The Sun. — London, England, 1834-02-19 00:00:00

and the responsible adviseta of the Crown having been Pledged to the parties who were pensioned , it would i l a breach of faith to deprive them of their pensions. 0 doubt many names were to be found upon the pen -4,10 bat which ought nut to .t— have been there—(Hear, be)pen hear which was no d en y in g there were names which would neither hive rec ommended nor approved, "t yet they were r ecom e me i nd t ed to former Sovereigns by their responsible advisers—and as such he would not in tthellere with them. The practice might have been bad - I, m e p r i ece dent might have been dangerous, and as far as in l ay, h e would scrupulouslyavoid the one and the °ther•---(llear.) He oijected to this motion, because, if its tendency would be to cripple the power of the ter eign to reward meritorious persons, or assist the -eje ntific in their labours , w hen those labours had worn them out; for such p r i a 4poses the power of the Crown not'be t OO th much restricted, and he really believed 4 0 greatest lover of economy in that House would aeepunt e" such a restriction. It was desirable on many sho t h o t persons connected with literary pursuits 4 ., j uld have %tittle means of assistance afforded them, when th(, u s e " e d ai t , ° .11stress byrlisease;o ' r poverty, or _any other hear.)f C „ that " flesh is heir to."—(Hear, ' O5 d •,• • it be in the power of the ,t own t euinin g age, s hould taltbi n ° r eward turn of eminent literary talent, and i ectst t g „,, e 'uld shed grea t er l us t re u p on th e r e igi ? o f a llipp y l .. "7:l and liberal Monarch than to make their days ht (llear, hear.) This truth every one would admit mould ° cif admi led it t o its fullest extent; but he cNWnof at o i ' e 'aro- time admit that such a power i n t h e samer should not be abused—(Hear)— ll., P ! r haP,, in' h d been.—(Rear, hear.) •:; c..ses it a of ,°t attemp t to disguise his opinions. The power granti,,`:°wl.l had possibly been abused in the mat v ter ers of 'f the - Pen 'i° , ls, upo n th e responsibility of the advisers th at ,o Wn for the tirivi being—(Hear, hear ) — bus be Prett:,i:t might, he would not deprive the Crown of the lei tcce 4 of granting pensions to men of merit, of Ne t a t a " , general literary attainments. If any case of cut, h u " lo the granting of pensions could be made t"ould bold] and honestly say that the gut ty 41'4.1_4, who gave y advice to grant them should be pun bPitii;nlne-ir, Lear. ) He li al repeatedly stated his own rr'tht-1)°11 thi s subi.er, and he would not reitera.e them Vr "ellt • He was ready to a that a ; tt r ,„ ecision. - "e i - g I;')l3ular reeling prevaile ! noon the, subject of 111 Pen"u 6'l (Hear, hear.) He w , 4s well aware that ta e name Pec"--sio(ner ' was odious ; and that any tuction 4 atur u. all ,• p i was one of a highly popula . r W el bu t • be still thought it otild deli With all these adm issions,. desirat,!e to record the principles upon which b e 4441 d be granted for the future. He thought it T,unjust to deprive any one of legal or vested ld kit t 4 k,, rze though t a British House of Commons . wou 'Xet e i s ` d a f a3' the prerogative 0f the Crown when it was !!! i ttio . :4, 4 ' ° o r f . t ,h i e , safety and honour of the State—for the i" tinder " arts and sciences, and with these feelings, 't reattiut.""e ci rcumstances, he would move the follow. tbe :7 4 ; by way of amendment to the mot i on of l ' hat ita "'Merl Member for Colchester :- 1 7 0 act, si aPPears from papers before the House, that upon t ° ,. 4 ,., ° fhs late Ma' ty th charge for pensions on the , and jlersel;nd e , duties, hereditary revenue of tti t g l' ia e 4n2 per Cent , stood as follows : A 74,200 Ireland Oaf Scotland percents. ah h £203,058 ; ,- ..tr —on the acc ess i on of his present Majesty the charges of ii +4ls .._ 0 n ature amounted to the following sums : 1 England ..................... ..X 74,200 i Ireland .................... ... 51,155 Sc otland ...... • 30,467 4 1 Per Cent 5........ .. . ...... .. 25,122 x 180,944 „ ' 6, , 'i , e d• ''' 015 Present Most Gracious Ma ,s je i s n ty te h te a s v t in te g t p h la e c h ed er a e- t ni t l'Posal of Parliament his Majesty tslt y Y revenues in the droits of the Crown an d of th th e e u A n dmi tted - Riii - R P w ell as the casual revenues, both w it hin ive re 4 " and in his Majesty's foreign possess ions, d t u w ti o fu t a ct: . ta,hl)4sed by whi c h the Legislature, t e : t ' ' S ign.ed a civil list for the life in of p l'dated fund, those and raised further charges on the conso i own and his Most Gracious for th'er()viding for the honour and dignity of the Cr „ ,risuPport of the civil Government. th e That under these Acts a sum of 75,0001. was fixed _as e b b ala a ti l-n e QU n n f . , o f the pensions on the civil list of his Mals ed tY, o t l : . w h , n e k - • the existing pensions being otherwise prnv . i f arrangement on termination of the existing inte r, : th. , e, t he wh(ile charge ' of the pensions, except the charge t o he ti,Lgieiflolist will become saving to 'the public!taandount 14 182 0, w r Irinbsi'n's, which is now 44,2631. below i below tliat sure, reduced ev entually to 75,000!. being 138,0581. the`.l2,h,aiet u_mier the provisions of these Acts, the efi es ar si g o e r s , ti e n t., c .s 17eus'enth\ai, e already been reduced, since the hat the en;tlse'st• Gracluus ("'j Illaitud by the „. r.ed.uction ofestthy,eheyxtpheensduitmuroef,lta2oc,clt4h9el,..,sa_un_iind bl , law. elvit lists Acts is progressive, and has been "A``` s,' That it is the bounden duty of Mahe responsible a t tl s v o is f er p s en of . "e Crown, to recommend to his '4)rts °lithe civil list such j sty, for gran . lt,_, , persons only as have just claims on the Jai beneficence, or who, by their powerful services to the Irs•. , by the performance of duties to the public, or by their the'_l4 discoveries in science, and attainments in literature an r,i 4r ts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sove iii‘cti. and the gratitude of their country." - he felt it hi gat Stated these retrulations to the House, i I not 4: 0 - 41 '7 to. state tile. the advisers of the Crown shoo , t, th ,'" any one for a pension . 11 1:0] t e ll " t ate, Or fur the promozw e n xc o e rlit f e o r r a u tu se ri lu , l ?.itr.e art%__(l-lear.) with that part of the spe!'eh of th vit°EBUCK concurred men o f e fr , in, 'lee i 4 e: 'l 'le Lord, in which lie said drat the b t ,!Y branch of art or science should he But if the 4 ' l 4ti n • fi . o f disease or poverty. protected from ,p(,nsit. g in uente _, Att;„ t'le advN,r3 of the Crown advised the granting of ""e to • 1 en h e would say, that lel t si ; unPl°Per Per'"'." ' The proposition of th " Neil V.,ert ought to he pumshed. - th ,e Lord (if it were agreed to) would go to pledg e . o r ' v g ' ° uNe not to interfere with what were called " legal ti,(l rights," even thoudi such " legal or t v o 08. d. tip Were conferred by pensions ; but to that p to P s : y th, tree rivr could assent. It would be monstrous .3 _ tl,, 'l'4, House could not control the disbursement of I,ll4Pulilic money, and it would tie re: tt ''os to say that it could not and ought not to e (if possible) still m x. l ilt 4 loud opinion on its tnisman .gemeut.—(H ar, hear.) l Noble Lord even %vent further, fur he stated that al si g , f qr ;4 enjoy in g Pensions, no matter how improperly con hc ,:---, 40 matter for what services — no I\ i , ,,; ll eell at all--he had a legal right in such pensions. us matter io eei, aliaia any such proposition be (Mr. Roebuck) must of c 14 pa t °test. What was the first duty of the a'4l t i h ' ns, but to take care of the liberty of the subject, 1 ,, , ' t he should not be unjustly taxed . for any purpose oi t ho, -I s ;'or, and inuch Inure so for the maintenance It urea Star Pal - who .. ;„ in , Bern phraseology, t pensignpetv, icf-rep n,,i,,n, were improperly 1 1: o ' s " (ltld tha t was not denied) Pe it was the duty of those tvi; 0 h:).,top Abe issue ' s of such pensions, and correct tto WElle1) ti 4 44ible Crwn or its ill ad . v r times. The isers—they might be 4 tY Of 'g,rat,-had sanctioned in forme . . kep a t"is linuse was to correct bad practices in p ublic Il 'eCi u , " r° econorois.s the revenues of the State. It to Ati, r , i , ,t Y , .kil 11,,u-se to attend to the public good w —to et it Li, I,• ' ' I 'Y eve t y fair and equitable means, and, hat the Crown'ing to the right (Sr to the le!t, to see 4iiii '` , 'nli its res pon:ible advisers should, upon allt of the .1)c their duty, (Hear.) Such was the du y, as f not b LeYot;d°l (. own s , a n d t o discharge it properly ‘,1411,iu thole po, er. The Noble Lord had . sta f t 'l e t d he t a n d a .. t , i 'Thi " f '''''''' iranit'l up on the responsibility o q iiiii; (j. U"' Crown ' but what was the use—wha i‘ t li t n h i- e 'titer i,l'ilLit the affect of that responsibility ? A it is gr, nl l ,.'i fil . " grao s a pension —the I) ,'"Y, to w homsome one elle,s. .'e,, I,ut th e pension is transferred to nothing—the the lir,'" for wllat ? The Minister tells no Pe,p):"; saY's },oiiii, and thus it has been that the however, in (11,atr,t`iv,e, }'orlon{' — and 1,:::—.,(1 with such a weight of taxation.. l'hieli ti' " oa r. ) 'fills was not the way, bf ~,,,,le puliiic ninney should be lavished --reward men that l 'bOl c ,i i'c"---reward men of literary attainments; l '"t I . je a l'iThle use of a rest nation 's Icriiitv:,lll.4 th whatublic moue g for some secret service (they bounty hu G t do ud LA hoo f tort), anil Len tell the people that wasd l'etl,leidi.4ilct° i nquire fur what purpose their money . .e 14, 0101 to b '''' tile persons on the pension list did any tin tt,,,,. tt. b " told , y , to es would not fail to tell it ; and wh n e g : goibe liesw°4l "r not, it was the duty of 'll(1110n ii,,ttlh'e 4 ' 0 07 of the peop l e was disposed of. side Wino......