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

THE SI TN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1837 HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Dgc. 8. The SPEAKER having taken the chair at the usual hour, the Earl of Lincoln took the oaths and Ifs seat. The SPEAKER informed the House that the sureties whose names had been given in to prosecute the petition against the return for the borough of Tralee, had faded to enter into their recognizances. Mr. PALMER presented a petition for, and obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the better and more speedy recovery of small debts in the parish of Oaking, Berks. On the motion of Mr. G. W. WOOD, a Committee was appointed for the purpose of reporting upon all private peti tions presented to the House. POST-OFFICE. General SHARP presented a petition from Dumfries, pray ing for an improvement in the Post-office. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petiton from the Chairman and Directors of the I3irmingliam and Midland Joint Stock Bank, praying the House to adopt Mr. Rowland . Hill's plan for the equalization of the rates of postage. The Hon. Member thought that the subject of the petition wes a grievance that ought to be redressed, and he should do all in his power to effect that object. Mr. BLFWITT s.id that he had given notice that it was his intention to move for leave, after the recess, to Lying in a Bill to enable spiritual persons to hold shares in Joint Stock Banks. It was his intention not to carry out that motion to th' full ex tent, and he begged now to give notice that it was his inten tion to bring in a Bill to render valid all contracts entered into by persons in holy orders. COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS. Colonel SIBTEIORP gave notice that he should very early after the recess move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and restrict the p-esent power of the Ccenmissioners of Sewers.—( Hear, hear, and a lauzh.) SOUTH AUSTRALIA. _ _ . Mr. LEADER, seeing the Hon. Member f r Lymngton opposite (Mr. Mackinnon), whom he believed was one of the Australian Commissioners, he wished to ask him when they might expect the Second Annual Report of the South Aus tralian Commissioners, as he had put the question to the lion. Member for Devonport the other night, who said he would make inquiries en the subject. Mr. M ACKINNON said the only answer he could give to the question was, that in consequence of the dissolution of Parliament in June last, it was the desire of the Com missioners to delay this Report until they could obtain further infJmation as to the state of Australia. Tr at information they had now obtained, it was of a most sa tisfactory nature, and the Report would be presented to the Government in the course of the month. As he was now on his legs, he would beg to state that the accounts they had re ceived were of a most favourable description. Land which was sold about a year ago for 129. an acre in South Australia, was now valued at Si. per acre. Mr. LEADER was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for bis very satisfactory answer, and assured him he had not the slightest intention of casting any blame on the Commissioners. THE GLASGOW WEAVERS. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petitiren which had been agreed to at a numerous and most respectable meeting, but which was signed only by the Chairman on behalf of the meet ing. The petitioners prayed for the repeal of so much of the law of Scotland as permitted a vexatious delay of justice, through the interference of the Law-officers of the Crown. The petitioners had been induced to appeal to the House, in consequence of the great hardship suffered by cer tain working men of Glasgow, who were accused of con spiring to procure a violation of the law, and were also ac cused of murder. Their trial had been vexatiously postponed, and he (Mr. Wakley) was glad to see the Lord-Advocate in his place, and he hoped the Learned Lord would be able to give an explanation of that oppressive delay. Captain PE CHE LL supported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting from which it emanated. The LORD ADVOCATE was sure that he could satisfy the House of the propriety of the proceedings complained of by the petition. A murder was committed in the streets of Glasgow, under circumstances which gave the authorities no means of ascertaining who were the murderers. An investi gation was made, of which the result was that the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Glasgow Trades' Union were taken up upon the charge of murder. The trial of these persons was delayed, because, according to the laws of Scotland, no witness could be brought forward at the trial whose name and description were not set forth in the summons. Every person must see that it was material to have a full de tail of all the circumstances and all the documents that could be adduced in evidence.—( Hear, hear.) When the case came before the Court, Counsel took objection to the relevancy . of the indictment. The Court came to the opinion that the in dictment was relevant—it entered into a chain of incidents which went over a considerable time. After that decision was pronounced, information of most important evidence was com municated to the public prosecutor, which he could not avail himself of under that indictment. Accordingly a new indictment was framed. By the law of England a man might be tried the day after the crime was committed. In Scotland, how ever, he could not be tried until full notice had been given by such a paper as that which he (the Lord Advocate) now held in his hand, containing a full detail of all documents and papers. The case was of great importance, and he should not be doing his duty if he entered into any details which might prejudice the prisoners in the minds of the public.—( Hear, hear.) But be could assure the House that no delay should take place that could possibly be avoided. --(Hear, hear.) It was his most anxious wish to bring this trial to a conclusion, as soon as the forms of the law of Scot land would allow.—( Hear, hear.) WOODS AND FORESTS. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from parties residing in Abingdon-street, complaining that a Bill was now in pro gress through the House to enable the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to purchase certain houses and tenements, which imposed no restrictions as to time, and did not give the petitioners the Usual power of appeal from the valuation, so that their interests were left wholly unprotected. Mr. Leader explained that these omissions arose from the fact of the Bill having been treated as a public Bill, and sent to a Com mittee up stairs. Petitioners prayed to be heard by Counsel • before the Committee. POOR LAWS. Mr. DUNCONIBE presented a petition from the visitors, guardians, and 1,046 of the principal inhabitants of a Union in Yorkshire, the name of which we could not catch, complain ing of a passage in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, which stated that the management of this Union is conductod on erroneous and vicious principles. The petitioners state that the Commissioners made this representation, which they contended is entirely unfounded, in order to induce the House to repeal the new Poor Law Act. He fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, and hoped that the Union would not be broken up. The petition was referred to the Committee on Poor Laws sitting up stairs. REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. Mr. H AWE S presented a petition from the Borough of Lambeth, praying for a uniform rate of postage, with a view to its reduction, as recommended by Mr. Rowland Hill. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. MA HONY brought in a Bill to amend the laws re lating to Grand Juries in Ireland. THE FACTORY BILL. Lord ASHLEY begged to ask the Noble Lord, the Se cretary for the Home Department , whether it was the inten tion of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill into that House, for the amendment of the Factory Bill. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said ;—lt is the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose a Bill to amend the Factory Act ; but I wish to apprise the Noble Lord that it will not in clude the clauses suggested by the Noble Lord in the course of last Session. DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER. Mr. HARVEY gave notice that on an early day after the recess, he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the respective rights, revenues, management, and offices of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. JEWISH CLAIMS. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that as early as possible after the recess he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to relieve her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND). Mr. SHAW begged to ask what course the Government intended to take with respect to the Irish Municipal Bill. There were many Irish members present to whom it was of some importance to know when its different stages would be brought before the House. Lord J. RUSSELL intended to move the second reading of the Bill that day se'nnight. He would fix the time for the committal of the Bill immediatel; after the holidays. Mr. SHAW would be glad if the Noble Lord did not fix the committal for an early day after the recess, as some of the Irish Members might not be in their places, and it was under stood that the sense of the House would then be taken. PENSION LIST. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise for the purpose of redeeming that pledge which I gave in the face of this House and of the country upon the occasion of my moving for a Committee on the Civil List.— ( Hear, hear.) I rise for the purpose of moving that the pensions charged on the Civil List of his late Majesty, as also those which, by the Act named in the notice are chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, be referred to a Select Committee. Now, Sir, upon that occasion, as there was a total absence of anything like serious opposition, I did not apprehend that there would have been more than a protest on the part of Hon. Gentlemen who differed in opinion with me as to the policy of the course I intend to pursue. Sir, it did not enter into my belief that it could have met with any serious opposition upon the present occasion. My Right Hon. Friend near me undoubtedly stated he wished to reserve his full opinion on the-subject. I admit that most par ticularly, but I also take the liberty of saying if, as I have heard rumoured since, there is to be on the part of the great Conservative party in this country a resolute determination to resist this inquiry—if they are resolved upon taking this course iu the face of the public and the House—l must say that I should have expected, on the occasion of making the state ments I did, that there would have been some virtuous in dignation manifested by them.—( Cheers.) Under what circumstances, Sir, is it, that by the Votes of this House we see that the proposition lam about to bring forward is to be opposed ?—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see on the benches opposite, Gentlemen whom, I am sure, will not be opposed to my proposition ; indeed it is a proposition which has been advocated by them as long as I have had the honour of knowing them.—( Hear.) I allude to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick and to the Hon. Member for Caith ness—( Cheers)—and I am glad also that I shall have going along with me the Hon. Member for Southwark. lam glad, Sir, that in the great phalanx of those generally opposed to us, there are many who will, no doubt, give us their support. Now, Sir, in order to bring the present question clearly and distinctly under the consideration of the House, I wish, in the first instance, in order to avoid any possible misconcep tion, to state, that it is my intention to make this motion in the precise words in which the origi nal notice was given by the Honourable Member for Southwark. I shall do so, Sir, without al' ering one single word. Why do I do so? Because it contains et once a recog nition of the principle of inquiry, and a recognition also that that inquiry is to be made with a due regard to the just claims of the parties.—( Loud cheering.) Gentlemen seem to cheer me, because I say lam disp osed to take the words of the Hon. end Learned Member for Southwark.—( Hear, hear.) Is there anything, I would ask, unusual in proposing a resolu tion in the words of a political opponent?—( Chores.) I take those words, Sir, because while they suggest inquiry, they put a limitation to it—because they declare that the inquiry is to . be carried on, subject to the just views and claims of the parties. I shall now, Sir, endeavour very shortly to state historically the circumstances which connect themselves with the Pension Lis., and with Parliamentary interference on the subject. Gentlemen no doubt are aware that the whole effect of Parliamentary interference his been an interflrcncc of restraint. Originally in early times, on this subject, so far as the possessions of the Crown enabled the Crown to confer marks of Royal favour, they were conferred without any controul or embarrassment — without any condition ; but as soon as the Constitution of England developed itself in i,s fullest maturity—as soon as it came really and virtually into operation —the principle of re straint was considered necessary, and was therefore resorted to. This shews itself, as Honourable Gentlemen are aware, from the earlier times of Charles the Second, down to the time of the Prince of Ofange. Gentlemen will also remember the great discussion which took place in the year 1780. Sir, at the time when the Parliamentary Opposition of this country comprehended the names of indi viduals whom we on this side of the House have been accus tomed to look up to with deference and awe, and whom gen tlemen who are opposed to us will not be disposed to under value—l mean the names of Sir George Saville, Mr. Dun ning, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Burke—then began the Parliamentary investigation upon the subject. Sir, in these days the first question that was entertained was to know who the pension ers were, and the amount the pensioners received ? ( Hear, hear.) The first attempt made in those days was to mark by the distinct interpositinn of Parliament, their sense of the responsibility of the Minister who recommended the pensioner to the bounty and favour of the Crown. On these principles it was contended by those great and illustrious men, that the pension list was a document which ought be laid on the table of the House of Commons. I need not go further than state that that argument was maintained, and was carried to an extent beyond any which it is necessary for me to appeal to, in support of the present motion. But it was in the year 1782, when Mr. Burke first brought forward, in that unrivalled and master-speech of his—the speech upon economical reform—a speech which, no doubt, I shall hear extracts read from on the opposite side of the House, but which extracts I shall be prepared to meet by distinguish ing this case from the case he then argued—it was at that time he brought forward the question of the Pension List. He then called the attention of the House and the public, first, to the principle of the application of pensions, and se condly, to the limitation of the amount. Sir, what are the principles laid down in the preamble of the Bill, or the pream ble of the cause by which the power of granting pensions was conferred, Mr. Burke, in the preamble of that Bill, states. I will read the very words, because they are so clearly stated, and they are so clearly applicable to the argument which I shall make use of hereafter :—" Whereas," Mr. Burke, " it is no disparagement for any person to be re licved by the Royal bounty in their distress, or for their great and neglected desert, but, on the contrary, it is honourable to be thought worthy of such reward, be it enacted," —and then, Sir, he proceeds with the enactments. Before this, there was the principle of secret pensions. There was a statement made that this principle prevailed in the time of Mr. Burke—l know not with what truth. But, that in other times those secret pensions were applied to purposes of Parliamentary corruption I believe there is no doubt. Mr. Burke first struck at the root of that corruption ; and next he procured the acknowledgement of the principle that pensions should only be granted on the ground, either of distress or of desert; and he limited the amount to which the Crown might go in granting pensions on the Civil List. This was a great step in advance—indeed there never was a greater step made in economical reform. I need not trouble the Hou se w ith th e i n t erme di a t e discussions which took place between 1782 and the times to which we belong. I have now to refer to the discussion which took place in this House in the year 1829. It will be remembered that in that Session Mr. Hume moved for a return of the pensions upon the Civil List, which motion was objected to by the Govern ment of the day, and was supported by Lord Althorp, on the ground that Ministers ought to be responsible for the persons whom they recommended to the bounty of the Crown, and that Parliament had a right to hold them to that responsi bility. In the year 1830 a demise of the Crown occurred, and I perceive by the resolutions which the Right Hon. Ba ronet opposite has printed, that he attaches great and becom ing weight to the recommendations of the Committee to which the whole of the Civil List was on that occasion referred ; and by the words quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet, it was decided, with reference to pensions granted previously to that time, that they were to remain undisturbed and undis puted ; especially those which had been continued even in changes of dynasty whereby they acquired a vested right by usage, if not a legal right. That Committee recorded that it was expedient to make a provision for those pensions. But, with regard to my motion, there are words in the Report which would make it impossible for me to acquiesce in the reso lutions of the Right Hon. Baronet.--( Hear, hear.) I beg to call the attention of Hon. Gentlemen te the last passage of this Report, which I find in these words—" These observations do not apply to any future grants of pensions on the Civil List, which should be given, subject to the understanding that they are terminable on the death of the Sovereign by whom they are granted, or on the revision of the Civil List." From these words, Sir, I hold, that Parliament on that occa sion adopted the principle that the Pension List was sub ject to the consideration of this House.