTIGHAn pro- sentcd a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of London in favour of Mr• RowLAND HILL'S Penny-postage Post-office Reform Plan. The Noble and Learned Lord supported the prayer the Post-office authorities entertained of any change in the management of that branch of the public se rv i ce . "Wi t h your Lordsip's leave," observed the Noble and Learned Baron, after expressing his respect for the scruples of the sages of St. Martin's-le-Grand, and deferring to their superior know ledge of Post-office affairs generally, " I will refresh your recollection of what took place when the great improve ment of Mr. PALMER was suggested, in the mail-coach department in 1784. Tho net revenue of the Post-office was then 150,0001. per annum, and the mails ran some where about three miles and a half an hour. Great in dignation was felt by some old official persons, and they viewed with absolute contempt the vast improve ments then suggested. Those official persons, indeed, all with one voice exclaimed against the proposition, and they united in a chorus of applause which rent the ears of Par liament in favour of every man in the establishment—of every rule—of every regulation—declaring, in short, that the Post-office was conducted in the best possible manner. Parliament, after an inquiry into the plan, reported that upon the -whole Mr. PALMER'S plan contained the great est difficulties, and, as a scheme, it RAS in tote, impracti cable. With respect to fees, the Report stated, that after examining the oldest and ablest officers in the Post office, the Committee were of opinion that not only was Mr. PALMER'S plan impracticable, hut.absolutely dangerous to commerce and finance. So that the commerce of the country was not only in jeopardy from the French Revo lution, and the events which followed its train, but also from the scheme of Mr. PALMER ! Let your Lordships only think of what risks the country ran, without knowing it, as regarded commerce and finance, when Mr. PALMER produced his unhallowed scheme for improving the speed of the mails—when he laid his hand upon the department, and sought to increase the speed of the mails from three and-a half miles an hour to seven miles—the whole revenue being 150,000/. per annum ! The scheme was, however, adopted in spite of 'the oldest and ablest officers,' and the revenue increased to 1,500,0000 In conclusion, the Noble and Learned Lord, after apologising to the House for citing such an amusing specimen " of the wisdom of their ancestors," complained that the Government, in making a partial trial of stamped covers, had entirely overlooked Mr. ROWLAND HILL'S plan, which, after the support it had received, was entitled to the consideration of Ministers. Lords DUNCANNON and LICHFIELD admitted that such was the fact, but adopting the convenient precedent laid down by the " oldest and ablest officers" of the Post-office before the parliamentary Committee in 1784, they con tended that Mr. HILL'S plan " was not only impracticable, but dangerous to the revenue and finance." Lord LICH FIELD, however, cemfessed that the present rate of postage might be considerably reduced without injury to the re venue, though his Lordship was silent both as to the reduction which he would grant, and the time when it would come into operation—points of some importance to the country. Now we respectfully ask the Noble Post master-General, when is the reduction to take place ? Twelve months ago the Noble Earl stated in the House of Peers that a reduction might safely be made in the price of postage. Why then has it not taken place ? Is it not an insult to the country for any Minister of the Crown, in answer to petitions from most respectable bodies of citizens, to get up in his place in Parliament, and laconically tell them—" Much of what you ask might be safely given," and then sit down, leaving them to reflect for a year upon what was intended by such a speech ? But while respect fully addressing this question to the Postmaster-General, we have to observe that a trifling reduction of the present rate of Postage will not satisfy any party, or serve any na- , tional purpose. What is sought is such a reduction in the, price of conveyance, and such a reform in the mode of collec tion, as will invite commercial intercourse, and maintain inviolate the sanctity of a seal, and the secrecy of an in closure. For this purpose, stamped covers are preferable to any other plan yet devised ; and to avoid contusion, an uniform rite of postage would be decidedly an improve ment upon the present graduated scale of prices. Wo are not so unreasonable, as to be satisfied with nothing short of Mr. HILL'S Penny-postage plan. We are persuaded that a general postage duty of fourpence, and a reduction of the present threepenny and twopenny postage to a penny, would satisfy the country, and rather increase than diminish the amount of revenue now derived from the Post-office Establishment. In compliance with the wish of the House of Commons, loudly and repeatedly expressed in the early stages of the discussion on the Pension List, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mentioned last night the names of those whom he proposes to place on the Committee of Inquiry. To these names we have nothing to object ; they seem fairly enough selected, and are guarantees that the investigation will be conducted in a frank, manly, and impartial spirt. So far, therefore, Ministers arc entitled to praise. But the case is different, as regards their behaviour to Mr. HARVEY. Here they have acted not only indiscreetly but meanly They have seized on a point of no earthly moment; purposely exag gerated its importance ; and having thus made a mountain of their mole-hill, urged it against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as an objection of the most serious and disqua lifying character. Mr. HALL well observed "it was na tural for the Government, when prOposing a Committee of Inquiry into -Pensions, to place on it the name of a gentle man who had devoted his time and.his talents to the consi deration of this subject, and session after session had brought it before the House. The Member for Southwark was so much identified with this question, that unless his name were attached to the Committee, those who felt the deepest interest in the progress and results of the Inquiry would not be satisfied that it was fairly gone into." And yet, Ministers, knowing this, object to Mr. HARVEY'S ap pointment, on the puny plea—a plea to which even Sir ROBERT PEEL himself, stickler as he is