(fte--ethe House to i A „ rtsent should not be got rid of by a .t teas Como. „,-,) "4-) It was true that the pension Ls they were '"VeIY Sll l4ll ; but in this great country, where . liot,s, „:de4ling with the millions and hundreds of mil,- " le gal tigYhtt,l,l,iug else looked small; hut in talking of th • Pensioner, 511 (1: the people, the ,' legal rights" of State Pees i on that i ° , 4- I \ , ll " 4 he included.—(Hear„) He re ti°4 of his h.:11"4'1, . Lord should have given t he sane : Pensions, hee ' a - u s r u laul e and authority to the legality of Ministers 01 toad e' sr r44ted of the upon theresponsibility couterit h imself wi t h '' ; upon he (Mr. Roebuck) must now 10 untenable and so'°l"ly etitering his protest again r s , bear) An llo ti . Aitax --constitutional a doctrine.---.(El_e . ) much re ‘, poll the present pc . 11Elt (ivhose name we did not distinctly 'tient , re grets to differ with his Majesty's Goyetm• hov e . leig r , "d , b liVe a co nZl an. ver a n en si n ons granted by a H sidered that this "-, woott that Sove'rei gnwho P :anctioned them was no more; indeed, if it were not so, the functions of the House of Commons would prove an insignificant safeguard to the pockets of the eete , le. The people were now groaning under the weight of poor rates; their little pia. tance was taken from the humble in the shape of taxes ; and it really was to,: moth to call upon them at this season, or indeed at a•ty -t , .er time, to contribute to the support of titled paupers, who e family connections could otherwise very amply erovide for them. The people were dissatisfied at such calls upon them—they were justly dissatisfied—and he much feared that the amendment of the Nolde Lord would not reconcile them to a pension list—not bottomed upon the merits of the individuals pensioned, but, in ma , v ',stance., for services of a questionable nature. :dal support the original motion.._( Hear.) - Lord EBRINGTON was not actuated by any feelings of sympathy with the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey). With equal truth could lie say that he did not sympathise with those per- sons who were on the pension list. He saw much cause for reprehension in granting many of the pensions. He regretted that Ministers, in former times, had granted pensions to unworthy persons, although he would not say i for what purposes ; but admitting all this, he felt himself compelled to vote for the amendment of his Noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Lord Ebrington) was perfectly aware of the great and general outcry which prevailed with regard to the pension list—he knew how much of obloquy and odium would be thrown upon those Members who did not vote for the im mediate abolition of pensions ; but he confessed that he did not wish hastily or unnecessarily to inter fere with the prerogative of the Crown, acting upon the responsibility of confidential advisers. Having stated thus much, he had now only to say that a sense of public duty induced him to vote for the amendment of his Noble Friend. In saying this, he begged it not to be under stood that he was shrinking from any engagement which he made to the people—(Hear, hear)—in truth, be felt some reluctance in addressing the House upon this subject —not a reluctance in the honest discharge of a public duty, hut a reluctance to trespass upon the attention of the House, and that upon a subject of no inconsiderable importance.—(Hear, hear.) Upon the discussion of the ,mount of the civil list he had folly stated his opinions, and as that motion included the right of the Crown to grant nen:ions to a limited extent for the future, he was now unwiliin t 4 to say more. But since that period the (et on now before the House had assumed a very dif. ferent shape. The pensions as they now stood were sanctioned by Ac's of Parliament, and whether good or bad, the House bad sanctioned them. He trusted that the resolutions of his Noble Friend would lead to useful results, and that all future advisers of the Crown would take care to dispose of the public money for the benefit of meritorious individuals, and by so doing confer benefit upon the State. He felt strongly that pensions granted to individuals for their lives, and sanctioned by Act of Parliament, should not be forfeited or done away with. He also felt that if he voted for the motion of the Hon. Member for Colchester, be should be doing away with pensions which were legally granted ; and to that he could not give his consent. In making these observations he was only taking his share of the odium and obloquy which would attach to his opposing the motion, but as a public man he had a duty to discharge, and through good or evil report he would never shrink from its performance. Mr. HUME was quite surprised at the speech of the Noble Lord—pledged as that Noble Lord was to every system of economy by which the burdens of the people could be diminished.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Althorp) bad fairly admitted that the public money should be properly appropriated—to reward merit—to promote science—to encourage and foster the arts—and that those who fell into difficulty and distress from high stations, without their own fault, should have an asylum from the Royal bounty at the expense of the people. To the latter proposition be (Mr. Hume) could by no means agree, for it woul.l be taking tram the poor man his miserable pit tance, to give assistance to the rich, and the connexions of the noble and the wealthy of the land.—(Hear.) He was quite surprised to hear the Noble Lord venture to recom mend so large an inroad on the public purse as the con tinuance of the pension list would permit, and upon every principle of justice, economy, and plain honest sense, the present motion should have his warmest support. The Noble Lord was altogether in error in supposing that it was the intention of the motion to deprive individuals of their just rights. It hod been observed by the Noble Lord (Althotp), that he wished many of the parties never had been on the list. What was to be concluded from that, but that they had been improperly put there ? The Honourable Member, fur Devonshire said that Minis ters wire no advocates for that which , was bad. Would any legal technical sanction make good that which was bad ? Then would the Noble Lord answer in what way could that which he admitted to be improper be right for the sanction of the House? The Noble Lord had no answer to this, and he (Mr. H.) should be mu eh surprised if he had. These pensions were never to be given to any other than fit and deserving subjects. If some of these pensions were imposed upon the people by had men, who remunerated bad men for bad purposes, was it not proper to expose those who were thus undeservedly fatten ing upon the public money? If it should turn out th,t many of the items of the '75 000/. were disgraceful items, would it be wrong to address his M ,jesty, upon a know ledge of those facts ? Presuming that his Majesty was ignorant of the circumstance. would it not be Honourable in the House sod in his Majesty's Ministers, lowing made the inquiry, and found that many of the items were ob jectionable, to give his Majesty an opportunity of erasing from the list the unworthy objects of charity, and placing in it men more deserving ttf the public liberality —men who had distinguished themselves by their literary or scientific attainments ? Would not his Majesty he gr t tified that an inquiry had been made and thank the House for the advice they gave him ? The people looked open pensions as the result of meritorious services. Otte Peer on the list had already received 46.0001. of the pub lic money, and lie should be glad to know whether the public liberality could he by any means complained of as directed to this Noble Lord? His Majesty's Ministers