The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-20 00:00:00

SIOB EDyr g IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes before three o'clock. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Petitions were presented by Mr. Caley, Mr. Ridley, Mr. Bains, Sir John Elley, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Pease, Sir John Yarde Buller, and Mr. Plumptre, and various other Members ut Tavor of the better observance of the Sabbath. Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented several petitions on -the same subject. Mr. MILES presented petitions from Wesleyan Methodists to the same effect. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Truro on the same subeet, and with a similar prayer. DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. MAXWELL obtained leave for the Committee on this election to sit till four o'clock. An HON. MEMBER said he had a petition to present from the Society of Friends—as respectable a portion of the community as any to be found in this country. It was signed by the representatives of the body on the part of the entire in Great Britain and Ireland. From his expe rience he would say there was not in his Majesty's dominions a class of men more remarkable for their habits of business, their undeviating integrity and courteous demeanor, and he - felt honoured in being selected as the medium of conveying their opinions to the House. They complained of the great loss and hardship which they sustained by their conscientious opposition to the payment of church rates and tithes. The Hon. Gentleman, was proceeding to state the grievances com plained of in detail, when he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who desired the petition to be brought up. The Hon. MEMBER, after one or two observations, brought up the petition, but said he wished to have made some re marks upon it. The SPEAKER said it was understood that no discussion should take place on the presentation of petitions. Major BE AUCLE RK said his constituents frequently called upon him to support the prayer of petitions, and he thought he should state his concurrence in their views. The SPEAKER said the best way to support a petition was for Hon. Members to be in their places when the mea sures to which they referred were under discussion, and to do so by their votes and speeches. SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Colonel H. BAILLIE presented a petition from Honiton, praying for a Bill to enforce the better observance of the Lord's day i also another on the same subject from the bakers and hairdressers of the same place ; also a petition, with a similar prayer, from the curate and inhabitants of the parish of Nerthleigh. MARINE INSURANCES. Mr. BLACKBURNE presented a petition from the mer chants of Huddersfield, praying for a reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances. Also from the Medical Practitioners of , the same place, praying for compensation when attending Co roners' Inquests. SNUFF MANUFACTURERS. Mr. MARSL AND presented a petition from the Snuff manufacturers of Newcastle-on. Tyne, complaining of frauds committed on the revenue to their detriment. SALT DUTIES. Mr.KEMP presented a petition from the borough of Lowe!, praying fors repeal of the Duties on Salt. Also petitions for the repeal .., the additional duties on spirit licenses. Also a petition for the total repeal of the duty on Newspapers. '4ITHE COMMUTATION BILL. Sir JO ..N BULLER presented a petition from Harbc rough against this Bill. Major REAUCLERK had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, but from the rebuke which had been given by the Speaker he (lid not know what course to pursue ; lie Legged to know how he was to comply with the request of his co - astituen , if he was not allowed to speak in support of the prayer of the petition. The SPEAKER said there was a Bill pas:,ing throngh that Mouse on the subject to which the petition referred. The best - way for the lion. Member to comply with the request of h's constituents would be to attend in his place, and when the Bia was under discussion support the prayer of the petition. The observation which he (the Speaker) felt it his duty to make was not intended as a rebuke to the Hon. Member to whom they were addressed. Major BE A UCL ERK would always maintain his right as a Member of that House to make any observations on present ing 'petitions, which he felt it necessary to offer. Mr. PARROTT said he did not regard the observations of IV* Speaker in the light of a rebuke. He conceived it to be :a suggestion with a view to facilitate the public business. Mr. PLUM PTRE presented a petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Margate, praying for an alteration of the law with respect to Spirit Licenses. The Hon. Member also pre sented petitions from the same place, praying for the abolition, of punishment of death in certain cases. Mr. CALEY presented several petitions fro - n Des'xr and different parts of Yorkshire, praying for an inquiry into the rause of agricultural distress. Sir W. GE ARY presented petitions from Wateringberry ;Ind other places, praying for the repeal of the Malt Tax The lion. Member also presented petitions from Holbeach and other places, complaining of agricPitural distress. Mr. P: [IOWA lib presented petitions from Carlisle, prnying for an alteration in the ?acv with respect to the mate riais used for the construction of churches and chapels. Mr. F. lAUI.E prps,:nted petitions f rom Peril, CCM:- LC.R9 of Scotland. Captain BA RCLA Y thought the whole of the co:nplaints con:tined in the petitir d were to be attributed to absentee landlords. Yr. FE ItCiFF,SO N thought tha injury complained of wils to be attributed not to the increase of game, but of vermin. lIANOI,EY wished to know whether it was the in tention o f'~reGovernment to intoduce any measures• on th subject ? Mr• F. MAULE said, that it was not the intention of the Ge:vernment to bring forward any measure on the subject a:'tcr the discussion of last year. Mr. BROT HE RTON presented several petitions from the Radicals of Manchester, complaining of