for privileges, pre cedents, tie., confesses he does not attach much importance —Ministers, we say, object to Mr. HARVEY, that he once published Committee evidence, end has thereby disqudified himself for assisting in the Pension List Inquiry ! Mr. W A KLEY, who at once saw through the subterfuge, put this objection on its proper footing—reduced it to its fitting level. "It was a mere farce," observed the Hon. Gentle man, " to be so particularly nice about breaches of privi lege. Had they not a Standine. Order for the exclusion of strangers, daily violated ? Were not their proceedings daily published, in violation of another Standing Order ? And if they at tempted to enforce those Orders, would the people submit to any such attempt ?" The truth is, Mr. HARVEY is excluded, not because he on one occasion pub lished detached portions of the Poor Law evidence, but because he has rendered himself obnoxious to Government, by his shrewdness, his sarcasm, and his per tinacity, on the ticklish question of the Pension List. He has forced Ministers to grant an Inquiry, and to make this Inquiry an honest one. He has prevented them from twisting, or wriggling, or standing-stock-still, but compelled them to move straight on. It is here the shoe pinches. It is here that Mr. HARVEY'S offence lies ; and it is for this he is excluded from an investigation which, of all men living, he is the most competent to deal with. Just in the same petty, personal spirit, that the Whigs now behave towards Mr. HARVEY, did the Tories behave to Mr. O'CONNELL. The latter forced Sir ROBERT PM. to grant Emancipation, and, as a punishment for his having done so, was instantly excluded from the representation of Clare ; the former forces Mr. SPRING RICE to grant an Inquiry into the Pension List, and is immediately (like his predecessor) punished, or attempted to be punished, by exclusion from the Committee And this is called libe rality—proceeding upon Parliamentary and statesmanlike principles ! Verily, in matters of this sort, we see little difference between Whig and Tory—except, indeed, that the latter tells you plainly what he is, while the other is constantly boasting of what he is not. We look on Mr. HARVEY'S exclusion from the Pension List Committee, as a very indiscreet and splenetic act on the part of Go vernment. It savors of the worst sort of party persecu tion, and, sure we are, that the country will regard it in this light, and in no other. As for Sir ROBERT PEEL'S objection to the Hon. Member for Southwark, it is the most direct acknowledgment of the necessity of a search ing Inquiry into the Pension List, ever yet made in the House of Commons. " Mr. HARVEY'S sarcasm," said the Right Hon. Gentleman, " disqualified him for sitting on the Committee." Wherefore, good Sir ROBERT, if there were not revelations and exposures to be made, that would jus tify the severest censure and sarcasm ? It is truth and ap positeness that give effect to satire. Without these re quisites,the most cutting and epigrammeic sentences make no more impression on men's minds, than cannon-balls make on a wool-pack. The proposition which is said to have been made to the Government, with a view to restore tranquillity in Canada, requires grave consideration. The plan is to make tlie Canadas, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, integral por tions of the British Empire, with Members representing the respective interests i n th e B r i t i s h P ar li a ment. There is no more serious objection to a union between England and the three North American Provinces, than there was to the union with Scotland at the beginning of the last The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third reading of the Civil List Bill. Mr. HUME was anxious to take that opportunity of having the vote which he gave in. the Committee for the reduction of the 385,000/. to 335,0001. placed on the votes of the House. He had before suggested, and he thought that it had been agreed to, that all alterations in Committee of the whole House where grants of money were made—he thought that it was understood that they should be entered on the votes. They were not so, and the result was that ten millions of money might be voted without any individual being cognizant of it. In the Committee he had proposed a reduction from 385,0001. to 335,0001., and he begged now to move that that reduction do now take place. He did this merely for the purpose of placing the motion on the votes of the House. It was not, however, his intention to divide the House upon it. But on the motion that the Bill should pass, it was his intention to make some general remarks upon the measure. The motion was negatived without a division. Mr. GROTE proposed now to submit to the House the amend ment of which he had given notice, and which he expected to have had an opportunity of submitting either on Friday or Saturday last. The amendment was, that the fifth clause having reference to pensions, should be omitted altogether. He was in hopes that he should be enabled to show that the House would not be exercising a wise discretion by permitting this clause to pass. Before he entered into the circumstances he begged leave to say that he thought, that when the Hon. Member for Southwark considered the sum too paltry for the consideration of the House, that he had done so under a mistaken notion with respect to it. Undoubtedly the sum proposed to be annually granted did not sound very largely. It was, to be sure, only 1,200/., and that was a small sum compared to what the House had been in the habit of granting. But let the House consider, that if her Majesty were enabled to grant new pensions to the amount of 1,2001. a-year, the new Pension List would swell to 41,000/. in 21 years, as was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer • but he ( Mr. G.) th oug ht th a t th e Ch ance ll or o f th e Exchequer was mistaken in his calculation, and that the amount would be consi derably more than 41,0001. in twenty-one years. When it was recollected that it had always been the custom to place the youngest and best lives upon the Pension List, it would be plain that much mere - should be admitted as the accumulation than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had calculated. There was more than one reason to induce him to propose thatthis grant be struck out of the Civil List. He thought it extremely improper and inconsistent to fix the sum for future pensions, when the House was going on with an enquiry into those that existed. The House having granted a Committee of