were called upon out of regard to their own character, after having given their sanction to such an odious list, to admit inquiry, in order that they might make the amende ho nourable to the House and the country. If these were pen sions which ought to be removed, his Majesty's Ministers ought to concur in removing them—if they A re fit to be continued, let them recommend them to be continued. The inquiry, let it be recollected, would not take ft oin one man or woman one farthing--it would only ascertain upon what principle the public money was given, and upon what principle it ought to he expended. The public voice never yet cried out against anything so unjust as this list; it was an imposition upon public liberality—it was the fruit of a long-continued system of corruption—and such being the case, it became Parliament to make in quiries—to purge the list of all its corruptions. This would place some pensions, such as those of Rodney—a name which did honour to any country—upon its proper footing of meritorious services—instead of classing them with pensions to " my Lord this," and " my Lady that" —persons known to be appointed by the most corrupt Government that ever existed in any country. Such names ought to be removed from honourable society, nor ought money to be expended on such unworthy objects. Little did the House think of the manner in which these pensions bore down the industry of the country. He had taken the trouble to cdculate what this list had cost the country since the present pensioners were in it. The three first grants cost the country 590,8021. He should be told at compound interest. Tue country bad been paying compound interest, and the Ist itself exceeded 11,000,0001. sterling. If we could not find eleven worthy objects in that list, was it not disgraceful in the House not to take steps to ascertain whether the remainder of the names were correct? He called upon every Hon. Member who bad a respect for the honour of the House to agree to the motion, whatever might be the resolutions of the Noble Lord. Let us not be told that this resolution of promising to do welt in future was to prevent all the mis chief. if any man wished to do his duty to his country, let him vote for inquiry, let him purge the list of corrup tions, and then he (Mr. Hume) would be happy to juin with bim in voting fur a continuance on the list of those persons who could show the best claim, by literary, scien tific, or other services, to the gratitude of the country. Mr. ROBINSON said that the amendment of the Noble Lord consisted of a string of truism., which the House might assent to as a prospective benefit, but which had nothing to do with the merits of the question now before it. Without putting the amendment upon the journals of the House, there was sufficient security in the House itself that the abuses complained of could not b perpetuated. He would, therefore, tell the Noble Lord, with great respect, that his amendment was of no value whatever. The Noble Lord admitted two important points, which he (Mr. R.) hoped the House would not lose sight of, particularly as extraneous matter had been introduced to draw off the attention of, the House from the real object of inquiry. The Noble Lord had, in the first place, admitted that, legally speaking, these pensions had no existence after the death of the Sovereign in whose reign they were granted; and he had admitted, in the second place, that there were many names on the list which ought never to have been heard of. He (Mr. R.) rested his support of the motion upon these two proposi tions...first, that the Mouarcb, whose civil list was granted during his life, had na right hi grant perpetual annuities; and next that there were many persons undeserving of them. Had the pensions all h!en deserved, we should have heard no complaint either in or out of the House respect ing them. His view of the result of the Committee, if granted, was, that the pension should be continued to every person who could produce a reasonable *claim on account of public services. Where the claim was of a doubtful nature, hut where the parties bad been in the en joyment of the pension for a number of years, and, being deprived of it would be deprived,of their means of sub sistence, then the House would not strike it off. Was the list submitted to the House, in order that where there was not the shadow of a claim to public munificence the House would not take notice of it ? He did not consider . he motion as any imputation upon the present Ministers. rhey-stood quite clear ; but what be had a right to com elain of Ministers was, that they endeavoured to throw 'hetnselves between the House and the parties in order to" prevent inquiry. He could not see the difference between the acts of a Government which granted the pensions nd the acts of Government willing to throw toe whole -eeigtit of their power between the House an'l the parties in order to prevent inquiry. He should be most sincerely glad if the Noble Lord was left in a minority to-night. tle, himself, could have no doubt whatever that this was a it subject for Parliamentary inquiry. Without avowing illy hostility to the Government, he should give his cordial support to the present motion. Mr. S. RICE observed that the Hon. Member . for Middlesex had said that he sought no economy inconsistent •vith honour. Neither did Ministers. If he (Mr. Rice) could not make out a case against the Hon.Memberenot only on the principle of law, but of justice, then he should be satisfied with the alternative of the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he should be in the minority. A ques tion of this description was not to be discussed on the ground of pecuniary saving. It was a matter of prin ciple, wh,ther it were a large sum or a small sum. A discussion as to compound interest, though it did not pro duce any effect in the House, did produce a most enorm eus effect out• of doors. M•iny of the items in this list were of very considerable antiquity. That fact being Ad mitted, and it being admitted that the person responsible fur granting them was no more, how could it be contended that the present Government was answerable for many of those pensions ? The legitimate inference was, that, it Government had come forward now, in a case which was admitted to a certain extent to be unpopular, they were not defending any interest of their own; but that if they took the course they did, they took it solely and distinctly from a sense of public duty. The Hon. Gentleman had contrived, by his suggestions, to raise up every impu tation that it was possible for the mind of man to imagine. He (Mr. S. Rice) should vote on the present occasion as be had told his constituents he should vote if the question came before the House. The question was put to him at the hustings, " How would you deal with the pension list?" His reply was— " I do not defend the pension list, but if you ask me how, in dealing with any abuse, I can best attain the object I have in view of correcting it, I answer, that I look back in a way which marshals the sympathy of man kind against you, and may become an impediment to your proceedings." He told them that he felt confident that those under whom he bad the honour to act would propose no grant of money that they did not believe ne cessary for the public service ; but if they did so propose he should vote against it,—that he was not prepared to take away that which had been already conferred upon individuals by the law of the land, because he thought it would be unjust. Were not these pensions conferred by the law of the land ? If they were, was net security given by the law of the land.—(No, no.) They had the fullest security that it was in the power of the Legislature to grant. This list was in the hands of Members of the House a long time prior to the settlement of the civil hat, and the Consolidated Fund Act. Every Gentleman who voted for the Civil List Act knew every one of these names upon which observations had been made. Every Member knew before these Acts passed every one objection that could now be r.iised, and it was with the knowledge of these objections that the civil list had been sanctioned by the House. It was an open question till the law was passed. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was not an open question when the law was passed, and it was no louger an open question unless, indeed, Honourable Members were pre pared to move, for not only the removal of the names, but a censure on Government for passing the Act. He would compare the proposed amount of the civil list with the amount during the year of favourable comparison for the Hon. Member for Middlesex—viz., 1792. The civil list then was 208,9001. Upon the actu l receipt of present pensions, as compared with the actual receipt of that day, the saving was 40,1001., but time actual saving which was to be accomplished by his Noble Friend's proposition amounted, as compared with that which was admitted to be a most economical year, to 133,9001. Even during the present feign what had been the effect of the prin ciples of his Noble Friend's measures? The benefit of those measures bad been strikingly manifested within a few years, for since November, 1830, there had been a sav ing of 12,0001. a year, and the contingent saving, as com pared with 1820, would be 138,000/. He believed nobody objected to the amount of pensions fixed by the t C o iv b i e l wLii:ettAiecrt.theTibeeduocntily Lshould difference of f be made at the risk of sacrificing existing interests, or wh eth e r it opinioniru rn appeareded a tely, was not more expedient, as well as more just, to wait until the amount should be gradually reduced by the course of nature? Now he would ask, what did gentle men propose to accomplish by going into this Committee, except, indeed, an object which he would not suppose any Member of that House to have in view, namely, the gra tification of an undue curiosity, and the prosecution of a vexatious inquiry into the matters of private life? He might be told that it was right the House should go to the origin of these grants, and trace them back to the responsible advisers of the Cro n ? But how or by what means were they to attain this end ? Were they to go into an examination of men's private affairs ? What was to be the course of their inquiry, or how were they to con duct it ? He could not imagine any inquiry more disagreeable and painful.—(Cries of " Hear," and laughter.) He did not mean to those who were tobe the objects of it, although to them also, no doubt it must be extremely painful; but he would put it to those who might be candidates for the future chair how it could be gratifying to their feelings to preside at such an in quisition. In no case was mention made of any consideration for these grants, except the will and pleasure of the Crown. But was not the principle this, that Parliament gave a certain sum of money to be disposed of by the Crown ? And although the Ministerial responsibility was the same for the advice given to the Crown upon this as upon other questions of public policy, still the principle of the votes was that they were to be acts flowing from the Crown. The gentlemen opposite did not seem to agree among themselves. The results of the arguments of the Hon. Member for Middlesex would amount to this — that, inasmuch as the list was divided according to the letters of the alphabet, if his suggestions were acted upon, all those names which began with letters following the letter H would be subject to revision, while the others would be exempt. He (Mr. Rice) contended that such a scrutiny ought not to be applied to any, and therefore it was that he should resist the in quiry. It should be recollected that greater limitations had been made by the House of Commons, in the Acts to which he had referred, than in 1792, at the time of Mr. Burke's Acts, than at the late King's accession, or, in short, than at any former period. It was in the power of the House, at that time, to have refused to give that civil list; but, having given it, he would ask if they were, within two years, to revise what they had so solemnly and deliberately done ? The Civil List Act contained, in its preamble, an assurance to his Majesty that his faithful Commons, with hearts full of duty and gratitude ' for his surrender of his hereditary revenues, derived from droits of the Crown and other sources, were desirous to make ample provisions for him by charges upon the consolidated fund, and other Acts to be passed ; and that they would fur , nish a competent revenue for defraying the expenses of the Government and supporting the honour and dignity of the , Crown. Up to that period it was open to any Member to ob ject to the measures which were proposed; but Parliament having sanctioned the arrangements that were then made, let it not now, within two years, proceed to revise and annul its own act. It had been said that the reformed Parliament would forget its engagements. That insinuation was repelled, and he trusted the vote of to-night would prove the truth of the denial. The Hon. mover had referred to Mr. Burke, but there was one sentence of that eminent man so applicable to the present subject—so much more powerful than any thing that he (Mr. Rice) could advance, which put the principle so clearly, and enforced it so forcibly, that he would beg to call the attention of the House to it. The passage which he was about to quote was from Mr. Burke's speech upon economical reform, and the point which he discussed was, whether it was ' expedient, in endeavouring to accomplish any given economi cal object, to proceed to immediate acts at the sacrifice of ex ' isting interests, or whether it was not more wise, as well as more just, to adopt a prospective principle, and to leave it to time to carry the measures which were deemed desirable ? Speaking of places in the State, which were analogous to pen sions, being frequently given as rewards for services, although in some instances they were bestowed where no such claim ex isted, Mr. Burke said— ', Those places, and others of the same kind, that are held for life, have been considered as property. They have been given As a provision for children ; they have been the subject of family settlements; they have been the security of creditors. What the law respects shall be sacred to me. If the barriers of law should be broken down upon ideas of convenience—even of pub lic convenience—we shall have no longer any thing certain among us If the discretion of power is once let loose upon pro perty, we can be at no loss to determine whose piower and what discretion it is that will prevail at last. It would be wise to at- tend upon the order of things, and not to attempt to outrun the slow but smooth and even course of nature. There are occa sions, I admit, of public necessity, so vast, so clear, so evident, , that they supersede ail laws. Law, being only made for the benefitatl h w o h f i e the m aycommunit y, comprehend h can ntot the total a n of h any ittseparts public interest. resist e a r edset n. Fo be sure, no law can set itself up against the cause and reason of all I w but such a case very rarely happens; and this most certainly is not such a case. The mere time of the reform is by no means worth the sacrifice of a principle of law. Individuals pass like shadows, but the commonwealth is fixed and stable. The difference, therefore, of today and tomorrow, which to private people is immense, to the State is nothing. At Any rate it is better, if possible, to reconcile our economy with our laws than to set them at variance, a quarrel which, in the end, must be destructive to both." Was there any analogy between the cases—were these pensions protected by law ?—(" No," from Sir S. Whalley.) What! they were not protected by law? Now let the House see upon what grounds it was about to vote. The Hon. Member for Marylebone said the pensions were not protected by law. He, as one of the constituents of the Hon. Member, should be glad to ask his representative how they could be altered but by Act of Parliament ? He had a great regard for the parish in which be resided, and he must congratulate the new constituency upon the success of their representative. The Hon. Member said the pensions could be altered otherwise than by Act of Par liament. He should like to know how, without an Act of Par liament, except by repealing it, and how could it be repealed except by another Act ? He said, therefore, that these pensions were protected by law. There was not one of the grants which r was not before Parliament when they were last made. The House had, therefore, granted them with its eyes open. It had deliberately passed two Acts, and now it was called upon by the Hon. Member for Colchester to go into a fruitless and painful, nay, he would say, a disgusting inquiry.—(Loud cries of" Hear," and laughter from the Opposition side.) He would repeat the word, and say that such an inquiry must be painful to the good feelings of all mankind. Suppose, for instance, that the inquiry related to military offices. The House was to call .upon the parties to forfeit their rank, which they had a legal right to enjoy, or to make out a case to show their right and claim. That was a species of inquiry which he said would be most painful and revolting. The distinction taken by his Noble Friend was perfectly unattainable consistently with the course pursued by Government. He participated in the regret expressed by his Noble Friend that there were many persons oil the pension list who, although originally they had rightfully obtained their pensions, yet having risen to the possession of superior wealth, still retained those pensions which they could so well dispense with. But that was a matter of taste.