Agricultural distress. Mr. TOOKE presented petitions from St. Andrew's Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, complaining of the inadequate manner in which the land tax had been levied. He . nad also a petition from the incorporated society of attar nies and solicitors throughout the United Kingdom, stating, that having observed the destruction of the Houses of Parlia meat by fire, and the necessity thereby of rebuilding them, they were anxious that the courts of law should be removed to a more central situation in the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court, where moat of the professional men live, and where the courts at Guildhall and the city courts could be incorporated, thus saving considerable time to the witnesses and suitor, great trouble to the pr,actitioners, and affording more spac,-; fur the new Houses of Parliament and the committee rooms ad joining. Major BEAUCLERK supported the prayer of the peti. tion relating to the land -tax, and hoped that the Hon. Member for Truro would move for a Felea committee on the subject. CASE OF JANE CAMPION. Captain PECHEL presented the petition of which he had given notice, on the subject of this case ; and, as the Attorney- General was not in his place, he trusted the Government would order the allowance of this poor woman to be restored. He would not have presented this petition if there had been any remedy at law ; but this woman could not sue ; she would be thrown overboard as a married woman if she attempted to sue. She waaq a femme covert and not a ,femme sole, and she was entitled to all the privileges of other married women. She pmyed that her petition might be referred to the Ecclesiasti cal Judges, and that, in the meantime, directions might be sent to the magistrates to suspend the proceedings against her. If this were not done, on Monday next this unfortunate woman would be sent to the House of Correction. Mr. F. NIA UL E thought it was not a case in which the House could interfere. The Magistrates in this particular vase consulted the law officers of the Crown, and had acted on their opinion, and he thought that the Magistrates were justified in acting upon that opinion. He did not know that that House could send directions to the Magistrates to suspend these proceedings. Mr. T. R. KEMP thought that this was a case of great distress, and that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. The petition was then laid on the table. The same HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from the fishers of Brighton, praying for a better regulation of the fisheries. Sir G. CREWE presented a petition from Derbyshire. praying for better protection to the British fisheries. Mr. KEMP begged to call the attention of the House to the adjourned debate to the question of the right of the Members for Greenwich to attend the Brighton Railway Committee. He moved that the Members for Green wich and Kent be allowed to attend the Committee. Lord G. LENNOX would not be doing his duty to the supporters of the Bill if he allowed volunteer members to be put upon the Committee, who were strongly prejudiced against the line which he advocated. If, however, the Speaker was of opinion that the present motion was in order, he (Lord G. Lennox) should waive his objection.—( Cries of " Chair.") Captain AL SAGER was also opposed to the introduction of the name of the Hon. Member upon the Committee. Dr. BO WRING presented petitions from Kilmainack against the Tipling Act; also from a certain body of Dissent ers, praying to be allowed to celebrate their own marriages. Mr. BARNARD had never wished that any substantive motion should be made to the House for the purpose of putting his name upon the Committee. All he should say was, that if he was put upn the Committee he should do his duty impar tially and independently.—( Hear. ) Mr. DENISON thought it would be very unfair to the promoters of the Bill if new names were now to be added to the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) They had been sitting daily for the last three weeks and was it to be supposed that all the evidence that had been gone through should now be commenced de novo ? One of the parties was under an expense of 5001. a day, and it would be a serious expense to him, as well as an injustice to the other promoters of the Bill, if these new names were now to be added. The SPEAKER had expressed an opinion upon facts that had not turned out to be so. T he Members for Kent were not members of the Committee, unless the Nouse thought that there was some sufficient reason for their bein g so. The ques tion for the House was whether it would depart from its usual course. Mr. KEMP said, that after the opinion that had been ex pressed from the Chair he should withdraw his motion. Mr. PEASE presented a petition from York in favour of re Great Northern Railway Bill. SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition against certain clauses in the South Durham Railway Bill. NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAILWAY. Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition against the New castle and North Shields Railway Bill. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the London Grand Junction Railway, also a petition from the inhabitants of the liberties of Stafford Hill to the same effect. DOVER IMPROVEMENT BILL. Mr. PLUMPFREE moved that the second reading of this Bill should be postponed to this day week.—Agreed to. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition frem Edenbridgc in favour of the South Eastern Railway Bill. DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Sir W. RAE presented a petition from certain persons in Dublin against the contemplated line of railway from Dublin to Drogheda. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. 0. G ORE presented a petition in favour of the Lon don Grand Junction Railway. LEEDS AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY. Mr. BAINES presented a petition from Leeds in favour of Railway Bill. LEEDS WATERWORKS' BILL. Sir J. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds against ,his Bill. ISLINGTON MARKET. Mr. POULTER presented a petitition from the graziers of the Vale of Blakemore against this bill. STOCKPORT GAS-LIGHT BILL. Mr. MARSDEN presented a 'petition from Stockport against this bill. GLASGOW COURT-HOUSE AND BRIDEWELL BILL. On the motion of Mr. JAMES OSWALD this Bill was read a third time. On the motion of Sir R. VERNON the Bristol Damages Compensation Bill was .read a second time. Mr. H. WILSON presented petitions from six parishes in Cambridgeshire, praying for the betteu observance of the Sabbath Day....--( Hear, hear.) A number of similar petitions were presented by Lords Sandon and G. Somerset, and other Hon. Members. Lord SANDON presented a petition from the province of New Brunswick, praying for protection to their Timber trade. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Town Council of Liverpool, signed by the Mayor, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which the Jews labour. Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented petitions from Great Yarmouth and two other places, praying for the total Re peal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers. also another petetition against the punishment of death, exser t in cases of premeditated murder. LANDLORD AND TENANT.—(IRELAND.) Mr. S. CR A WFOR D presented a petition from the barony of Castlereagh, county of Down, in favour of the Bill for al lowing compensation to the tenant at the expiration of his lease for substantial improvements on his farm ; and also for the revision of the Grand Jury laws ; so that those who assessed the rates might be chosen by the people.—(Hear.) Also petitions from two parishes in the same county with a similar prayer. Also a petition from the barony of Kilconway, it the King's County, praying for an improvement in the law of landlord and tenant. Mr: HENRY GRATTAN presented a petition from the Clerk of the Peace of the Bounty of Meath, complaining of the increased duties imposed upon him by the Registry Act, and praying compensation. ALAS a petition from Arklow, praying for increased accommodation for vessels on the Eastern coast. Also, petititions from several parishes in Wicklow, prayi►:g for a settlement of tithe question, and for a measure of relief for the distressed poor. Sir W. FOLL ETT presented a petition from the Medical Practitioners of Exeter, praying for compensation for their attendance on Coroners' Inquests. FACTORY BILL. Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from the weavers of Spitalfields, praying the House not to make any alteration in the Factories Bill. Mr. DUNLOP presented six petitions from the hand-loom weavers of different places in Scotland, praying for relief. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the ope ratives of Preston, in favour of the Ten Hours Factories' Bill. Also a petition from Norwich, praying for the total abolition of the Stamp Duty upon Newspapers. (LEFT SITTING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his scat on the Ilruel sack at 5 o'clock. Mr. OSWALD and others from the Commons brought up the Glasgow Court House Bill, which was read a first time. • Lord DACRE presesented a petition from Loughton, Essex, praying for a redress of the Dissenters' grievances. The Birmingham arid Gloucester Railway Bill was read .1 second time and passed. The Mutiny Bill, and the Marine Mutiny Bill went through Committee .ithout amendment. The Sheffield and RotherhatrA P.ailway Bill was read a so coed time. The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, an the House adjourned. DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE (THIS DAY.) ( Continued from our First Edition.) Augustus Frederick Pemberton tras objected to by the s:t ting member, being regstered as a freeman, and non-reside:lt at the time of voting. 111 r. WRANGILA NI submitted there was no proof of the voter having changed his residence between the period of registry and the election.--Vote allowed. A NON-RESIDENT CURATE.--The Rev. John Judkin But ler was next objected to by Mr. Hutton, on the ground of being a non-resident freeman. The voter, after his ordination in October 1834, obtained a curacy in the county of Westmeath, distant 46 miles from Dublin, and continued to perform the duties of the curacy from 1834 to April 1835. He resided occasionally at the Glebe house, and occasionally came to Dublin. The Rector would be satisfied if he came to the parish on Saturday, and performed duty on Sunday. The Rec tor was incapable of doing duty. He was in a dying state. He came to Dublin on the sth of January, before the election. The voter's father declined to swear that he resided seven days in succession, from November, 1834, to January, 1835, at his house in Dublin. The vote was allowed. Edward Ball same objection —overruled. The next class of objections taken by the sitting members, was that relating to persons employed in the sale of stamps. Mr. ,Joy, read the section of the Act disqualifying such voters, and directed the attention of the Committee thereto. Michael Browne Lacey was the first name on the list, and the evidence was being read by Mr. Hutton, when it was an nounced that the Spcakcr was at prayers. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Ann', 19. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual time, but a Coil of the House being fixed for this evening in consequence of Mr. D. W. Harvey's motim: for an Inquiry into the Pensio❑ List, the Galleries were not opened till some time after four o'clock. DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY'S BILL, On our entrance into the Gallery we found Sir M. S. STEWART on his legs, moving as an amend ment that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. Mr. E. TENNENT would oppose this Bill, not on any private crrounds, or from any private interest that he had in any other Company, but entirely upon public grounds. He opposed this Bill on the broad principle that it was totally un necessary for any great national purpose, to grant peculiar privileges to a great Company like this.