Inquiry, and having sanctioned the principle that all grants which had been given undeservedly or for corrupt pur poses should be struck off, ought to pause for the result of that en quiry before it granted the means of additional pensions. It. was not possible for him tos nticipate what might. be the result of the deliberations of that CoMnittee, but he might speak of the results hypothetically, and, he might say that when the Committee had concluded its labours it would report to the House that all, or nearly all of the existing pensions were good, and ought to be continued ; or they might report on the other hand that one-half or three-fourths were bad, and oug - ht to be struck out. It was therefore, in his view, important that before any sum was granted for new pensions that the House should know to what purposes the Pension List in times past had been applied. If they should find that it had been used for corrupt and profligate purposes—that abuse was the rule and propriety the exception— would they not naturally say that the House had not known to what profligacy the Pension List 'gave rise, and that it was neces sary in future to check its liberality in placing at the disposal of the Ministry the means of such corruption ?—( Hear.) Was it not therefore necessary to have the result of the inquiry into the past, before they decided for the future ?—( Hear.) Surely they ought not to decide in the absence of the evidence which they were at that moment taking the pains to collect. It is evident that if they fixed what was proper to be allotted for future pensions, and in effect anticipated the result of their own inquiry, they laid down the principle that no possible disclosures which the Committee might make would raise any objection to future pensions. He was sure that if they proceeded to make such a grant in the pre sent stage of their inquiry, the public would be persuaded that their object., in appointing the Committee, was to leave the great bulk of the Pension List precisaly as it was at present, and that they never intended their inquiry to be searching and decisive. If they looked to the Report of the Com mittee on the Civil List they would see that they refused to sanc tion the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix the sum of 75,0001. as in the case of the old Pension List, but they cer tainly concurred in the proposition of the Meraber for Aberdeen, were ,vas s proper equally t o so fix to thefix that they should fix th e suns which they w ou ld a ll ow h er M ajesty s t ru g r for et the for newh e newp pe n sions, s p i o e n n o h n e ' thought w fh it at it the principal sum. To do the one thing and to do the other was only doing the same thing under different names. He contended that if the Committee on the Civil List were might in refusing to assent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were wrong in fixing the amount of the new Pensions. For his part, he was of otinion, that instead of fizing what was to be the amount of the now Pensions, would be better at once to fix the principal sum, because by doing so they would know more ac curately what was charged on the Public 'I reasury than by the pre sent Civil List. These were the reasons why he asked the House to strike the clause out of the Civil List. Besides, he contended, that these Pensions had no proper connection or place in the Civil List at all. He was of opinion that they ought to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. The House would see that these Pensions were unalterable during the reign of her present Majesty—a reign which was likely to last many years. Now what reason was there why they should fix them for so long a period of time? He could understand why the sum necessary for the sup port of her Majesty's household should be fixed for the whole reign. It was obviously expedient that the Sovereign should not be sub jected to the inconvenience arising from frequent changes in her household. In fact, it was necessary to the personal comfort and dignity of the Sovereign that such grants should last during the entire reign. He would ask how it conduced to her Ma jesty's comfort or dignity to grant a certain sum to be distri buted by her in pensions any more than it would conduce to her comfort or dignity to fix unalterably the civil and military appointments, and other patronages vested in the Crown. If they had a right to do the one, they had a perfect right to do the other. He contended, too, that if the House in case of abuse or profli gacy tied up their hands for such a length of time from interposing a remedy, they would be committing a most unwarrantable act. The recommendation he , was now enforcing on the House was, in point of fact, in full coincidence with the general principh laid down by a Committee on the Civil list in 1831, al though he was aware that it was contrary to the specific recommendation that the Committee came to in respect to the Civil List pensions; that Committee had laid down the general principle that nothing should remain any longer on the Civil List which was not directly connected with the comfort and dignity of the Crown. Under these words he contended that the Pension List could not stand for a moment. The Committee in 1831 had assigned a rea son why they continued the pensioners on the Civil List, and that reason was embodied in the Report of the Committee of 1837. It was to enable the Sovereign to grant marks of Royal favour; it such a definition was to be tolerated, it would give countenance to a system of courtly caprico and favouritism. Now, he would ask the House to look at the consequences of this • he would suppose that they were now in the reign of Charles IL, who in that reign would have been at the top of the Pension List?—why, the Royal mistnesses--the Duchess of Cleveland, the Duchess of Portland. and Mrs. Eleanor Gwynne, would have been at the head of that List, because they would have been the parties the King most de. sired to favour. He might make the same remarks with respect to the Royal mistresses in the reigns of George I. and George 11. It was in his opinion impossible for the House to consent to abide by the decision of the Committee of 1831.