—(A laugh.) They had no right to force a man to do an act of ge nerosity against his will, although they would praise him if he did so. But he held in his hand two instances of a different nature from such as he had just alluded to. One of the persons was a gentleman who had been much observed upon in the public prints and in that House. He had received a letter from that gentleman, which was almost of a private nature, but as his name had been mentioned in the way of reproach, he thought it but justice to him to mention a fact which redounded highly to his honour. The gentleman of whom he spoke was Mr. Charles Bathurst, and his letter was to the following effect:— " Sydney-park, Gloucester. July 21, 1832. My dear Sir,—There are,two pensions, together amounting to 6001. a year clear, held by myself and my wife, under the sign manual, which were granted by the late King in compensation for my surrendering the patent office of Receiver-General of the I)uchy of Lancaster, which my father, the Chancellor of that tuchy, had conferred on me in 1819. In the altered situation in which I am placed by his death, and succeeding to the property which he possessed, I think it proper to abandon those pensions as I should have done the office had it still subsisted in my hands. As the portion of the pension which at my request was conferred on my wife stands in the names of trustees, there may be some difficulty in point of form about that portion,as to which I will make inquiries ; but in substance it is the wish of both to resign them from the present time, including the July quarter. —Believe me very sincerely yours "CHARLES BATHURST." —(Cheers.) The way in which the other resignation had been made was so . simple and handsome that it was due to the indi vidual to state it. If any pension were entitled to respect on the score of the services of the individual in whose honour it was granted, he was sure the pension to the brother of Sir John Moore would be regarded in that light. He had had the honour of r ving at the Treasury the following letter from Mr. James Clarick Moore " No. 1, Saville-street, Jan. 16, 1834. " Sir—l do myself the honoui of addressing you, Co request that you will inform the Right Hon. the Lords of the Treasury that I resign the pension of 1,000/. a year, which was most gra ciously granted to me by his Majesty King George lII.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and most humble ser - vant, "JAMES CARRICK MOORE. " To the Hon. Thomas Spring Rice, &c." - (Cheers.) —In the Treasury, minute care had been taken to re cord not only the generosity of the sacrifice, but the great merits for which the pension had been granted. He would say that a forcible inquiry, such as was now suggested, would put an end to such cases as these, or if resignations were made in consequence of it, they would lose all their grace and beauty. He thought that no case had been made out for inquiry, but that the House had before it all that was necessary in his Noble Friend's statement of the saving already made, and in the as. surance now authoritatively given of the real principles upon which that saving was to be augmented. Would gentlemen deny the propriety of the Crown interposing its liberality, as it had done, to succour a man, eminent for his scientific attain ments, who might indeed be called the Newton of his time, and who, at the age of nearly eighty years, was obliged to toil and labour as the usher at a school, and might have died in want, if he had not received such aid ? The resolutions recog nised the power of such interposition, but limited the extent to which it should be exercised by the Crown. Considering, then, that an inquiry would be contrary to an existing compact, I that it would lead to a fruitless inquiry, and that, without a for cible violation of existing rights, it could lead to no practical results, he should oppose the motion. Sir S. WHALLEY admitted the solemnity of the compact between that House and the Crown, and acknowledged that when the Crown gave up its hereditary revenues, the House in return gave to the Crown the civil list as it was settled by the Acts referred to. But this motion would not take from the Crown the pension list which was at its disposal. It only called for information as to how the 75,000/. had been disposed of by the advice of the Ministers of the Crown. The pensions were granted during the will and pleasure of the Crown, and, there fore, he said that they might, without any violation of com pact, be withdrawn at the will and pleasure of the Crown, on the expression of the opinion of Parliament to that effect. He called upon the House, as it respected the honour and dignity of the Crown, to grant this motion. The Noble Lord had ad. mated that the pension list had fallen into such bad odour, that those whose names were upon it were looked upon with great jealousy by the people. In what position, then, would the House place all those parties, by granting this motion, but to make them objects of dislike and disgrace, since the public could notdistinguish between the pensions which were granted for services rendered to the country, and those for which no such services had been performed ? Let his Majesty's Ministers re- member that this was the rock upon which the former Admi nistration had split. Although they might have a majority in the House, they might be assured that out of doors their po. pularity would be cut from under them, and they would de servedly fall in public estimation. Believing that no rights would be violated by an inquiry, he should support the motion. Sir ROBERT INGLIS regretted that the Noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had not taken a higher ground of op position to this motion than that upon which his amendment was founded. The House, he contended, had not merely made a compact with the Crown, with respect to the civil list, but it had gone the length of limiting its amount to one.third of what had been previously at the disposal of the Crown, and it was unfair, therefore, to hold the Crown responsible for the dis. tribution of a sum thus limited. Those pensions might have been granted as a relief to extreme personal distress, or as a remuneration to eminent scientific men, or for any other reason which might have been satisfactory to the Crown. The Hon. Member for Colchester had said that if any case of urgent personal distress could be made as a cause for the granting of any one or more of these pensions, he was sure the House of Commons would sanction such cases ; but, for his own part, from all he remembered from the earliest times down to the period when the French Chamber of Deputies refused to sanction the pensions to the widows of the heroes of July, he felt inclined to distrust the liberality of any public body.— (Hear, hear, hear.) He felt confident that no Minister whatever would have refused the pensions to the two persons whose claims had been rejected by the French Chamber of Deputies. If the proposition of the Hon. Member for Col chester should be adopted, the consequence would be that pen sions would be granted by the faction predominating one day, and withheld by the faction of the day succeeding.—(Hear, hear.) This function of the Crown of distributing the civil list as it chose was coeval with the Monarchy itself, and he believed it was a function which had never been exercised with so much moderation and proper discrimination as at the present time.— (Hear, hear.) He believed that most of the cases in the pen sion list were cases of actual distress—a distress aggravated by the publicity given to their names.—(Hear, hear.) Until very recently, the distribution of pensions was the exclusive right of the Crown. He thought it was quite sufficient that the House had now brought the exercise of this right of the Crown within the control of public opinion. Indeed he re gretted this, insomuch as it tended to trench upon the private liberality of the Crown. If the pension list, as had been con tended, was as much a part of the public money as any other portion, upon what principle, he would ask, had the civil list been granted ? He should contend that it was a compact between the Crown and the people, and, if so, that House had no right to exercise such a control over its appropriation—a control, moreover, which could never be exercised safely or justly by a popular assembly. He thought that if the Noble Lord had resisted the motion of the Hon. Member for Col• chester by a direct negative, he would have received as large a support as his amendment was now likely to receive, and though he (Sir R. Inglis) should have been better pleased if he had met the motion with a direct negative, yet, as the least of the two evils, he should vote in favour of his amendment. Lord MORPETH said it was a principle which could not be denied that no pension should be granted except in return for services to the public, or merits of an extraordinary nature. When he applied this principle to the pension list before him, he did not want the Hon. Member for Colchester to inform him that there were many names in that list whose introduction to it was the reverse of merit or of any sort of service to the State.