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I say, if the Right Hon. Baronet is disposed to throw his shield over all previously existing pensions, it is not just in him to object to my Committee for examin ing into pensions which have been granted subsequently to that period.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The right of says examining into i these pensions, in the strictest manner, is clearly reserve , I by the Report—( Hear)—and it is inconsis tent in him to adopt the principle of this Report, and refuse to Parliament the power of inquiring into pensions granteel under it.—(l leer, hear, hear.) It may be said these pensions have not been granted with any distinct notice. It is true, no dist inct notice was sent to each pensioner, that his pension would be enquired into. Was it necessary that such notice should 't given?—(Hear.) This is a Report brought in by Lord S pencer, representing the Government of the day ; a Civil List was founded upon that Report ; pensions were granted i rpon the principle of that Report : shall it then be said that t ;his Report did not give clear notice to each pensioner—is i.t not to be held as bringing every one of these pensions distin stly within the revision of Parliament ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I say that Lord Spencer, against whom no im putation has e. Ter been brought in this House, and the recol lection of who ,n 1 is still honoured by his friends, and even by his opponents- --(Cheers)--I say, Sir, it would be attributing to Earl Spr nsier the basest of all disingenuousness , to suppose t ha t be could have adopted the principle of that Report, say .l at the same time protected these pensioners from the censer pences of any Parliamentary inquiry. There fore, Sir, I thi ak I have shown that the principles of the Re port of 1830 lead inevitably to the conclusion that Par liament, if it - think fit, can appoint a Select Com mittee to ins ju ire into every pension which was granted during the rei g a of his late Majesty William the Fourth. I do not say w. hat test should be applied to them—that is another question. —but I contend that they are subject to in quiry. I appeal - Le the common sense, the common unders tandin g of this House and of the country, whether, supposing even that these pensions •of the reign of William IV. are not sub ject to this rev:is ion, those pensions which have been granted subsequently to •the resolution of February 1834, arc not sub ject to the rev is ion of this House ? Is it not important to this House and the cn untry, that deliberate resolutions be agreed to ? Oh, but Gentle mien opposite will no doubt say you have had an opportunity of examining these pensions before the Select Committee aleav - e stairs. Undoubtedly Gentlemen will say Government &id not shrink from justifying these pensions. What an argunee nt is this I Of course the Government did their duty in just ifying these pensions. I was prepared to lay before the Con imittee, in reference to every pension, the fullest and most minute details ; but was I allowed to do so ? No; it was said to me, " You are about to have a Select Committee on pensions above stairs, before whom you can lay these facts—we will not examine into one of these pensions—we will not look at one of your papers." The Hon. Ge ntleman may differ with me as to his impression of what occurred before that Committee, but I will appeal to the other Gentlemen who served on it; and I ask the Member foe: Somersetshire, and the Member forLarabeth, did I not tender to the Commit'tee the fullest information with respect to every pension for which we were responsible? Was I not then stopped from doing so, and did I not state upon that occasion that I would not conceive that I was discharging my duty if I did not enter into those details ?—(Hear, hear. ) I was not, however, allowed to enter into them, and am I again to be stopped by the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet ? —( Hear, hear.) I say that this is not fair play—it is not fair or just to preclude an individual who wishes to give informa tion to the public in one place, and when he comes there to be told that he is to give it in another, but he is there again precluded by a similar answer. It may be said that it is a mat ter of indifference, and that no one charges abuses on pensions granted since 1831. It is true we then introduced resolutions into Parliament to remedy the acknowledged abuses of the Pension List, and they have been sufficient for their purpose. I ask if the Right Honourable Baronet oppo,es this inquiry, are we to be precluded from examining into the pen sions granted since 1831, in order to examine into the effect of Lord Spencer'S resolution, what is the intent of this proceeding ? You are excluded from the consideration of abuses to which you have on every ground of the argument an unquestionable right, for the purpose, and with the effect of shielding and sheltering the other Pension List, which does not come within the category to which I have adverted.—( Hear, hear.) Now let us see whether gentlemen are warranted in saying that no inquiry ought to take place into that list. I admit that nothing could be more unjust both to the Government which granted tlaepensions, and to individuals by whom they were received, than applying as a test either to the one or the other—a teat subsequently enacted, and having its origin in the year 1834.—( Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more unjust than such a course. But before I admit that to be unjust, am I called upon to admit, that previously to the enactment of that resolution there was no test at all ? On the contrary, every statement that has been made goes to show that a test was applied to a period anterior to the year 1834, although the test was not so distinct a one, but still it went as far back as the time of Mr. Burke. What did he say, and on what grounds does he defend pensions? On two grounds which he stated these grants could only be defended upon—the one was desert and the other was distress, and in the stasute of 1782 these grounds were distinctly stated. I admit that the granting o; pensions in ancient times was loose, and did not follow those obligations to a considerable extent ; and therefore I admit that these ancient pensions ought not to be lightly disturbed; but what is the mean ing of the Honourable Gentleman's notice, if he does not say that the just interpretation of that resolution referred to existing claims and rights ? I don't mean to say, however, that these ancient pensions—if they had been proved to have originated in fraud—l don't mean to say that they should be protected from inquiry.—(Hear, hear, hear.) On the contrary, if a case of thot sort could be made out—if it could be proved that the pension had origi nated in fraud or deceit— . hen the guilt and responsibility was incurred by the Govern Lent that advised the continuance of that pension.—( Cheers.) But does the present motion decide a bother a single pension is to be struck off or not? The present motion decided that whereas we are about to be called on to vote a considerable sum for pen sions, and before we vote that amount we should inquire into the facts of the case.—(llcar, hear.) The Honour able Gentleman will not think, that because I take the words of this moticn, I em bound to strike eff one single pen sion, unless good grounds are shown for adopting such a course. If a pension has been granted before the resolutions were passed, and it is shown to be corrupt, I am ready at once to strike it off.—(Cheer.) But again I say, that lam not entering upon this inquiry with the intention of rigidly prying into those pensions ; and in all cases where they are impugned, the onus of proof shall rest upon the shoulders of those who do so impugn the pensions. Ido not ask the House of Commons to condemn one single pension, but I call on you to enquire before you grant so large a vote as 140,0001. You will have to answer to your constituents for such a vote. —( Cheers.) I call upon you only for an enquiry. Go into the Committee, and let every pension stand which shall not be impugned upon the most clear and positive proof. The enquiry that I propose is to see that every bad or profligate pension shall be struck off—all shall undergo inquiry, but at all times having reference to the fair and just claim of the party. Now, Sir, if the House of Commons refuse me such an inquiry, it will be absurd for the House or the public again to talk of the responsibility of the Government with regard to the Pension List. In fact, the vote of this night, if against my proposition, will say to the pre sent, and all future Governments, " Gentlemen, you may do as you please ; you may fill the Pension List as it inquire into you ; the House of Commons will never into any thing that you have done"—( L oud Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) Well, Sir, let me take a case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say no—l say yes. Surely, Sir, this must be the proper time for an inquiry, if you are ever disposed to enforce the responsibility of the Government. How can you ever have a more fitting opportunity than the present? The money has not yet been granted—the money has not yet been voted to the Government; then surely if you mean to apply this test of responsibility, the proper time iee do it is before the vote has been taken. If you vote the money first, your mouths will immediately be stopped by the fact of your own vote. Surely, Sir, this is the proper time forinquiring, when we are about to vote so large a sum as from 140,0001. to 150,0001--( Hear, hear, hear. ) Why, Sir, this inquiry ought to be entered into upon the acces sion of a new Sovereign and the settlement of a new Civil List.