—( Hear, hear.) The recommendation of the Committee of 1831 as to pensions had been entirely overruled by the resolution of 1834, and by the Act of this House in granting a Committee of Inquiry, and thus recog nising the principle that they were good and proper claims. Whil, the Committee on the Civil List-for 1837 abandon the definition given by the Committee of 1831, they adopt the words of the reso lution of 1834, that " pensions are founded upon public services,"which entitle the persons to the gracious consideration of their Sovereign. The Pension List, therefore, became of great public importance. and it was a great public act to distribute the pensions as they ought to be. The Committee of 1837 ought to have recom mended that the Pension List should be altogether disconnected from the Civil List, and altogether placed as a branch of public expenditure before that House. For these reasons he (Mr. G.) recommende the House to strike out the fifth clause of the Civil List Bill; bu he had objections which lay deeper, and which led him to th, question of the wisdom and the policy of continuing the Pensions upon the Civil List. at all. The House should recollect that their hands were not tied up now as they had been in former reigns, when they would only investigate the fitness of individual names, • and when it was not open to them to lessen the amount or shorten ' the duration of the fund granted. They now were at liberty to take a comprehensive view of the public benefit, or mischief, which would arise from the continuation of the Pension Fund.—(Hear, hear, hear.) At present Pensions were only granted by Alinisterial caprice, and seldom with any reference to individual merit. Was it wise to give the Minister a fund to be distributed according to his own views, being limited only by certain very ge neral restrictions? What public benefit arose from the Pension Fund as now administered? Were pensions granted as rewards for service? No : for 999 out of every 1,000 in the public service never obtained these rewards. Were they an incitement to supe rior activity and industry? No; they were far too uncertain—too nittai in the nature of accidents to have such tendency. Were they se encouragement to scientific habits and literary tastes? No—for the chance of obtaining them was far too small to be appreciated or calculated upon by the many literary and scientific men with whom this country abounded.—( Hear, hear.) Neither were they granted as rewards for signal public benefits conferred, for he (Mr. U.) recollected several grants of money which had been made by that House to persons who had conferred such public benefits as in the case of Dr. Jenner and Captain Ross. They were creating a fend for distribution, which was never attended with any public benefit.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When a fund like that was de voted either wholly or in part to men• of merit and talent, the public would sympathise with such men, and would rarely express dissatisfaction with that application of the public money. But that was not the consideration which ought to weigh with he House in creating such a fund. Undoubtedly, if a nobleman were to lay apart a portion of his income for the endowment of de serving men in literature and science, that would be a praiseworthy ~ p propriation of his wealth. But the case was very different from that under consideration. Let the House look to the way in which the persons coming within the influence of theproposed fund would be affected by it for good or for evil. Those persons were a small circle of individuals immediately under the eye of the Mi esiker, and he contended that the effect produced upon that s il en t circle was positively of an undeniable character. If any one of those persons desired to obtain the benefit of the fund, would he not keep his eye on the Minister, and do every thing by obsequious conduct to insatiate himself with the partisans of the Government of the day. (Hear, hear.) That was the natural course into which the House by this grant would tempt men of merit and character, and in stead of good to them and to the public, it would do great and serious evil, by holding out to them such a temptation. Let them look to another effect of this provision in the Pension List, on the circle of Ministerial bounty. Suppose the Minister has a vacancy on the Pension List, and he wishes to promote a man of literature and science ; what would the effect be of enabling the Minister to select such a man—say a mathematician—from the body of men in the same walk of science ; would it not create dissatisfaction and discontent ? Would they not say "We don't care about the money, but to select the favoured individual was to imply that he was pre-eminent above us all."—( Hear.) So that, in fact, they were not enabling the member to compliment the science to which the individual belonged, but to rouse the jealously of scientific pre-eminence in the breasts of all others who laboured in the same walk. He (Mr. G.) did not complain of the grants which had recently been made, but he objected to the principle on the grounds which he had stated ; and he could say, that within the last few years some of those grants had been complained of, and in a tone of asperity which he did not -mean to copy in that House. But, in fact, the portion of the Pension List that went to scientific and literary persons was but small. Out of the whole 75,0001. they received but 5,0001. It was a very small portion of the Pensioning power that went in that way. He contended that it would be a great mischief if the Minister had a large fund to divide .in that way.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It would enable him to pervert the minds of intellectual men, as the Minister with such a sum at his command would find abundance of authors who would tread in the path presented to them. He knew that in discussing this topic there were many cases which might be referred to where relief was necessary; he did not deny that there might be many literary men in want, and many a scientific man might be unable to proceed with some valuable scientific research, for want of the means. He would not deny that such might be the case, but he denied that it was wise to create a public fund for that purpose. Another ground taken by the defenders of the Pension List was that it was not merely applicable to persons who had distinguished themselves in the public serviee or who were remarkable for their scientific or literary attainments, but also to objects of charity. Now he did not think that this was a more tenable position than the others • for if objects of charity wer e to be included in it, the value of the compliment was diminished when the distinctions of merit were lost sight of. He was one of those who supported the Poor-law Amendment Act most warmly on its first introduction, and he supported it still more warmly now, that it had been found' to work so well ; but well as it worked, and great as the benefits were which it had conferred, he could not deny that there were cases, which pressed hardly on individuals, which it did not meet. There were many cases of suffering and want, from which the Act compelled them to withhold relief, which they would have relieved if, without looking to its general effect, they had followed the impulse of their own sympathies. The Poor Law Act did not allow relief to be bestowed except upon the indigent and destitute. No case of special hardship WU by the Act allowed to receive relief if it fell short of those extreme cases, so that suffering merit was left to the chances of private bounty and charity. He desired the House to apply this analogy to the Civil List.