—(Hear, hear.) 'Why, then, was he about to refuse his vote to the motion of the Hon. Member ? It was not because of any allegiance he owed to the present Ministers, for it was the case with him as he believed it was with them, that he bad no sort of connexion, poiltical or private, with a single name upon that list. Neither had he any feelings in their favour but the abstract feelings of pity—the tragic emotion which might affect him if they were to be turned into the streets to. morrow. The question, however, was one of importance as to the future. The House was bound by two Acts of Parliament, which had granted a reduced amount of pensions to be at the disposal of the Crown. Each ofthese pensions was considered by the possessor as a grant for life, and, in truth, the weight of odium rather attached itself to those who, by their careless ness and extravagance, sanctioned the abuses complained of, than to the parties who received the benefit. As, however, it was impossible to contemplate any recurrence of such abuses in the present altered and improved state of the country, so, he thought, a rigorous investigation into this part of the his tory of former times was unnecessary, particularly as there could be no resumptions equivalent to the evils that would fol low it. If the question had been as to Whether a portion of tile system should not have continued unabated in practice, then would he say, make the inquiry. Ministers, however, had taken the course which, as men of honour, they were bound to take. They did not shrink from the unpopularity of standing in front of those persons who were aimed at, and he should not be acting the part of a man'of honour if he refused to add his vote to theirs. Mr. E. RUTHVEN objected to allowing the aristocracy of the country to enjoy wealth and luxury at the expense of the distressed working classes. On that ground alone he would support the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Col chester. The pension list, he thought, was public property, and as such he would deal with it. Some of the names on the list referred to Ireland ; and the first he should name were placed on the pension list in 1828-1829. Their names were Eliza, Gertrude, and Mary Gossett. Th?S was not so very long ago; and if these ladies had rendered any service to the country it would be very easy to show it. There was 1201. to Eliza Gossett, 951. to Gertrude, and a pension also to Mary.--(a laugh.) Thus in five years, from 1,3001. to 1,4001. had been given to these Gossetts.—( Laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh at the name of Gossett—(A laugh)—but it was rather strange that the Irish Government should give away 1,4001. in this manner, although they had objected to give 300/. for the survey of the port of Dublin. Another name on the list was that of Sir IL Hunter. He, it appeared, received a pension of 2881. in 1826 and 1827. He believed that Sir R. Hunter was a very excellent profes sional man, as was also another gentleman on the list, both of them having been physicians to the Lord Lieutenant, He hoped these pensions were granted for public services; but surely the people had a right to know what those services were. Another name was that of George, Earl of Errol, who received a pension of 2761. in 1819, and his Countess received also a pension of 2761. in 1820 ; the public had therefore paid to this Noble Lord and his Lady no less than 7,066/., but the public had no knowledge of what services they had performed to earn it. It appeared also that the Viscountess Allan had received no less than 9,065/. 3s. 4d.—(Laughter.) It might be very amusing to Hon. Members, but it was by no means amusing to the poor people out of doors, who had to pay their shillings towards the support of these noble pensioners.— (Hear. hear.) There was a Mrs. Harriet Arbuthnot, also, who had received 9,365/ He should like to know what value the lady had given for this money:—(A laugh.) Sir E. CODRINGTON should give his vote in favour of the motion. If those pensions were honourably earned, they ought to be as honourably paid, but the question was as to whether they were honourably earned, He contended that the pension list had not been made the reward of merit, because the grossest partiality was exercised in its distribution, in which it was not to pe denied that no classes were so badly treated as those belonging to the navy. A man might serve twenty years in the navy, and upon subsequently accepting a civil office, he only began to count his time to be entitled to a pension from the acceptance of such office, and no allowance was made for the previous services of twenty years, although they must have been of a more arduous description. He should most cordially support the motion, in order that the blame might attach itself to those who deserved it, and not to all indiscriminately. One thing, also, was worthy of remark. The largest pensions were given where the largest sums had previously'been given for services. This was wrong in prin ciple, for surely it was easier for a man with a large salary to save a retirement from it than for a man with a very limited income —(Hear, hear.) Mr. STANLEY said that the Hon. and Gallant Member who had just spoken had not thrown much light upon the ques tion before the House—a question so short and so simple, that lie felt he should best suit the convenience of the House by say. ing as few words as possible upon it. He was surprised at hear. ing the Hon. Member for Oxford take the ground he did— namely, that of accusing the Government of yielding to popular clamour. If there was any one question upon which a temp tation existed to give way to popular clamour and to strong feeling, if not restrained by an imperative sense of justice and duty, the question then before the House was the one upon which Government might have established for itself a popula rity and a momentary applause, by adopting a course the re. verse ofthat which his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp) was then pursuing.--(Hear, hear.) He dissented from the Hon. Mem ber when he was on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and he dissented from him still, on the doctrine that the House should have no control over grants of pensions by the Crown. In 1828 he, in company with his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp), formed part of a small minority upon a motion similar to the present, brought forward by the Hon. Member for Middlesex. He voted upon that occasion on the grounds stated by the Hon. Member for Middlesex—namely, that the grossest abuses and the grossest corruption were so interwoven with the pension list, that it was necessary to have the interference of the House in order to chick it. He did not shrink from the responsibility of his vote on that occasion, nor did he shrink from advising the Crown how to act on the pre sent. His Honourable Friend behind him had placed the subject on different grounds altogether. His Hon. Friend wished for inquiry, not with the view of condemning all the pensions, but with the view of ascertaining the justice of the grounds upon which they were granted ; but he (Mr. Stanley) was opposed to the motion, not because he was prepared to de fend the grounds upon which they were granted, but because, in common justice to all the parties, and out of respect to the compact of that House with the Crown, he thought that every feeling of honour and justice debarred them from entering on this inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) He should indesd regret to be compelled to defend the pension list before the House.—(Hear, hear.) He believed it contained many items which could not be defended—he believed it contained items which it would puzzle any man to conceive what defence could be offered for them—(Cheers)—but then it was to be recollected that they were granted upon the faith of the Crown during the life of the late King, and were continued during the life of the present King by Act of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Now, therefore, the parties who enjoyed these pensions had a legal claim, which could not be flung aside without violating an Act of Parlia ment. They had a power, an authority, a right, which could not be overturned without at the same time establishing a pre cedent pregnant with danger to the rights of property in gene ral.