---(Hear, hear.) I say further, Sir, that entering into that List you ought t• enter into it in a just and li beral spirit. You ought not to enter into it assuming that everything has not been done for which you cannot give a just reason ; on the contrary, if ever there was a subject for inves tigation—if investigation be useful for protecting the just rights of parties—it is that subject which we now propose for the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) I say that, Sir, with a knowledge of facts. I have had the honour of being in communication with many of these parties, and I must say that those communications, have, where pre vious doubts existed, given me information which resolved those doubts, and satisfied me that many of these early grants to which, if they had been given in later times, objections might have been made, have been justified under the resolution of the year 1834. For the sake of those on the List I ask for this inquiry—if it were unjust I would not support it ; but I say you have gone on ton long with mystery upon this subject ; and that mystery, instead of giving safety, has only been pro ductive of dagger. The calumnies that have gone forth against those who have enjoyed these pensions have produced more danger to the Pension List than any inquiry. I have ano ther ground for inquiry. If there are any here, who object to it—and I am afraid that there may be gentlemen who may be indifferent to the just claims of these pensioners— I hope there are not many—but it surely cannot be contended, on the part of the House generally, that the right of the owners of sinecure offices was less sacred than the right of the Civil List pensioners.—(Loud cries o f " Hear, h ear , h ear ." The one has his sinecure for life ; he has it r family. Here is a case in which you are called upon to vote the money, and yet the House of Commons in cases where they were not required to vote the money have granted a full inquiry which has been conducted with the greatest fairness. Did that inquiry, I would ask, lead to any injustice? No. Did it lead to the contentment of the public ? yes. It put an end to the outcry of the injustice of sinecures, and I say that this inquiry will put an end to the outcry against the pension list. Sir, I say this outcry is to be mainly traced to the secrecy that, up to the present time, has been observed on these mat ters. There have been delusions circulated day by day, both through the medium of the public press and other agencies, which a full and free inquiry are calculated altogether to remove. _( Cheers.) Then, I say, that on these grounds I may move for the enquiry, and I say again that if you wish to re li eve t h e Government from all responsibility, you will not miss the op portunity upon a new reign of enquiring into this su bj ect.— ( Cheers.) In what position will the question pr ac ti ca ll y pre sent itself to the House. There is a report on the tabl e o f t h e Committee which was h eld u p stairs, and it is essential to my argument that I should state the arrangement th ere en tered into on the subject of pensions. It is proposed in that Report that a provision shall be made by law to enable her Majesty the Queen to grant to the extent of twelve thousand pounds a-year for pensions in each year„ and From no more. That provision is recommended to be made, but no provision is recommended in the Report for the old Civil List Pensions. It is not necessary for me to make any other provision. I should have wished a provision to be made for other pensions. I stated to the Hon. Member for Southwark, when he and I had some conversation, and he asked me, " Do you mean in your Civil List Committee to in terfere with those pensions which you have now given ?" —( Hear.) I stated to him distinctly—" Ido not mean to prejudice the examination of that Committee in the slightest degree ; and I do not believe her Majesty will be advised to prejudge one single question." I conducted the Committee up stairs. I asked the Committee to confirm the principle of the amount it might be expedient to vote, but to reserve the right of a Committee of this House to have a full investigation into every one of the pensions.—( Cheers. ) I say that was fair play. I request the attention of the Hon. Member for Southwark for one moment. I have no right to complain of him on this subject ; on the contrary, his conversation with me shows he perfectly under stood the course I was about to take ; but as it has been stated I took a course up stairs contrary to to the course I took in the House of Commons, calculated to prejudice and defeat the very enquiry I had promised myself to undertake, I now take this earliest and most fitting opportu nity to give the most direct and also the most authoritative contradiction to that statement, as being not only unsupported by the truth, but the direct reverse of the truth.—( Cheers.) If one man could have been more careful than another to re serve for the future Committee which I am now about to move, the full and entire consideration of every one of those pensions, I appeal to every member of the Committee above stairs to support me in the assertion, that I was that individual.—( Cheers. ) But it did not suit the opinion of the Committee to vote a given sum for the amount of pensions. We have as it were opened a new account in the Civil List; and instead of taking a very large sum, we take a sum of which the public can judge practically, by stating it is expe dient that her Majesty should grant the sum of 12,0001. in new Pensions. Now, what I would say of the Committee is, that it would be a very unfair arrangement in respect to the other pensioners, if we were to cast them off. On the contrary, we ought to examine these cases carefully—we ought to examine them—l will not say with jealousy and suspicion—but with justice and generosity; and looking at them in that way, we ought to make a provision for the old Civil List Pension List.' Now let me ask those who oppose the appointment of this Com mittee, will they undertake that the House of Commons will vote the money for the old Pension List without any inquiry ? ( Cheers.) That's a simple question.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Gent. opposite had experience of the office I now hold, when he held that office with so much honour to himself; now, does that experience enable him to say that he can look confi dently to the hope of obtaining a grant of 155,0001. a-year in pensions, refusing this enquiry ?—( Much cheering.) Will you undertake that my own friends will support me if I make such a proposition as that ?—( Hear.) I take the liberty of saying that any individual refusing this inquiry at the com mencement of a new reign, when it is necessary for him to obtain a vote of upwards of lao,ooo/. a year for the payment of these pensions, or of such of them as may be approved of—l take the liberty of saying that that man must have a very slight knowledge of the present state of parties, and of the present state of opinions in this country— if he titinks that he could have a chance of obtaining that vote, if he refused that inquiry.—( Great cheering.) There fore I take the liberty of again saying, from a sense of justice to those pensioners, that the only mode of obtaining from the Parliament that which it is just for Parliament to give in satisfaction of their claims, is to exa mine into the whole of their claims on the principle laid down in my motion, viz, having a due regard to the just claims of parties. Now, Sir, I think this inquiry is necessary, in the first place to justify a large vote before the public ; and in the next place it is one to which so far as the resolutions of 1830 can apply to it, we are pledged. It is one to which we are pledged by Lord Althorp's resolutions, as far as regards the pensions of William the Fourth, from a revision of which we are not precluded by the Act of 1782, which provided that everything was to be presumed in favour of those earlier grants, against which no case of fraud or corruption could be made out ; and that a case of fraud or corruption should invalidate the grant of the Crown. I know not whether the chance of the acquiescence of the House in the present motion will be greater upon its being made by me than if it had been brought forward by the Honourable Member for Southwark ; but I have taken upon myself the responsibility of proposing it, because I thought the subject one of so much importance arid delicacy, that the Go vernment, which was ready to support it, ought also to be ready to undertake it. It should be carried on not only with regard to the claims of the parties, but also with a just sense of feeling and in a gentlemanly spirit, so as not to indispose this House and the country to give full effect to the recommendations of the Committee. It ought also to be entered upon with a determination to abstain from all prying into the private affairs of individuals.