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to the limited responsibility which this Bill con ferred on the shareholders. Their first Bill was obtained in 1828, and in that was inserted a clause to prevent the exten sion of the Company's capital. In 1833 they claimed per mission to add 74,0001., and they obtained it on the under standing that it was to be expended on the improvement of the Shannon ; but the House should know that they never published more than one account--and that one since they came to ask for the present measure. And yet while they ask for leave to extend their capital, 10,0001. of the 74,0001. was yet unpaid. In the present Session they asked for 150,0001., and in the Committee they added 300,000/. more. He admitted the Company had conferred benefits on the South of Ireland, but that should not inducelMembers to accede to the present application.—( Hear. ) Lord CLEMENTS said, it was to be remembered that this Company was the first one which established steam navigation between Dublin and Liverpool, and was the first also to intro duce the steam navigation inland in Ireland. He would be most happy to see the same privileges extended to the Scotch Companies as were now sought for ; but because they had them not, was not a good reason for throwing out the Bill. Mr. W. N. ROCHE saw no signs of monopoly in the Bill, and gave it his most warm support. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE opposed the Bill, because he conceived it an injustice towards other Companies, to confer such a privilege on this. Mr. L ABOUCHERE could assure his Hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow that he was mistaken in supposing that any offer had been made on the part of the Post-office Com missioners, such as be had described. Letters bad undoubtedly been written to two or three Companies, containing certain queries to which they desired an answer, but beyond this nothing else had taken place which could justify the report to which his H on . F r i en d had referred. Dr. BO\VRING was of opinion that nothing could be more disgraceful to the mercantile community than the law which made the private property of every shareholder liable. He could not agree with his Right Hon. Friend (the Member for Dundee) as to the injurious consequences of a limited responsibility. He believed, on the contrary, the time was come when the principle of a limited responsibility was recognised as the most judicious one.—(Hear, hear.) The arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin were not at all felicitous. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member, if any other body came forward and claimed to be ex empted from that rule, would he consent to it ?—[Mr. O'Connell: yes i_All lie could say was, that if so, he was v er y b o l d, and in is (Dr. Bowring's) opinion, very . few members would be found to follow in his wake. The principle was the same as if the Hon. and Learned Member would advocate a party TELE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAX, APRIL 20,.) setting up a newspaper without responsibility. feel it his duty to oppose the third reading. Mr. O'CONNELL explained.—( Cries of " Question," " Divide," &c.) Lord MORPETH contended that the principle of the Bill should have been discussed at the second reading. The effect of the measure would be of signal advantage to Ireland, and he hoped it would receive the support of the House.—( Question.) Mr. YOUNG opposed the third reading. After a few words from Lord F. EGERTON, who sup ported the Rill, and Mr. FRESHFIELD, who opposed all the Reporters were ordered to withdraw. A division took place ; when there appeared— For the Third Reading l2O Against it Majority against the Third Readiug —s4 The Family Endowments' Bill was read a third time and pissed. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. He should Lord GEORGE LENNO X wished to have the opi -I,ion of the House upon a point of some importance, ith respect to the London and Brighton Railway. The Honourable Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnard) had applied to be placed on the Committee on Rennie's line, on the ground that he was a Member of the Sussex list. Now the House would bear in recollection, that last Session two Bills passed that House for establishing a Railroad from London to Greenwich, and another from Lon don to Croydon. There was at this moment a Committee sitting upon Sir John Rennie's line, from Brighton to Croydon. That line at Croydon adopted the course taken by the London and Greenwich Railroad; and the question was whether, in con sequence of that, the Hon. Member for Greenock had a right to be put on the Sussex list, and sit on the Committee on Sir J. Rennie's line ? Mr. BARNARD contended that he had a right to sit on the Committee. The SPEAKER said the question was, whether the exist ing portion was not to be taken as a part of Sir John Rennie's line? Mr. D. W. HARVEY and Lord EASTNOR made some obser vations which did not reach the gallery. Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him that the question was not as to the equity of having the Hon. Mem ber on the Committee; but whether as Member for Greenwich he had a right to belong to the Committee by the rules of the House. As the railroads did not pass through any part of the county of Kent, he conceived if the Hon. Gent. were ad mitted on the Committee, so ought also every Member within the county. He did not think his claim was a good one. Mr. O'CONNELL understood the Bill was entitled the Brighton, Shoreham, and London Railway ; and if so the Hon. Member for Greenwich had a right to be on the Com mittee. After a few observations from Major BEAUCLERK and Mr. HUME, Mr. POULETT THOMSON made a few observations in re ply, and the further consideration of the Report of the Railway was postponed. B:j6 as new expressions were often consecrated and rendered clef sieal by the rank of those who used them when they would be deemed vulgar and disgusting in the mouths of plebeians, in the language of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ire land there was this number of " he and she pensioners."