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Member observed that this was a new Act of Parliament, and might be repealed. Were they then to set aside the decision of former Governments, sanctioned as they were by Parliament ? Was that the way in which the reform, d Parliament would deal out its justice, by setting aside the decisions of those wielding for the time the authority of Government, and sanctioned by the three estates of the realm ?—( Hear, hear.) If such was to be their mode of dealing, no decision whatever could be any longer binding, than while the prevailing party of the day might think proper. From the humblest individuals who might be concerned in a turnpike.road Bill, up to the most important parties to a treaty concerning the nations of Europe, the principle was the same. It was alike important in all cases, that that which was sanc tioned by the faith of Parliament should not be set aside with out the consent of the parties interested.— (Cheers.) If this inquiry were to be granted, lie would ask if they might not next look back to the ancient titles to property throughout the country ? Might they not inquire as to whether they were not first acquired by fraud or by injustice, by violence, by con fiscation, by wrong, or by robbery ?—(Cheers.) Surely, how ever, if the present possessors were sanctioned by law, Par liament would not venture to set aside their titles on account of the viciousness of their origin.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If they could thus overturn the acts of their predecessors, no engagements with foreign nations could be considered as sacred. Once do this, and the rights of property would be trampled upon, and that House would no longer have any claims to be considered as a consistent body, but would fluc tuate from day to day in its acts, according to the changes of opinion amongst the people. Upon this high ground, and not because of the abuses of the pensioa list, did he resist the motion. It was not because that many improper names had crept into the pension list that he supported the amendment, but because it would be an extremely dangerous precedent to overturn arrangements made under tho sanction of compacts entered into between Parliament and the Crown.— (Cheers.) The amount of the civil list, and the fund at the Crown's disposal, was, in a precedent period of our history, 976,0001. of which, in strictness, 510,0001. was entirely subject to the dis. posal of the then King on the throne, 466,0001. being considered to be directly under the control of the House He should like to see how large an amount out of the latter sum of 466,0001. had been reduced in late years. The whole of the charge of the Irish Government, together with the miscellaneous estimates, were then made on this fund, which had since been reduced to that amount. Under the late Government the pension list had been as high as 165,000/, which it was considered advisable by that Government to reduce to 144,000/. His Noble Friend had to-night stated it was his opinion the civil list should not exceed the sum of 75,000/. annually, but that the safest way to effect this desirable reduction would be by attempting to reduce it to this amount gradually. There had been a proposal made, that hay. ing so disposed of the pension list as to the extent of 75,0001., the older lives, as they fell out, should be filled at the pleasure of his Majesty, whilst as the remaining pensions fell in, they should accrue to the benefit of the public. It was absurd to suppose that the Government would subscribe to the plan of reduction regulated by the alphabetical arrangement. Could they be mad enough to sanction a plan by which the title of on: man to his pension was not to be canvassed because his name began with the letter B, whilst that of the man whose name began with I` was to be open to revision and inquiry ? It had been said by the Hon. Member this was an open inquiry. Now, upon this part of the subject, he would observe, that when this subject was before the House last, it was suggested that it was then too far advanced in the session to fix the civil list for anti during the life of his present Majesty, and therefore his Noble Friend had contented himself with taking a vote of the House for a sum equal to the civil list as it stood, open, however, to such alteration as the House should afterwards adopt in the exercise of a sound determination, But when the House had once passed the Commutation Act, then it would no longer be considered an open question ; although he would not say that they were not at liberty to inquire whether the pension of this or that man on the list was or was not corruptly or improperly granted In the Committee on the civil list the principle had been decided, and it had been laid down as settled, that those who were on the civil list were not entitled to consider they had a direct interest in the continuation of pensions that were founded upon and granted under such objectiorkahle eircuM- stances. In other words that such persona were not to infer that, on the demise of the Crown, their interest would inure to the continuation of the abuses. They, in coming to this d.cision, adopted a wise course. He sought not for topics 05 scandal; they raked not in the mire of forgotten slander they did not comp e l the aged or the weak to some forward and die. ploy afresh the helplessness or the sufferings on which they founded them both to theßoyal bounty or munificence.--( H ear, hear.) They did nothing of this kind, but they contented themselves with pursuing a course less popular, perhaps, but far more useful; and wisely laying down a principle which should practically operate to restrain the improper exercise of the Royal bounty in future. They had been followed in this track by the present Government, who considered that it of fered a safe ground of improvement. They claimed, therefore, from their successors the credit of having, in this respect, ex ercised a wise discretion, and such as was perfectly consistent with the duty of a constitutional Ministry. He hoped no Geo. demon, then, would for a moment indulge in the expression of sentiments for the sake of attaining popularity out of doors, w'iich he could not justify on a principle of honour, and sup port as the result of his own personal conviction. The great body of society and of the people of this country, he believed, were sound in principle, although desirous of economy. They would not, ha was persuaded, buy even economy by injustice or oppression. Either there or on the hustings they might boldly appeal for their justification to the principle which they had established as to the future regulation of the pension list; thatprinciple was practical, and might be acted on hereafter safely and securely. He called on the Members of that House, upon the grounds of justice to individuals concerned, and in consistent support of the pledge of Parliament, to adopt a course which was founded on the safer policy. He felt that a con trary line of conduct as to the right of the Crown could not be pursued, because it was fraught with dishonour ; and whatever temptations there might be to others to do so he would not support it, because he felt he could not do it conscientiously. . . Mr. O'CONNELL observed that the Right Hon. Gentleman, although he had proposed to state the question which was really before the House, had altogether forgotten or avoided stating what the real question was which they were called upon to decide. They were not to determine to-night whether this or that pension on the list were to be discontinued, but whether they were to go into an inquiry on the subject? The Right Hon. Member for Cambridge had denounced the inquiry as dis gusting. If the items of complaint were so very disgusting, was not that a reason why the inquiry should no longer be de layed ? If they were deterred from the inquiry by such argu ments, then he would tell them they were not a reformed Par.. liament. As to the supposed title of these parties to their pen sions, he would tell the House that the possession of anything improperly obtained conferred no title at all. It was said the Act of Parliament was a bar in this case to inquiry, as the right of the Crown was thereby settled, and the King had 75,0001. a year to distribute in pensions to whom he liked; and who should control him ? He would ask if it were discovered that this sum had in fact been applied to corrupt a Member of Parliament would there be no remedy ? or would not the adviser of the Crown in that instance be liable to be called to a strict and se vere account? It was clear he might, even though the pen sion was within the stipulated 75,0001. a year, but every penny improperly granted beyond that 75,0001. was a gross, manifest and unblushing robbery. Every improper name struck out of the list gave to the Sovereign additional dominion. In 1828 it would be recollected a similar motion had been made, and