—(Hear, hear.) If this in quiry be not carried on in this spirit, it may be in itself de feated. On this account I thought it necessary that it should be carried on by the Government, and I think the effect out of doors will be better if it be carried on through our instrumentality. Now I took the liberty of saying, that I hoped I should have the votes of some Hon. Members opposite. I hope so still, for I find, that up a former occasion many Gentlemen oppo site have supported this proposition.—( Hear, hear.) I will not go through all of them ; but I find in the lists of the division, in favour of that motion, the names of the Hon. Member for Kent, the Hon. Member for Aylesbury, the Hon. Member for Frome, the Hon. Bart. the Member for Caithness ( Sir G. Sinclair).—( Loud cheers.) Does he wish to know when ?—( Loud cheers.) I also see the name of the Hon. Member for Stoke-upon- Trent.—( Hear, hear. ) Now it may be thought that I am inconsistent in this, and it will be said if you change your course now, why should not other gentlemen be justified in changing theirs? The difference is this : you had settled in 1834 the Civil List for the life of the reign ing Sovereign, and you are now called upon to grant 150,000'. of the public money, and is it fair or just that you grant it without a previous inquiry ? It is not necessary for me now to stop and defend my own consistency. But consistent or inconsistent, to gentlemen fresh from their constituents—to gentlemen with pledges of economy on their lips—to gentlemen with the abuses of the pension list on their lips, now is the time to redeem their pledges. We tender them the fullest and most complete inquiry, unfettered and unrestricted, into all the pensions made by the obligations of eternal jus tice—made by the obligations of kindly feeling on the part of the British Government. —( Cheers.) With these motives and upon these grounds, I move that a Committee he appointed to inquire into how far the sinecures and pensions granted under the two Acts referred to, having due regard to economy, ought to be continued. —( Loud cheers.) I have now, I trust, redeemed the pledge I made on former occa sions, of acting fairly and candidly on the question of the Pen sion List. —( Vehement cheering from the Ministerial side of the House. ) Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, if this propo'sal of the Right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer involved merely some consideration of temporary policy or expediency, I might have been at liberty to advert to sonic considerations to which he has adverted, for the purpose of enabling me to decide upon the course which it might be my duty to pursue. —(Hear. ) I might have occupied myself in ransacking the votes of some Hon. Members on this side of the House.—( Cheers.) I might have adverted to the pledges given by some Hon. Members on the hustings. I might have sought the means of avoiding a direct vote on this question.--( Cheers.) I might have tried by declamation and with a protest delivered in the most vehement language, I might have followed the example of others, and have tried to avoid a decision altogether—( Loud cheera)—but if this question does involve, not considerations of expediency— not considerations of mere policy, but of equity and justice— then, Sir, I care not how some of my friends on this side of the House might have voted on former occasions. I feel it to be my duty—l am determined, in satisfaction of my own feelings, and in, vindication of the eternal interests of justice— I am determined, whatever the bearing of party interests— I am determined, in order to show the sincerity of my own convictions, to give the proposition the utmost op position that is in my power.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I only ask the House for an attentive hearing to the appeal which I shall attempt to make, and to the authorities to which I shall refer, for the purpose of showing whether this proposition be or be not founded in justice. Before I address myself to the particular part of this question ; let me first ask the House well to consider what is the probability of profit which they will derive from the Inquiry ? —( Cheers.) Profit I Do not suppose that in using that word I mean the consideration of the sordid advantage of profit. No. I take the word profit in its extended sense—not the profit which a great country may derive from the conside ration of the saving of a few miserable thousands of pounds. --(Cheers.) But that profit which arises from the detection of abuse—( Cheers)—and the bringing to punishment of those who have abused the liberality of their country.— ( Great cheering.) I only refer to profit for the pur pose of saying that if justice is against you, what profit you are likely to derive. It is said the Pension List is unpopular. The gentlemen on the other side of the House say there is a misconception in the country with respect to it, and we wish to remove it. That may be all very well ; but where justice is in volved in the consideration of popularity, let me tell you that the resistance to justice will be attended with the worst of consequences. (Hear.) In some measures of policy that which is unpopular may en that account be unwise. Of pensions upon the English Civil;List, granted since 1830, there were 383 ; of that number only 58 had been granted by any Minister now surviving ; of that 58, 19 were granted by Lord Sidmouth more than 33 years since, so that of the whole 383, only 39 had been granted within the last thirty years. It was admitted by the report of the year 1830, that in consequence of a reliance on uniform usage family settlements had been made, and various arrange ments which it would be absolute injustice to disturb, and Lord A lthorp in 1830, admitted that he had instituted an inquiry into all existing pensions. —( Cries of " H ear , h ear , h ear .") Lord Althorp, in speaking of the general character of t h os e pensions, in 1831, when Parliament was more at liberty than it is now to enter upon the discussion of them, said I will now proceed to state the grounds on which I might propose to take away the pensions from those who own them ; b u t upon the best examination that I have been able to give to those pensions, I generally find that most of them have been granted from mere charity, and that to take them away would be to inflict great distress upon many persons. When you recollect that those pensions have been the subject of settle ment, and that few of them have been granted by any survi ving Minister—you will not, for the mere sake of profit to a great nation—l presume you will not proceed to cast a re flection upon those who are now in their graves. The !list pension on the list published in 1835, was granted in 1769, eluding a period of nearly 70 years. Will you say that the pensions granted during a period from 1769 to 1830, namely, down to the accession of his late Majesty, an interval of 69 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—Doe. 8. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool- sack at Five o'Clock. Lord DENNIAN presented a petition from Charles Pitt, praying for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt. The petition entered very fully into the subject, and ex pressed his opinion that an extension of the Lords' Act would be beneficial. He prayed their Lordships to pass a temporary Act, so that such persons as were now suffering imprisonment might be enabled to enjoy their Christmas festivities. — (Laughter.) He (Lord D.) was not aware that the House would be disposed immediately to agree to the passing of such an Act, or for such a reason. The Noble Lord desired to take this opportunity of stating that if he had been aware when he spoke the other evening that the Noble Duke oppo site was likely to have expressed so strong a doubt after he, the Noble Lord, had left the House, he should have felt it to have been his duty to have entered more fully into the subject than he did. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCOTLAND. Lord ABERDEEN gave notice that the Second Repoft of the Commissioners for Religious Instruction in Scotland having been laid on the table, he should take an early op portunity, after the recess, of calling the attention of the Noble Viscount opposite to that subject. REDUCTION OF POSTAGE. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the bankers, merchants, and others of Brighton, praying their Lord ships to pass a law by which the postage on letters should be reduced. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY APPRENTICESHIP. Lord GLENELG said that he had now to lay on the table some of the Returns which had been moved for a few nights ago by the Noble and Learned Lord on his right, and which he moved might be printed.