._. ( Loud laughter.) Yes, there were 1,303 whom the Noble Lord characterised as " he pensioners" and " she pensioners." Now, out of these 1,303 " he pensioners" and " she pensioners," 281 were persons of title—that was, he and she titled pensioners. These pensioners in the whole were in receipt of 150,0001. per annum of the public money. Though he was quite aware the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, " In the course of a few days I shall have to present to you a budget of 50,000,0001., and, compared with that amount, what after all is 150,0001., even if you could save the whole of it ?" But surely this would be strange language to fall from the lips of any Member of that Government which had always prided itself upon its rigid spirit of economy. Nay, the Right Hon. Gentleman himself was always the first to state that they were guided by the principle, and not by the mere amount of saving, and was ever ready to volunteer a long catalogue of the financial advantages which the public had de rived from the present Administration. He trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Hear) —would not think the small saving of 150,000/. a year beneath his notice, for he found in one of the catalogues of the inestimable economi cal reductions for which the country was indebted to the pre sent Government, that no less than 14,682/. had been saved in the article of madder—a most important reduction of 4,641/. had been made in wax—nay 6,328/. had actually been saved in skins ; but what would the House think when they were told that a reduction of 827/. had been made in prunes ; that the finances of the country had actually been weakened to the extent of 1,6761. in grapes ; and that, push ing economy to the very verge, the public was indebted to the present Government for no less a saving than 361/. per annum in dried apples ?—(A laugh.) He mentioned these facts for the purpose of showing that the Government had prided itself upon every saving, however small, and could not, therefore, with any fairness, treat a saving in the Pension List as a matter, even in an economical point of view, to be despised. There were many and very different kinds of opponents to this mo tion. One class of opponents (but he believed they were now very scarce) were the prerogative politicians, who always main tained, and up to 1828 maintained successfully, that the King had an uncontrollable and irresponsible right to deal with the civil list as he thought fit ; that it was most odious and repre hensible in the people to enter into any discussion as to the mode in which he dealt with the public money ; that his Ma jesty had a sort of divine knowledge which enabled him to select the most proper objects of benevolence ; and that it was a matter little short of treason to impeach the way in which he exercised his powers. Mr. Burke, in his celebrated work on economy, which fully displayed the vast powers of that extraor dinary man, seeing the manifold and extended evils to which the abuse of the pension list had led, and anxious to repress them, contended that it was necessary to set a limit to the royal extrava gance as sanctioned by the Government; and he said the extreme line of bounty should be defined at 195,000/. a-year. In the spirit of his recommendation an Act was introduced and passed, debarring the Crown from the power of granting any !urther pensions until that amount was shown to have been Fairly expended, and a strong case was made out for new pen sions. Ile stated this, to show that even in those corrupt days there was some regard shown to justice, decency, and public feeling. He did not mean to trace the progress of the Pen sion List consecutively from that period to 1820, when his late Majesty was seated on the throne. But he would 'ask Members to look to November, 1830, on the accession of his present Majesty. The Duke of Wellington was then Prime Minister. He introduced to Parliament the subject of the Civil List ; the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam bridge, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the individual who brought the subject under the notice of that House. He would not enter into all the details of his proposition at that time, but would confine himself to one proposal—that made with respect to the Pension List. He said it was meant to limit the amount of the Pension List to 140,000/. a year. At this monstrous proposition the Opposition, now his Majesty's Government, were at once up in arms. They cried out— " Horrible, monstrous—what, 140,000/. to be paid in pen sions—it should not be."—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) They examined, they analysed the proposition—they pulverised it, and sifted it all through—(Cheers and laughter)—and at last, they came to the wise conclusion of resisting it. The Right Hon. Member for Dundee, then Member for the Queen's County, was put forward on the occasion in the van of the fight between the contending parties, for it was a regular struggle of party, and he moved as an amendment for a Com mittee of Inquiry into that part of the Civil List that touched on the pensions, the object being ostensibly to divide the Civil List into separate departments, not to take it in the lump, and to see the proper application of the funds belonging to each department. The motion was hallooed and cheered on and supported by his present Majesty's Ministers, and sup ported by their might and main. Lord Althorp also supported it, having been one of its most prominent defenders. Well, the issue came, and the Government of that day was over thrown by a majority of twenty nine. There was not, then, that feline tenacity of existence—that dying men's grasping at power—evinced by the Tory Government which has charac terised the present liberal or reforming Government.—( Loud cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) No, like certain sagacious animals they saw the coming visitation, that their house was in danger, and, prudently adopting the resolution of retreat, they acted like men and Gentlemen, and boldly walked down stairs.