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Would they not be act ing most unjustly and inconsistently if, after refusing relief to - those special cases, they created a fund to meet special cases amongst the higher classes? In cases of special reward he con tended this House was the proper tribunal to apply te. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, says that the House would be profuse and partial, but he thought that on the whole this system woul.i be much less objectionable, and productive of less mischief to the public than the course proposed in the present Civil List. If it were contended that the pensions were granted by the So vereign as a reward to old and faithful services, that might be a reason for making an addition to the fund which was to be granted to her Majesty for charitable purposes, and which he (Mr. G.) thought was amply sufficient for such purposes ; but it was no reason for creating a fund to be administered according to arbitrary and irresponsible caprice.— ( Hear, hear.) Upon the grounds which he had stated he did think ;hat considering the jealous inquiry which was now pending, it was proper at all events to await the result of that inquiry, before they detcrmined whether the Pension List should be continued at all, or if so under what restriction's and regulations.—(Cheers.) The lion. Gentleman concluded by moving that the clause be struck put of the Bill. Mr. HUME and Mr. CLAY rose together to second the motion of the Hon. Member; but the latter gave way. He (Mr. Hume) was anxious to second the motion of his Hon. Friend, because the proposition that was now made was one which he submitted to the Committee in 1831, and also to the Committee in the present year. He had no hesitation in saying that his Honourable Friend had exhausted the subject, and that it would only be a waste of time to occupy the attention of the House with any re marks. The opinion which he had formerly entertained, that no pension ought to be granted to any individual whatever out of a public fund, gained strength every day. In his opinion, the system was so vicious that it ought to be abolished altogether.—( Cheers. ) The grant of 1,200/. a-year, in his opinion, would neither add to the honour or dignity of the Crown, but would take away that respect which the mass of the people ought to pay to the Sovereign. Be lieving that the grant would be administered in future as it had hitherto been, he should second the proposition of the Honourable Member for the City of London, and he sincerely hoped he would take the sense of the House on this most important principle. The question having been put from the Chair, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose.—Undoubt edly he had nothing to complain of the mode in which the Hon. Member for the City of London had introduced the subject. On the contrary, he must say that he had discussed it in a meaner that was most likely to bring the whole measure perfectly before the House, but he could not but censure some of the principles he had laid down. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the question upon principle, and the difference of amount was, therefore, of little consequence. But he had fallen into a mistake in the ques tion of amount. The Honourable Gentleman had stated that the new charge of 1,200/. would in a period of twenty years amount to 41,0001. and upwards, and stated farther, that he (the Chancel lor of the Exchequer) had so admitted. In that the Honour able Gentleman was completely and decidedly mistaken. — (Hear, bear, hear.) The accumulation could nut in any way bear upon the best and youngest lives, amount to any thing at all like such a sum.—(Hear.) What he (the Chancellor/of the Ex chequer) stated was, that the combination of the old and the new pensions would amount in 20 years to 41,000/., and he would now call the attention of those Gentlemen who denied that there was any diminution in the new List to the explanation he was about to offer of the Hon. Gentleman's mistake. If the new List were founded upon the old principle that the Crown should have the power of keeping up the pensions to the full amount, they would, of course, continue to be 75,0001. at the end of 20 years.. But by the limitation which he proposed to make the country would have the benefit of terminating pensions above the amount of twelve hundred pounds a-year, so that in 20 years, taking the combination of the new pensions and the surviving old pensions together to amount to about 41,0001. a year at that time, there would be a saving of 33,000/. a- year and upwards.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman's argument divided itself into two parts— first, whether pensions should be granted at all ; secondly, whether they should be granted by the Crown. He ( the Chancellor of the Exchequer) feared there was a great difference between the principle on which he proposed to act, and that which the Hon. Gentleman would recommend. The Hon. Gentleman would take from the Crown the power of conferring rewards, which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) regarded a s essential to our monarchial consti tution. There was an irreconcilable difference between him and the Hon. Gentleman on that part of the question. Perhaps the Hon. Member would go the length of taking from the Crown the dis posal of all rewards, and transferring it to Parliament. That would strike at the root of our limited monarchy.—( Hear.) If she Hon. Gentleman would carry out his principle he would sub vert all the institutions of the country.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Would he take from the Crown the appointment of the Judges ?