very strongly supported in that House (Mr. S. Rice said " Only for names.") Oh, did the Hon. Gentleman suppose it was a mere idle curiosity to know the names ? No such thing. Nine-tenths of those now on the list were there then, and yet the House voted for inquiry. Would not a reformed House do so too ? If so, let them imagine what would be the possible results. He found that already a reformed Parliament had sufficiently fallen in its character and in the public estimation. One only chance of redeeming themselves remained, and that was rigid retrench ment of expense and careful watching over the public purse. He gave great credit to the sincerity of the Right Hon. Barn.. net's intentions as to retrenchments in the naval department, over which he presided. He, however, felt this was not a time for England to have fewer sailors; he wished she had more. I But in his retrenchments he seemed to have, by diminishing the number of clerks and labourers of all classes, sheared so close as to cut the skin and flesh. As for the Irish pension list, it was a public disgrace—there was not one of them given for public services, except to Lord Rodney's daughters. He was sickened at hearing appeals to honour made in favour of those who had rendered no service to their country, but only cajoled and flattered ; nor was he less disgusted when he was assailed with the cry of " There is law for it I" The Right Hon. Gentleman said we had the certainty of a reduction or the pension list secured at last. The Right Hon. Gentleman met with cause for perfect satisfaction in the paulo post futurent. It was true Mr. Edmund Burke had, in respect for such reforms as these, said that the lives of individuals were to be calcu lated by hours and minutes, whilst those of nations were to be calculated by eternity. In order, however, to see what we had in prospect even, it was necessary the inquiry should be en tered upon ; and, in the name of his constituents, he called upon all consistent reformers to institute that inquiry forth with.—(Cheers.)Sir R. PEEL said though bound upon principle to resist the motion, he was far from feeling inclined to cause the In quiry to be instituted, because of the charges which bad been levelled at the late Government with respect to the pension list. He was satisfied that the result would be that the conduct of the late Government would be totally exculpated. He be:ieved the motive of the present Government was good in the conduct it had pursued relative to the pension list; but he could not hear with indifference, or without appealing tp the members of the late Government or their friends in their justification, when they were thus charged with what they denominated ini. quities. He would not vote for this inquiry in order to con trol the bounty or the Crown, with a view to please those whose object appeared to be popularity out of doors by any and all means. If the inquiry, however, were minutely made, and the examination ever so strict, he sincerely believed it could never be made out that the bounty of the Crown had been ex pended in order to effect corruption within those walls. He would not go into each case, but he would say that in the whole pension list there did not occur five cases of pensions given to create parliamentary interest. There were many cases of persons who had a high rank to maintain without having adequate means, who had been pensioned, and were on this list. There were others. There were cases which were upon the list of pensions granted for public service& to persons who had all along been in opposition to Government. --(Hear, hear.) Some instances there doubtless were of per sons pensioned lavishly and beyond their services. If the House thought fit, let it lay down a new rule, and a juster in future; but it would be derogatory to the faith of Parliament to deprive them altogether of a pension voted them upon the ground of public services. He regretted the indecorous levity with which names had been quoted from that list to-night, but he thought he would mention some names even from the Irish pension list, which were strongly warranted with claims on the Royal bounty and the public gratitude. He would in stance Eliza and Mary Gosson, as persons connected with an eminently useful public official person in the Irish Govern ment —(Hear, hear.) There were seven names of Irish ladies, all sisters, to whom were given 881. a year each. These were the daughters of one of the most upright, efficient, and. economic servants of the public, in the person of Capt. Hard_ tiAd, commissary:in-chief in Ireland, whom he had ever known. He had purchased by his services some remuneration from Go.. vernment, and as he wanted nothing for himself, and had, in old age, seven daughters, he (Sir R. Peel) instead of applying to the country or the House applied to have these females put on the Royal bounty, at the yearly pension of 881. each. In the cases of respectable families, fallen into distress, he felt there was no occasion to institute inquiries how or why the Royal bounty was exercised in reference to such individuals. Mr. Burke held it was no disgrace or disparagement, in such cases, to be relieved. It would be indecent and disrespectful to Monarchy to show such an overwhelming jealousy of its liberality and kind consideration. If the case could be made out of a pension given with a corrupt object, then the Minister giving it, he felt convinced, should be answerable, and be bound on his responsibility. The vote of 1792 had controlled the exercise of the Royal hounty, until the pensions were be low 95,0001. Until then, the names of the persons on the list were to be laid before Parliament, within thirty days of its first sitting in each session. When reduced beneath that sum ; th 3 Royal bounty was not to be fettered by restriction. De., pending on the good faith of persons in high and rf!':;ponsible situations as advisers of the Crown, he would rtbt adopt a con. duct which so obviously seemed to imply an unjust suspicion of the Crown in the exercise of its just prerogative; and he should, therefore, join the Government in discountenancing and resisting the present motion. Mr, KENNEDY rose to give the motion his zealous support. The }kn. Member, in the course of very general interruption, was understood to say that Ministers were placed in a strange position when they were opposed by their old friends and sup ported by their old opponents. Mr. HALCOMB rose, amidst loud cries of" Oh oh !" and said he entirely concurred in all that had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies, and totally dissented from every thing contained in the speech of the Hon. Member for Colchester. Mr. HARDY stood forward on this occasion as the advocate of honour and justice towards persons whose interests were deeply involved in the result of the present question. It would seem, according to certain arguments which he had heard urged, that there was something so foul and disgusting in tiffs question, that it was not to be approached. He, however, now, came forward, on the part of the individuals concerned, to de mand the fullest inquiry. —(Hear, hear.) It was on these, grounds he thought that the House was bound to, pursue the course it had adopted on a former night, when inquiry was granted, in consequence of an imputation having been cast upon a number of Hon. Members from the sister country. Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed, in reply, that the long and interesting discussion iu which they had been engaged had given rise, as might have been expected, to a variety of suggestions, some bearing fairly and fully upon the subject, some glancing lightly and partially upon it, and some not approaching it at all. --(Hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, indeed, had reduced his opposition to the motion to a shape perfectly simple and intelligible. H (Mr. Rice) told them fairly that whatever oklections they might have entek tabled against this list from prejudice, or whatever errors or uffences they might have detected in it by inquiry, yet were their lips closed by acts of their own. The Hon. Secretary ap. pealed to two Acts of Parliament as au estoppal to all efsbrt upon their part, and declared to them that however baseless and disgusting any or all of these pensions might be, however de grading to the characters of those who might receive, and how ever insulting to the feelings of those who were compelled to pay them, yet that because that list had received the sanction of an unreformed Parliament, it was conclusive, notwid hstand mg that they, the representatives of a refoimed c nstituency, were sent to that House mainly to correct evils of this uescr.p iio:,.—(Hear, hear.) He denied that the House stood in tins I.osition.—(Hear, hear.) He reminded them that these 'Acts had been passed at a retied when the friends of tilt