—(Hear, hear.) In reference to others of those Returns, he wished to inform his Noble and Learned Friend, particularly in refe rence to the Compensation Return, that they would occupy a considerable time in preparation—that the office must add con siderably to the strength of their establishment to have those Returns made out, and that even then those Returns could not be made out before the recess. Lord BROUGHAM could not but express his surprise at hearing this statement. They had had a fortnight already, and sow they wanted six or eight weeks more to make out the Returns, in their nature extremely easy. In reference to one of the Returns, there would be three columns required, in which would have to be put the party's name, the date, and the amount —that was all. So that, supposing in each page about 50 of those (and there were about 2,500 altogether) he could not conceive how it could be said that such a Return should take such a very long time to make out. He hoped the Noble Lord would accelerate the Return as much as pos sible. He had himself shown alacrity, on his part, and those persons who were employed in the office surely ought not to be so far behind him. He hoped when the matter was properly represented to the office, it would be found that the thing would not take such a very great length of time. Lord GLENELG said he could only repeat the statements he had already made on the authority of the Chairman of the office, from whom he had received a letter, saying those Re turns could not be made out before the recess. Lord BROUGHAM: observed that perhaps, if they knew at the office that his Noble Friend had been so expeditious on his own part, they might be induced to exert themselves and not to appear to lag so far behind him. The Noble and Learned Lord then presented petitions from persons attending King's Bridge Church in the county of Devon ; the persons attending the Baptist Chapel in the same place ; the Refuge Chapel and the Independent Chapel, praying for the immediate and total abolition of slavery, and slavery apprenticeships. The Noble and Learned Lord was quite sure that at any rate there could be no difficulty whatever in producing part of the Returns. Lord GLENELG would inquire. Lord BROUGHAM—Oh, of course there could be no difficulty in that. Ile had no doubt that when persons in a department, or in an office, were asked if there was any diffi culty, and if any tirae would be required to make out certain Returns, they would answer in the affirmative ; but if they were told that the order was that they should be immediately forthcoming, and that it was necessary they should be produced without delay, then no great time would elapse before they were in a tangible shape. Lord G L E NEL G. —There was no question of that sort put. Adjourned. ---------"w • He said that he found in years, is now a proper subject for your inquiry ? The Pen-1 other arguments, which I will . not pay him the comPlim e ! it sion List now includes a period of nearly seventy years. Du- !of calling the merest sophistries. that Select Committee ring that period of seventy years, there have been eleven i the Report of the Select Commiatteh cc—ad—that the absolutely Prime Ministers of this country immediately responsible for 1 which had Lord Althorn at it . the granting of these pensions. The office of the Fir-n. Lord l contended for the right and equity of re a s s i i s o in n of the Treasury has been held since the date of the first pen. 1 Why, no doubt they did, of rev oing , pe i a Te' r :: g ia' urt continue, ene: sion by the Duke of Grafton, Lord North, Lord Shelburne, 1 particular description ; but if this Repor is means anything, it Mr. Pitt, Lord Sidmouth, Lord Grenville, Mr. Perceval, i means this, that with respect to Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich, and the Duke 1 accession of the late Kiae, in r esiPe e c u t s :o n f s w o h n i g e: i m t of Wellington. Of these eleven Prime Ministers, responsible 1 usage had been observed, those Pensision but, said the Re for the Civil List, three only now survive—Lord Sidmouth, and ought to be precluded fromidetsd• not; apt 1 to the grant the Earl of Ripon, and the Duke of Wellington. Lord Sid- port, these observations, however, mouth's tenure of office expired in 1804, and thus in respect of future pensions.—(Cheersh.) .granted revising 0f thesea c b e P e et f o ' I: r sn e i ° a t nn l g s e l of any pensions granted by him thirty-three years have elapsed of the Chancellor of the Exc eqt r? said, could it be believed since the time. Ido ask again, with respect to pensiens genuousness of Lord Althorn, an . rinciple, that pen- But whattlu relics was t a h a tn e o p granted by Ministers now no more, will you, who in 1830 that Lord Althorp intended to pr,clu th d e e future inquiry into refused to institute an inquiry as to the grounds upon pensions , when he himself established - But I ask, P did Lord Althorp which those pensions were granted—not with a view of sions ought to be inquired into? Wh:it did that Report saving the pensions, but with another view—of condemning fly , from his Report ?—(Cine rs h .) found existing, which upon the in the grants, and censuring the Ministers—(Hver)—will say lt those pensions whit . y he respected. you take advantage of the lapse of seven years? Will sou had been made the subject ot .fearmeil errantsements and take advantage of your own neglect, and proceed to the con- settlements of various kinds, shall sta demnation, not of the pensions, but of the memory of those what is the course now proposed ? ion propose who are now no more, and that because they cannot now ac- blish new reeulations ; but have e pensions should _( Loud cheers.) But if those Ministers were alive I should be liable to revision You may exe . rcis protest against the justice of trying the c ond u ct of Ministers respect to future pensions; that is a distinet sull'ect ; j contend that of thirty years ago by tests called into operation by yourselves. Lord Althorp, I, as the author of this Report, ensions pre -( Cheers.) But I should say that t o lay d ow n regu lations there is a clear and valid distinction between , Pnoosteicetotoe the in 1834 as regulations which ought to govern grants of pen- viously existing and granted under different d which sions granted under a different state of law, and under a dif- to the application of different principles; an I pensionsioyou saaY fcrent state of public feeling, pensions which were granted in can prospectively be subjected to what regu a o _ e affected? conformity with the views of public feeling and with public choose. But who arc the parties sought t . 1 . b .t.e: n rn e a c o '' y o f principles with respect to these grants, would be manifest and They are persons for the most part advanced , 11 it of these days, flagrant injustice.—( Cheers.) You must consider the prin- them, having no cognizance of the procee.ongs nce of their ciples that prevailed at the time these pensions were granted, place the most perfect confidence in the continue j3tit Althorn. the views and intentions of the Legislature, and the construe- pensions in consequence of that Report of Lord of that P c, andbustubsjaie Said tion which public men at that time took of the rights of the they looked also at other indicatiens of the public men r L e ti Gleer e Crown ; and submitting that these pensions were granted, time. T hey saw the Duke of Wellington and myysaend not as rewards of public service, but from funds fairly appro- linm office on this very question of the Civil List, Lord priated, to be granted according to the discretionary favour Grey and Lord Althorp succeeding us ; they saw n _ oei d of the Crown, then I say, that nothing would be so mani- and Lord Althorp with every motive which public m n e ee c t u t u he featly unjust as in considering these pensions to use a dif- have, if they acted from ungenerous feelings, to 0 ferent standard, and to deprive the owners of their pensions, Pension List to inquiry. If ever there were men whojtOtOtikosea which were granted under other and different circumstances. course directly opposite to their party interests it was The Right Honourable Gentlemen the Chancellor of the men, Lord Grey and Lord Althorn. It must be re ° _ l ; Exchequer has referred to an opinion of Mr. Burke with lected that they turned out the Duke of Wellington fo: respect to the principle on which these pensions were granted. Sir Robert Peel on this question ; that we were W s i _u ieit Mr. Burke was the author of the Civil List Act. The Right ceeded by a new Government, the Members of ° in _ Hon. Gentleman considers Mr. Burke as some authority for hail never granted these pensions, who bad n.et in the course which he proposes to pursue. I think the Right terest in these pensions, but who had a directly opponsieer..nis.. Hon. Gentleman would not have quoted Mr. Burke if he could terest, if these men acted from grovelling feelings, i oleo have found another authority, as surely he would not have re- ing these pensions and putting discredit on their s_ " ferred to the course pursued by Mr. Burke as an authority for sore. But what was the course which they took. 13Neot onlY the course which the Right Hon. Gentleman now proposes to did they present the Report to which I have alluded,Tratt pursue. I must first observe that the condition of the Pension Lord Althorp came down to Parliament and said :-- Wag List in 1782, when Mr. Burke proposed his reform of the he knew those p ensions were unpopular—he had a but tha t Civil List, was totally different from the Pension List now. opinion against the prMciple of granting them ; -„ no w There was then a demand for the payment; of a large debt having been granted, justice required that they should n ow on the Civil List, and there was a claim on the part of the be maintained, however averse he might be to the pri I ,l;__ Crown upon Parliament