—( Hear.) If not, why refuse that the Crown should be the source of reward, as well as of honour? As to the ques tion whether pensions should be granted at all, the Honourable Member himself admitted that he would allow retiring pensions and superannuated allowances ; and certainly it could not be denied that the Pension List might, u nder Parliamentary responsibility, he made a m eans of justly and economically rewarding public ser vices. Th e Honourable Member had said that on the part of science and scientific men ho wished there were no pensions, and he gave a reason which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not have expected to hare heard in these enlightened lays—(Hear, hear) --that the pensions might be granted to influence the opinions of literary and scientific men. Why ! was Dr. Dutton's, or Professor Airey's, or Mr. Moore's, or Mr. Southey's, or Mr. Wordsworth's pensions, granted to influence their political sentiments, whatever they might be, Whig, or Tory, or Radical ? —( Hear, hear.) He had a better opinion of scientific and literary gentlemen than the Honourable Member. He was satisfied .hat even if Government were disposed to abuso the power ;hat was vested in them, there was a spirit in literature and science, which would not suffer such a degradation of their talents and attainments. He would now refer to what occurred at a very early period, when the question regarding literary pensions was brought first before the House. It was on the occasion of the grant of Dr. Johnson's pension, and they all knew what the Doc- Sir R. PEEL said he would give his decided vote against the proposition of the Hon. Member for London, which went to de prive the Crown of granting pensions as the reward of merit.— (Hear.) Still he was bound to say that the provisions of this Bill were not satisfactory in many respects to him.—( Hear.) He thought the sum of 1,2001. a year, which was to be granted annually for new pensions, was a very scanty one, particularly as the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had said that in 20 years there would be a saving of 30,0001. a year by that method. At the same time there were advantages in this mode of granting an anaual fixed sum for new pensions—for by the old system there was often a great disproportion between the means of granting pensions, and the ability to govern them ; and in many years—the former were in an inverse ratio to the latter. He considered it, however, a very unwise prevision, that when the Crown, in any year, did not grant new pensions to the whole amount of the 1,2001., there was to be no increase allowed next year. He thought it expedient to exclude the Crown from the power of carrying over to another year so much of the 1,2001. of the preceding year as had not been granted. By the Bill in its present form, there was an inducement held out to the Crown to appropriate the whole 1,200/. in each year. He thought it would be better to a'low the 1,200/. a year for a defined period, and leave the appropriation of it to the forbearance of the Crown. He hoped that part of the Bill would be reconsidered. —( Hear, hear.) objected decidedly to laying the Pension List on the table of that House every year. The Crown had shewn every disposition to consult the wishes of the House in regard to the Pens:on List, and to act upon its re cornmendations.—(Hear, hear.) But they were not satisfied with that, and they were going to make it imperative on the Crown by law to lay an exact account of the pensions upon the table—to invite and challenge discussion, in order that the House might see whether the Crown had acted, not only to the spirit, but to the strict letter.—(Hear, and loud cheering. The Right Ho:. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had argued in favour of our limited monarchy, but his own Bill was in opposition to his principles.—( Hear, hear.) In his anxiety to sa tisfy both sides of the House, he used two opposite lines of argu ment.—( Hear, hear, ar.d laughter.) The night Hon. Gentle man said that Parliament ought not to have the exclusive power of granting pensions, and he said that the Crown alone should be the source of reward as well as honour. He (Sir Robert Peel) agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought the Crown ought to have the uncontrouled disposal of a certain amount of pensions, and he would admit that upon a new arrangement of the Civil List or when the mind of the public was inflamed with suspicion, the Pension List should be laid before tne House. 'But when the Right lion. Gentleman was addressing the other side of the House, he said, you shall have the pensions before you every year, and turning to his (Sir R. Peel's) side, he said, the " Crown is the source of reward as well as of honour."—(A laugh.) Well, then, suppose it were proposed to lay before Par liament every year a list of the honours and distinctions conferred by the Crown in the exercise of its preroga tive for the . reward of merit—Peerages, Baronetcies, and Knighthood--what would the Right Hon. Gentleman say to that? There was a very close analogy between the power of the Crown to grant pensions for merit, and that of granting honours and dis tinctions for merit.—( Hear, hear.) The monarchical principle was involved in one as much as in the other, and there was as much reason for calling for an annual return of honours and dis tinctions as for a return of pensions. Undoubtedly the Pension. List had been laid before the House under the circumstances he had mentioned, but there was a great difference between such occa sional presentation and an annual presentation by Act of Parliament. He objected to the 1,200/. a-year, as not being a fair equivalent for the 75,000/. The aniestion, therefore, was, that haring this objection, ought he to concur with the Right Hon. Gentleman in depriving the Crown of the power of conferring rewards on dis tinguished merit or public services? He certainly should not. After all that had been said in that House from time to time with respect to the expediency of granting such rewards, the speech of the Honourable Member only showed him what rapid changes of opinion were likely to take place on this as well as every other subject. It only showed him what he must expect to be the consequence seven years hence if the course now proposed were adopted. It would be, he had no doubt, that the grant of pensions should be wholly transferred from the Crcwn to the House of Commons. At present the Hon. Gentleman would put a stop to the granting of airy pensions. Special cases calling for the consideration of the House world, however, from time to