--( Cheers and laughter.) The Duke of Wellington's Government was not fond of many beatings; single defeat for them was enough to induce them to break up camp, and retreat ; but not so their successors, the present Go vurnment ; they required successive pummelings to bring them to a sense of their duty ; they were like a tough beef steak that required a good beating, and then was made more tender.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) Well, the present Government succeeded in ousting their predecessors and po litical rivals.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But when they came into office, on the very strength of their opposition to the Tory pension list, what was their redemption of their former pledge, for their declarations were tantamount to a pledge? Why, they exceeded by 12,000/. the Pension List of the condemned and ousted Tories. (Prolonged cheers and laughter,) Well, perhaps they might have done it all for the better, having seen 'better. It was true that this additional 12,000/. they continued to fritter away in little contingencies, but that did not do away with the virtual addition to the List. The Hon. Member for Middlesex, in his usual spirit of eco nomy, moved the abolition of this rider of the 12,0001.; but from some cause or other he afterwards withdrew his motion. At the period he alluded to, 1820, he remembered that it was maintained in defence of the proposition of allowing his Majesty the disposal of so large a Pension List, after the delivery of the Speech from the Throne, that his Majesty had resigned the hereditary revenues of the Crown, such as the droits of the Admiralty, and the Four-and-a-half per Cents., thereby giving the nation an equivalent. But Mr. 13roughain said that this could not be taken as a fair equivalent, innsmuch as the revenues of the Crown included Close of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall which were not surrendered. Sir Robert Peel repudiated this interpre tstion of the Hon. Gentleman, since Lord Chancellor of Eng land, and contended for the reservation of these revenues to the use of the King. Well, what did Mr. Brougham do after he became Chancellor? Did he act on his former de claration ? No such thing. He found, or at least allowed, the interpretation of the Right Hon. Baronet to be a good one.--( Loud cheers and laughter.) Lord Althorp said there were some names on the Pension List which it was a shame should be there ; and Lord Grey once said, that God only knew how some of them came there, and the Devil only could tell for what they were kept there. Now, after these tre niendous denunciations by these liberal Whig leaders when out of office, could it be believed that the Whigs in office could be such recreants to their own principles, for the sake of keeping office, as to belie their former professions? But office and lucre work strange miracles on the feelings and acts of men.—(Hear, hear, hear.) This was the third time the question was brought on, and was the most favourable time. There was now no fear of losing place on the part of Govern ment—no struggle for office—all was tranquillity. What was, then, the plea on which the Government could or did refuse curtailment? This—" Oh, we must make concessions to re tain our places. We have turned out the enemies of the people. The instalment into office of the friends of Reform must, you will allow, be a great blessing, and, for God's sake, do not disturb the public mind, and raise popular outcry against us by broaching this subject. Let the thing rest, or else if we be left in a minority you will' have a Tory Government." Well, such an appeal as this was enough to frighten any body. --( Hear, and laughter.) But this was not the course he would expect from high-minded honest men. What ground had the present Government for shrinking from the fulfilment of their former principles when out of office? They were a Government of sublimated purity : all the rotten timbers were cut away, no dross or alloy of Toryism in them.—(Hear, and a laugh.) They made no choice of office, did not court it—( Laughter)—but were rolled by the tide of the popular will on the Monarch, and kept in place by the popular favour. Indeed, they had no other, for they could not boast much of the Royal favour. Being then upheld by the people, will they not have the independence to stand by the people—or are they such men as, when the leader brought back their dis charge from their master in his pocket, will have the mean • ness, without making stipulations, to serve again for the sam e wages, and wear the same livery ?—( Hear, a nd laughter. ) The Government will receive the support of the people while they deserve it ; but they are not likely to deserve it by decrying the principles of their adversaries; and then acting; on them. It was important that parties on the Pension List should be known to deserve the pension. ' There was one name on it, a Baronet, who was a magistrate in a po pulous town, who consigned the other day a poor woman to gaol because she could not support her children. Now, it was due to this gentleman to hold up the Pension List before him, and give him an opportunity of stating whether he was or was not in the same predicament.—( Hear, hear.) A s to the Droits of the Admiralty, they were very considerable in time of war ; but from the passiveness of our present Foreign Secretary, we were not very likely to be troubled with war for a long time, unless the importunity of the Member for Oxford drove him to it.—( Hear, hear.) The balance now in hand was 1,000/. ; in 1830 there were 8,000/., which were handed over to the public Treasury, in consequence of the outcry then raised ; and the gentleman who held this got 4,000/. a year salary. This Sir Frederick Anson had acted as stakeholder, and he found that, according to an entry, a Mr. Henry Wheat ley, the King's 'Privy Purse, received on the 9th instant the sum of 6,000/, which, instead of being paid over to the Ex chequer for the use of the public, had been used, as it had been before, and applied to private purposes. If this were a true return, he thought the pretence of having surrendered this re venue was a most monstrous imposition.