to pay that debt. Parliament on which they were granted, or whatever interest th - ! '-',, h ' e was then, of course, invested with authority in respect to vernment might have in putting an end to them. . ',.. as an inquiry into the Pension List, or an ything e lse w hich Right Honourable Gentleman—l thank him for ite - ra n,_ io might relate to such an extraordinary demand. There Is as asked some questions referring to the votes of the Ilonott.it°ll„ this peculiar circumstance at the time when Mr. Burke Member for Frome and the Honourable Member for t) ' brought forward his Act for the reform o f the Civil List ; but ness. But I have a higher authority ; I can refer to one ef i t e b i e t admitting even that the circumstances are the same, I say brightest pages in the lives of public men—the page wh en , you cannot find in the recorded opinion - of Mr. Burke any- records the course Lord Althorp took with respect to p,.. f thing in justification of the course which the Right Hon. sions. I do not now mean to treat this question as one tn _u„ Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Ex c h e quer, is now pur- policy ; of course on questions of policy public m en .h a l r suing. I find that Mr. Burke said—" The King, Sir, has differ ; but I now propose to treat it is a question whe b . os been, by the Constitution, appointed sole judge of the merit the revision of the Pension List was in conformity wit h s! ce . for which a pension is ten . be given. We have a right, un- tice, and, therefore, with sound principles of sound po i , e , doubtedly, to canvas this, as we have to canvas every act of lam not now referring to 1834, but to February, 1831,„_uns Government. But there is a material difference between an fore any arrangement was made with respect to the r_" en , office to be reformed and a pension taken away for demerit. sion list, when the question was as open as it would be. non, In the former case no charge is implied against the holder, in if the circumstances of 1830 had 'never occurred, and b ., the latter want of character is implied against the holder; in not placed the question in a different situation. when __,, the latter his character is altered, as well as his lawful emolu- 1830 a new settlement of the Civil List was found necessrto ment affected. The former process is against the thing, the and Lord Althorp had the power of advising the Crown a .. to second against the person. The pensioner certainly, if he the course which lie thought it fitting to take with respect.,, / pleases, has a right to stand in his o wn defence, to plead his past pensions, what did he advise ? Lord Althorn saido o _. possession, and to bottom his title in the Com p e t enc y o f th e admit the House has a legal right to take away all ths_ 5 : Crown to give him what he holds. Possessed, and on the pensions." I say so also. I say that we have possibyr: defensive as he is, he will not be obliged t o p ro ve his ape- legal right to take away these pensions. But Lord Altlw ih r e vial merit in order to justify the act of l e gal discre- went on to say, " These pensions certainly expired With Tig ht tion. The very act, be will contend, is a legal pre- demise of the Crown ; but through the House has a legs rir,. sumption, and an implication of his merit. If this be so to discontinue them, I doubt whether the House has an e o (from the natural force of all legal presumption) he would table right, for they have hitherto been always granted not put us to the difficult proof that he has no merit at all. the supposition that when once obtained they were held , ba t But other questions would arise in the course of such an merel y for the life of the Sovereign who granted thefts, s.) inquiry ; that is, questions of th e merit, when wei g h e d a g ainst also durin g the life of the party who held them."—(Cheebrich the proportion of the reward ; t hen the difficulty will be much This was the language of Lord Althorp—language w . 4 . greater. The difficulty will not, Sir, I am afraid, be much gave very great dissatisfaction to many of those whe a ' t - j o a less if we pass to the person really guilty, in the question of an ported him. Lord Althorp was then placed in the situ, r , unmerited pension—the Minister himself. I admit that when in which the Right Hon. Gentleman is now. H e was II I; called to account for the execution of r. trust, he might fairly ful of being in a minority, or of having only a small rnaP r ri t be be obliged to prove the affirmative, and to state the merit for and Mr. Portman, then Member for Dorset, and one ° 'bacl, which the pension is given ; though on the pensioner himself most respectable supporters which the Government the n j a ms such a process would be hard. If in this examination we pro- came down to the House of Commons, and, in ad dre" tord reed methodically, and so as to avoid all suspicion of par- Lord Althorp as to the course he was about to pursn i ' b y a tiality and prejudice, we must take the pensions in o r d er o f him to beware, first, that be should not be overrul ed ~! wa re time, or merely alphabetically. The very first pension to which limited ma j orit y in the House of Commons, and to ucwere we come, in either of these ways, may appear the most grossly also that lie did not lose the confidence of those wh ° ua ge u nmerited of any. But the Minister may very possibly show , the re p resentatives of the p eo p le. This was the laei, On that he knows nothing of the granting of this pension—that it addressed, but what was the reply of Lord Althorp? oil was prior to his time—to his Administration—that the Minister the sub j ect of the p ensions, I be g to sa y a few words. ' a who laid it on is dead ; and then we are thrown back upon the n ever conceive it is m y dut y as a Minister of this country, asos pensioner himself, and plunged into all our former difficulties. of the House, as a part of tire Legislature, to take ad el Abuses, and gross ones I doubt not, would appear , and to the ta g e of a technical p oint of law, in order to do what in .... o , correction of which I would readily give my hand ; but when conscience I believe to be unjust. The '_pensions in ques t to o I consider that pensions have not generally been affected by as I stated on Friday, were considered, and have a lways tha t the revolutions of Ministry, as I know not where such in- considered, as granted for life. It is undoubtedly true. s i o ns quirics would stop, and as an absence of merit is a negative b y takin g advanta g e of a technical point of law, those Peoere and loose thing, one might be led to derange the order of mi g ht be made to ex p ire on the demise of the Crown. et families, families, founded on the probable continuance o f their kind would be a strict le g al j ustification for making them EI 9 tos of income. I might hurt children ; I might in j ure credit ors. p ire ; but I p ut it to the House—l put it to the ceullt to I really think it the more prudent conrse not to follow the whether it would be a worthy course for Governmen t he letter of the petitions. If we fix this mode of inquiry as a take advantage of such a circumstance, and whether croft basis, we shall, I fear, end as Parliament h a s o ften e n ded relief which would be thereb y obtained could be put in basis, under similar circumstances. There will be g re a t delay , p etition with the discredit of such a proceeding. r i t t he much confusion, much inequality in our proceedings. But said this, I have only to add that I await the decision ° n ot what presses me most of all is this, that though we should Committee and of the House with the deference and re L s r i b s t strike off all the unmerited pensions, while the power of the to which it is entitled, and that it is my most earnest wis", ie as Crown remains unlimited, the very seine underserving per- I may be able to comply with any alterations or modifica`erfe sins might afterwards return to the very same list ; or which may be suggested. At the same time I must obs de , if they do not, other persons meriting as little as they that I can never consider myself as bound to submit to the oi sef do, might be put upon it to an undefinable amount. vision of any Committee or of the House itself, or of gl o be l This, I think, is the pinch of the grievance. For these power whatever, if that decision should involve in it " o the reasons, Sir, lam obliged to waive this mode'of proceed- deem to be an act of injustice." These pensioners. ° O O, ing as any part of my plan. In a plan of reformation it Civil List do not look to the terms of an Act of Par lla they would be one of my maxims that, when I know of an csta- but they looked to the precise expressions of the Report' w ho blishinent which may be subservient to useful purposes, and saw a great revolution in Government, and they saw thosfieved which at the same time, from its discretiona r y na t ur e , is succeeded declarin g in their conscience that they titioa liable to a very great perversion from those purposes, I that these pensioners were entitled in equity to the " n no uld would limit the quantity of power that might be so abused. ante of their pensions during their lives, an d that they, t his Then, limiting the quantity of power that might be abused , stake their official existence on the maintenance o ci tha t Mr. Burke and the men of that day declared that the p rinci p le.