time arise, until the grievance would at length become so crying that they would at length be compelled to rescind their own decisions. He contended that the transfer of the power of granting pensions from the Crown to the House of Commons would be a heavy blow to the monarchical principle. It was said by the advocates of such a transfer, if it could be shown to them that the Crown would look out for objects of merit, they would then be satisfied. Surely after passing resolutions, declaring who are really the persons to whom it was intended these rewards should be extended, such an argument as this could not be maintained. The House had passed a resolution for the purpose of enabling the Crown to reward literary merit, and now it was asked to treat that resolution as a dead letter. The Honourable Gentleman said he would take away the Pension fund, which was subject to restriction, but he would give an increased means for the charity of the Crown, which was subject to no restraint. Wkat was this but saying, " I will give you what you want, provided you will exclude merit." It was said, to confer upon a literary man a pension, was an invidious Act. It used to be said, look at the difference be tween the English Government and foreign ones. See what des potic Governments did—they rewarded science—they selected emi nent men—and were anxious to pay a compliment to them by con ferring upon them some substantial reward. —(Cheers.) The argument of the Honourable Member was completely against Sir Walter Scott being made a Baronet, because he (Sir R. Peel) contended that it applied equally to granting a dignity as a pen sion. —( Hear, hear.) Doubtless the Honourable Gentleman would say the honorary distinction cost nothing, while the pension would put the country to the expense of 3,000/ a-year.—(Laugh ter. ) He (Sir R. Peel) kad always thought that when a literary man of eminence was selected for Royal favour that the whole class was elevated. He recollected night after night it had been stated that one of the great blots in giving rewards was, that it gave a false balance to literary merit. He would put it to the House, whether such was the fact ;or not. The House had passed resolu tions for the purpose of rewarding literary merit, and now it was to be said that the giving of such rewards was de rogatory to the party to whom it was given.—( Hear, hear. ) In his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion it was proper that literary and sci entific men should receive the aid which they required, or be honoured with the conventional distinctions which were established in a Monarchy—he thought that these rewards should be conferred only by the Crown ; and that unless there was suspicion of abuse in the exercise of the power of the Crown, it should not be ques tioned by that House ; still less should it be exercised by the ma jority of that House. ( Hear, hear.) On those grounds he should, as he had before said, oppose the motion of the Hon. Afembsr for London. Mr. CLAY said he should vote for the Honourable Member for Loudon's proposition, because he thought that on the authority of the Committee on the Civil List, at the commencement of the last reign, the Pension List ought to be separated en tirely from the Civil List of the_ Crown, and because he thought that the proposition for granting 1,2001. a-year, to the Crown for new Pensions was an injudicious, a crude, and an improper one ; at the same time Ihe begged to be understood that he could not go along with his Hon Friend (Mr. Grote) to the full extent of his argument, and say that no pensions should he granted except by this House ; still less was ho prepared say that no Pensions ought to be granted at all. He agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the power of granting pensions ought not to be vested in that Houses All history, remote and proximate, had shown the unfitness of the House of Commons to exercise the functions of the Executive. If it took upon itself the exclusive power of granting pensions, it would, he feared, often overlook unrewarded merit, and sometimes be led away by public feeling to an excess of liberality. As when Yorick, in his sentimental journey, was condemned to give " all the money he had" to some person who excited his companion ; being afterwards asked how much it was, he did not answer directly, but said, " I thought at the time it was too little, but I think now it was far too much." That would be often the case in the House of Commons if it took upon itself to grant pensions. The Hon. Member con cluded by saying that he should vote for the motion of his lion. Friend. Sir R. 11. INGLIS rose to oppose the amendment, but from the low tone in which he spoke, most of his observations were inaudible in the gallery. The Hon. Baronet was understood to say that although the Flouse of Commons might be a fit tribunal to decide upon Parliamentary grants, they were not competent judges of the amount that ought to be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the distribution of pensions, and that the merits of such pensions were not a fit subject of investigation in that House. The present Civil List, he contended, was a mockery of the rights of the Crown, and placed it in a most invidious position. The country, he had no doubt, would have sustained the Government if they had defended the privileges of the Crown, but they had yielded up the principle to which they had professed themselves so much attached, without satisfying by their concessions either side of the House. He preferred, however, the proposition of the [tight Honourahle Gentleman opposite to the amendment of the Honourable Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and should feel it his duty to oppose the latter. Mr. C. BULLER should not have interfered with this de bate, reluctant as he was to force himself upon the House, did he not stand in a situation on which he thought would induce the House to grant him its indulgence; because he was going to vote against every person whom he was in the habit of backing on his side of the House. He did that, not from any of those motives that might be imputed to those who voted for a Civil List, but because he wished to convince the House Sir RONALD FERGUSON said that. the Honourable, Mem ber laboured under a mistake in supposing that Mrs. Somerville was in such affluent circumstances as ho had stated, Her husband was merely physician to Chelsea rolpital ; beyond the salary which he received there they had no other pecuniary re sources ; and if Dr. Somerville died to-morrow, she would be left without any means of support. Mr. BARING said that he had attentively followed the Hon. Member for Liskcard through his speech, and s he thought that the manner in which he introduced and discussed the merits of the parties to whom these pensions had been granted, afforded them a pretty fair sample of the sort of discussions which would arise if the granting pensions were transferred from the Crown to the House. Some explanations, he thought, were necessary with regard to these pensions—(Cries of " No, no, no.")