—( Hear, hear.) This was the gracious condescension of the fathomless liberality of his Majesty in giving up the Droits of the Admiralty. The next subject he had to allude to was the Four-and-a- Half per Cents., which was another of the God-sends j for the untaxed people of this country. He held in 1. his hand a return for i*'34,, by which he found that the Four-and-a-Half per Cents. aniotlated to the net sum of 20,890 t, and that there was paid 21,2401. into the Court of Exchequer. It Waz; a little important, however, that the House and the public sholild understand what the Four-and a-Half per Cents. were. The 'oar-and-a-Half per Cents. were originally a charge on the Leeward Islands for maintain ing the batteries and edifices there—that is to say, there were four-and-a-half hogsheads of sugar and four-and-a-half hogs heads of rum allowed for every one hundred sent out of the country, and which was called dead goods. This imposition, , by an ancient order of their own Council, dated as long back as 1663, instead of being expended as originally intended, were sold, and converte'd into 44- per cents. That was to say, there was the sugar for the old g entlemen, and the rum, as being more appropriate, was given to the old ladies.— (Laughter.) By this ingenious method the Government had an actual fund of 20,8901. But how was it distributed ? Was it given to the gallant soldier who had lost a limb in the service of his country ? Was it given to those widows who had been deprived of their husbands—or to those or phans who had no longer a parent ? No ;it was distri buted in the true Whig- spirit of taking care of themselves. —[The Honourable Gentleman then read the names of several ladies and gentlemen, attributing a hogshead to one and a puncheon to another amid considerable laughter, and at the conclusion said that none of them had resigned, and that all the pensions existed in full force that ever were on the Pen sion List since the agitation of the subject, and that Lord Farnham was the only exception,' he having voluntarily with drawn his name.] The Hon. Member then proceeded to state that the Four-and-a-Half per Centg. were encumbered with 20,0001., with the addition of 13,836 t. for the payment of salaries, so that the change on the Four-and-a-Half per Cents. considerably exceeded 30,0001., although a former Chan cellor of the Exchequer had rated them at 25,0001. There was one other subject to which he begged to call the attention of the House. He (Mr. D. W. Harvey) had risen the other night at the same time as the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, to speak upon the subject of Irish Muni cipal Corporations, but had been prevented by the Right lion. Baronet, to whom he had been glad to give way. The Right Hon. Baronet had conjured the House in that large style of eloquence and elegance of decoration so familiar to him to do justice to Ireland—to give her equal laws, equal rights, and convince the people of that misgoverned country that they were citizens on the same equality with ourselves, and to let them know that there was not one law for the rich and an other law for the poor. He would say the same thing here. He would remind the House that they were sitting there in two capacities. They were not there only to sit as a House of Commons, but as poor law commissioners, who had to su pervise this great State workhouse. ---:(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side.) He understood that cheer. One side of the House understood the other. His Majesty's Opposition of to-day might be his Majesty's Ministers of to-morrow— (Hear, hear, and laughter)—and they would both agree in return to crush by numbers the Radical and audacious attempt comprised in that motion. He had ever been an advocate of the New Poor Law Bill, which he considered one of the most stupendous attempts of modern legislature, and it was not pos sible for him to disapprove of it, entertaining the sentiments be did. It might occasionally give birth to unnecessary harsh ness and local oppression, but it contained a principle sound in itself, which was, that all men should exert to the utmost of their power those natural energies with which it had pleased a benignant Providence to endow them. That Bill gave power to the Commissioners to enter alike the cottage and the slop ing rafters:of the workhouse, the abode of idiotcy and ofgaping ignorance, and gave them altogether a power which was one of the harshest attempts ever made upon human endurance. The Hon. Member here read a clause from the new Poor Law Bill which forbids relief by money, and drew a com parison between the conduct of those who supported that clause and who were also supporters of the Pension List. He thought that if the Pension List was continued the law of right would at last become supreme over the law of Parlia ment, and that ten or twenty thousand men might assemble on a common, determined that they would not allow their mothers to be denuded, and the pledges of their love sepa rated from them—one sent to the workhouse, and another to the hospital—while eleven hundred State paupers were sup ported in affluence, three hundred of whom had brothers, sisters, or other relatives capable of rendering them assistance. The pauper was not allowed parish relief while the father or grandfather could contribute to their support. Why, then, talk to him of the independent spirit of British Noblemen, their elegant manners, their tasteful drawingrooms, and their polished literature ? Why was there not the same law for the strong-bodied Peer and the strong-bodied peasant ? Many of those whose relatives were on the Pension List were as :Arcing as he was, and never did half the good lie had done. He had been robbed by the oligarchy, and that House had not the courage of honesty to give him redress, and yet those pauperlbeggars those Peers, were supported. He confessed that if a hundred thousand had assembled to resist such laws that he would join them. It was downright robbery and plunder. After some further remarks, complaining of the gross injustice of the Pension List, the Hon. Member con cluded