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said late lf Crown was entitled to grant pensions , not me r e l y as the he had offered is the Select Committee which had beenr oeat rewards of official services, but at the wish and favour of a pp ointed u p on the Civil List to g ive information with esrrio the Crown. If at any time with respect to the Pension List, to the pensions which had been granted since 1 8 , 34 i rt con' or any other branch of the public revenue, there is a distinct doubt the pensions granted since 1834 we re grantee ' Gees allegation and prima facie proof of corruption or abuse, there fermity with the new rules. Now that the Right Hon° oo the is no doubt that we are not prevented from inquiry into every tleman offered this information to the Select Committee ow l one of the names upon the Pension List—l say the whole o f Civil List, and that it was refused, is a most e xtraer u s r the them, without exception. But there must be allegations of statement for a Minister to make. The propositionbu; ,be corruption or abuse, otherwise the course would be perfectly Hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Harvey) was !„ a 1.4j 0 ' different from subjecting the whole of the Pension List t o Civil List Committee should inquire into the Pen s ,'%ating indiscriminate inquiry, not upon allegations of corruption or and to this the Right Honourable Gentleman objected, :aides abuse, but for the purpose of fishing out whether there may that he would reserve this question for another C 0 bee, ot not possibly be some existence of abuse. There are general and he thought that they ought not to refer the 5u,.. 1 v f°' considerations which, at any period on the first accession of the pensions to the Civil List Committee, but if se tue otte e the Sovereign, may be urged against the revisal or discon- ceedings were postponed there should be another u ° T oq uirY tinuance of those pensions. One invariable usage has b een appointed, and that he thought it better that the ' w e. adhered to. The pensions granted by one Sovereign, since into pensions should be reserved for that other Col l r i bee' the time of James 11., have been uniformly respected by his Yet, having held this language, the Right Honourahi°l Dist successor.—( Hear, hear.) Parties have relied upon this uni. tleman says that he offer e d an , inquiry before the Cill in ce formity, and these pensions have been made the subject of Committee into the pensions which have been grante d ./b bee family settlements ; and, therefore, whatever regulations 1834. I was not present in the Committee, but if mit tee may be made for the future, you cannot disturb the are been, I should have refused to allow that select C s o d lli s vitb e ie rangements and settlements which have been made by to inquire into those pensions which had been grease jai tel parties who hare made such settlements on the f a ith three years, in conformity with the resolutions v:brely. of of a continued adherence to this rule. But if these consi- House had adopted. This is the case on which I c ' o ent t ; derations had force in 1820 or in 1830, I ask the atten- rely upon this, that, if it was not right in 1830 o ",_ B .. c o irrO l „ tion of the House to this consideration, namely, how far have an invariable preceding usage to institute this lu c t l he pr' .o , these grants derived an additional force from the course according to the doctrine of this Committee and . tlf er pursued in 1831? Here is a point in which considerations of ciples of Lord Althorp, it was unjust so to inqu s tr e o ito o justice are involved ; and even if you differ from me as to con- whatever might be the question of policy, it p oll ci n! 5 J siderations of policy, I beg you to lend me your attentive con- just nor fair to institute that inquiry at present. et , affa! s r ; sideration while I attempt to show you that you are precluded assutne the chameleon hues of the vicissitudes of hum an F Ol . l'l t by considerations of justice from entertaining this inquiry with but justice cannot.—( Loud cheers.) That which.w;as JU' e, avieVl to the discontinuance of any pensions. George IV. in 1830 may be impolitic in 1837, but that whicn„ c bt/Og s died in 1830 : it was necessary in the course of the autumn of in 1830 cannot be unjust now.—( Cheers.) We r t ;, us i l ' bo 1830 for the Government of the day to propose a new arrange- in respect of policy, and the lapse of years may P re may or ment of the Civil List. They did propose it; and on their different position; but while I apprehend that o ,., e ipleS, L , responsibility submitted it to the consideration of Parliament. a change in respect of policy, or constitutional pr!"inortarc_"ii: A motion was made for referring the Civil List to a Select upon pensions, or with respect to privileges of the the essr n a Committee. The Government thought it their duty to resist or of the democracy, we are still unable to changeero 15 ,,, that motion. The motion was, however, carried by a majority tial principles and character of justice.—( Loud . 11 . ,,.. ai p ath ~ of 29; and in consequence of that majority the Members of if I heard that a political party—a powerful pehi,t i l ia ,, bli . 4, time Government retired from office. A new Government was was making, not a new settlement of the Cly,u, beard tied appointed on this very question of the consideration of the new settlement on an entirely new principle--ivit, l o succeed r' Pension List, and, of course, every person was alive as to the the Ministers who retired from office, and these h wh o to do * cai course which the new Government would pursue. We went out them, had both recognised the strict legal rig t aiscic s of office upon this question. We protested against the appoint- twin thing, but that they both said that it wtoacuelhduihnealuponstoeri ment of the Select Committee, but a powerful party over_ table to a peat country to avail itself of o lt .t vrs lega lly o l' iri bore us, and were directed to make the arrangements of the law, and that it was not equitable, thou, 1 1 1 1 , i q Civil List. Lord Grey came into office as First Lord of the strictly justifiable, to inquire, I should sayehtelzttsbutte-tb;:tbloi; Treasury, and Lord Althorp as Chancellor of the Exchequer. ought not to take place. But I Lord Althorp moved for a Select Committee on the Civil plexion of the matter has not changed do ve in 1 1 8 8 3 3 0 0 , m 1 1 1 , Y b: . ,:co o ll List, and that Select Committee made their Report upon the respect, that what was doubtful junstdic this is materia! l o isliv subject of pensions. ,That very Committee was appointed by unquestionable right its 1837. conti n e u notts * Lord Althorp, as Chancellor of the Exchequer; was pre_ view of the case. The acts and pAroceneditnhges of the •u e .„, of sided over by him as Chairman ; the Report was indited by ture have sanctioned a confiders i s , , Lord Althorp, and was assented to by the Committee. In- these pensions; the Go d the principles tber. the Report of the Committee, so appointed by the Govern- of Commons, all adopte listen to any 0 d t hes e ment which succeeded us, it is stated distinctly, " that, ad- Lord Althorp, and refused to who have col-dhow *ro t/. yerting to all the circumstances of the case, considering that are yourselves the parties of these_.:booriti no material relief to the finances of the country would be de- pensioners' assurance in the continuance himself an 41. ,!• 03 fOr entleman is ote el b a t rived, from such measures of retrenchment, and also consi- The Right Honourable that I do not qu s _ ev, t dering that an invariable usage had prevailed, and had been on this point • and I beg to h say e , vernrnen ,ct.ehe Committee, to. _. b y invariably observed, of continuing these pensions on the ac- the purpose of proving a c het g ght to expect that, nr _ coots cession of the Sovereign, the Committee were of opinion those parties had, at least, to bser -e the man to move l ust is ~ of op.ini.on',gbulatidto the d : w :i 4: : that it was not adviseable that any inquiry should be insti- Hon. Gentleman would nhoese pensions. But I ni t _ . , no sa eati! tuted into these pensions with a view of their discontinuance." ' mittee to inquire intoe How could the Right Hon. Gentleman refer to this Re- that the position of the in It was °Pen r 18 34, an 3 ht laced now. port, and say that it was an authority for the course he was the same that it is p because, in the yea. i A the f li to vs , n - ea rtmes• now pursuing?—(Loud cheers.) I may now proceed, hay- 1830, but it is not odeowwth the Crown, w ere r d ja ing adverted to these general considerations, to address my- rangcment acted Gentleman would have has ti .1 cg:;) that self to the arguments whi c h hav e been brought forward by Hon. Gentlwemasanmhimself and Lord Althor_P e s- fist& the the Right Hon. Gentleman, and I shall be disappointed, Time Right Hon.. uiry; but the Crow n ... ens ions; s in B ay' indeed, if I do not convince the House that whatever the / 1830 in making tPension List in 1830 late K in g', , You during the life ef r , t tieiva a s aid, fested a degree of intrepidity which is enough to alarm a it was impossible, The Right Ho . ' ell Right H on . G ent l eman has shown, h e h as at least mani- faith of Parliaa tilnt,cland has continued these he 1-' reasonable man. The Right Hon. Gentleman has use way to alter them. IstYrevision iri