-not with respect to the individuals themselves, but with re spect to the conduct of Government in granting them. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Wallace had been re- rttsel a pension. The truth was, that when the matter came under the consideration of the Government, Vs name could not be placed on the list, because there vras no vacancy ; and if he (Mr. Baring) was not misinformed, an offer was mtdc to put Dr. Wallace in the same situation, which he would have been in ha•l a vacancy taken place, out of the pecuniary rneaus of th• Crmn, un til a vacancy did occur. Dr. Wallace he wai - informed did receive the [money out of the private funds of the Crown ; the other case was that of Mr. Coleridge. A suin was granted by George IV. for for the benefit of literary characters. On . that monireh's death those allowances dropped. They were not renewed in the subsequent reign; but as vacancies took place in the, Pension List. the parties were put upon it. for the same amount. The Right Hon. Bart, started with saying that he considered twelve hundred vounils was too small an amount. Perhars he (Mr. Baring) might agree with the Right Honourable Baronet in that. - opinion.—( Hear. ) The Government had no right to claim any merit for that reduction, as it took place on the recommendation - of the Committee. The Right Honourable Baronet also stated, that if the Crown was to be limited to granting 1,200/. a-year in one year, and it was not granted in that year it would not be granted at all; that was the statement. He had no rightto quarrel with that statement, but in a Select Com mittee upon the recommendation being made of the 1,2001. a-year, he called the attention of the Committee to the point in almost the very words of the Right Hon. Baronet. lie regretted that he had not had the assistance of the Right Hon. Baronet on that occasion, but he had endeavoured to persuade them to make a larger grant, but without effect. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded amid loud cries of " Di ♦ide, divide." Mr. HAWES assured the House that he would detain the House only a very few minutes. As his llon. Friend merely pro posed to remove the sum of 1,2001. from the Civil List to the Con solidated Fund, he felt bound to oppose him. 'l•he Hon. Member fn. the Tower Hamlets had fully stated his sentiments on the sub ject, and he would on the present occasion fellow up the same oaurse he had pursued in the Committee.—( Hear. ) Mr. WARBURTON thought great injustice had been done to the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for London. He objected to a Pension List of 1,2001. per annum to be distributed amongst literary and scientific men. Such a plan would, he thought, interfere with their independence and character. His firm conviction was, that a Pension List, subject to the imputations which attached to the old Pension List, would be less objectionable than one granted in the form now proposed. It appeared to him that literary and scientific men would much rather depend on their own exertions than to receive favours from any Court.. On those grounds he proposed to vote with his Hon. Friend, the Member for London. After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP, Mr. GROTE briefly replied. Mr. HAWES said a few words in explanation. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were— For Mr Grote's motion Against it ... Majority —lo2 (LEFT SITTING. ) COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen will hold a Privy Council to-morrow afternoou at the new palace. Her Majesty honoured the performance of Maeieth, at Co vent-harden Theatre, last evening, with her presence. Shortly before eight o'clock her Majesty arrived at the theatre, attended by the Duchess of Sutherland, the Countess of Mulgrave, Hon. Mrs. George Campbell, the Lord Chamberlain, Viscount Falkland, and the Hon. Colonel Grey Her Majesty gave audience yesterday to Viscount Melbourne. The Duke and Prince George of Cambridge, attended by Baron Kneseba"k and Colonel Cornwall, went to Kew yester day, and had a day's thooting, returning to town in the afternoon. The Duchess of Gloucester dined with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge last evening, at Cambridge House. The royal party, accompanied by Prince George and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge, afterwards honoured the Haymarket Theatre with their presence. Lord Melbourne gave Parliamentary dinners on Saturday and Sunday. The party on Saturday included Lord Lilford, Lord George Lennox, Sir Charles Lemon, Colonel de Lacy Evans, Mr. Langdale, Mr. Bellew, Sir Charles Villiers, Mr. J. Ponsonby, Colonel Fox, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Gibson, Sir H. Verney, and the Hon. W. Cowper. The dinner party on Sunday included the Marquis of Headfort, Lord Worsley, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Charles Blunt, Messrs J. Dennis toun, Duckworth, Bcnj. Hall, P. Mahoney, Hut•on, J. Parker, C. Fcrgusson, Mark Philips, R. Currie, Clay, \Vishaw, Hol. la=id, C. Lushitigton, and the Hon. W. Cow per. The Chanceltor of the Exchequer and Lady Theodosia Spring Rice had a dinner party on Sunday, at their residence in Mansfield-street. Amongst the company were—Count Pollon, the Sarilinian Minister, the Countess of Minto, and Lady Fanny Elliot, Viscount Duncannon, and the Hon. Miss Miss Ponsonby, the Lord Advocate of Scotland. Mr. and Mrs. Tufnell. _ _ . . Mr. Winston Barron and Colonel Maedourrall h d interviews with Lord (lcnelg yesterday at the Colonial-office. Sir Muses Montefiore, Sheriff, Mr. D. Salomon*, and Mr. I. L. Goldsmid, had au interview wit!) the Marquis of Lans downe and Viscount Melbourne yesterday, in Dow:dug-street. The Grecian Minister transacted bUsiness yesterday at the For..ign-office. Despatches from Canada were received yesterday at the Co. lonial.office. Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Mark Philips, and a deputation, ha 1 an interview yesterday vti , h the Chancellor of the Exchequtr.