by appealing to the justice of both sides of the House, Reformers and Conservatives, that they would no longer per mit Englishmen to live under unequal laws, and stated that he should await with confidence the result of his motion. Lord J. RUSSELL said the ingenious reasoning of the Hon. Member did not justify the gross breach of faith the mo tion proposed. Under a mistaken feeling, this was a ques tion on which great popular excitement had prevailed ; but he believed it was a delusion that had passed away. He had looked in vain for the reports of petitions in support of the motion, the only ore presented being one from St. Mary, New ington, and the other from Ipswich. On questions of great public importance petitions, with the signatures of 30,000 or 40,000 individuals, were net of uncommon occurrence, but on the present occasion there was the extreme of paucity. But even one of these petitions did not exactly support the mo tion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, which by the way, was not the motion of which he had originally given notice on the 17th of March. The motion of the 17th of March was for a committee to revise all pensions and si necures charged on any fund under the control of Parliament. Following up the principle of that motion the parish of St. Mary, Newington, was led to petition against all sinecurists and pensioners charged on any fund under the control of the Legislature. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle man why he had changed the terms of his motion? He had discovered between the two periods, the present and the past time of noticing his motion, that sinecurists were entitled to more forbearance than the pensioners? \Vas that the reason wily he had omitted all mention of them in his motion? Would not his argument—drawn from the poor laws—admirably ap plied he (Lord J. Russell) would admit, and eloquently illus trated as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was able to do it—would it not, he (Lord J. Russell) would ask, have told with equal force against sinecurists as against pensioners ? Admitting that it would, for it was undeniable, why, then, did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman altogether leave out that branch of the subject which involved those individuals ? He (Lord J. Russell) had, indeed, heard that there were Hon. Gentlemen in that House who thought that sinecures, when properly bestowed, were no grievance, and who were for con tinuing their existence as a reward for deserving men, un der the sanction of Parliament. Was it that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman wooed the support of these Hon. Members, or that he expected their opposition to his motion if he touched on these items in the expenditure ? Could that be the cause why the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted all men tion of sinecures in the motion he then brought before the House? If that was the cause of the lion. and Learned Gentleman's proceeding, and if that were the course he had shaped out to himself, he (Lord J. Russell) could not help commending the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's prudence ; but he felt bound to say that it was a more cautious and less broad and bold one than he could have reasonably expected from the former proceedings of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, and the continuous excitement he had kept up on the question.—( Hear, hear.) Before he (Lord J. Russell) pro ceeded further, he should mention to the House what had been the course of Parliament, and the precedent which had been set for its adoption, on the subject of the pensions in the Civil List since the period of the Revolution. At the period of the Revolution the Civil List included all those who had obtained pensions under the reign of Charles 11. In 1731 Sir Robert Walpole stated that there was a heavy debt on the Civil List and a great many pensions, but that most of the latter were of the time of Charles 11. and Queen Anne, and that few of them had been granted by his then Majesty, George 11. When Mr. Burke brought forward his plan of Reform a great excitement prevailed on the subject of the Pension List. But did Mr. Burke, like the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, propose to take away at once from existing holders all pensions and sinecures which could not prove public service as an equivalent for them ? No ; on the contrary, he had stated that it would not be wise, or just, or prudent, or politic to interfere with them during the lifetime of the individuals to whom they were payable ; that the pe riod which would lapse between the passing of his measure and their death was as nothing in the age of a nation ; and, more than that, he had stated that no act even of individual hardship should be inflicted for the sake of the country coming a few years sooner into possession of this amount which they enjoyed of its money. Such was the view of Mr. Burke. The views of Mr. Fox were not different from those of his friend Mr. Burke. When Lord G. Cavendish brought forward his Bill for the reduction of the enormous salaries received by the tellers of the Exchequer in the time of war, Mr. Fox resisted the retrospective operation which it was proposed the measure should have ; and insisted strongly that it should be only of avail when they fell off in the natural course of things, and that while they lived it should be wholly inoperative. Such was the course adopted by Mr. Fox in reference to a similar principle with that of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman attempted to throw upon his Noble Friend Lord Spencer, and those who acted with him, although he used no specific term to that effect the accusation that when they sat on that side of the House, they were friendly to the abolition of all p e nsions and sinecures undeserved by public service. He (Lord John Russell) totally denied that such had ever been their sentiments. They bad never attempted in one solitary instance to depart from the principles of Burke and Fox, and never had expressed on any occasion a wish to take away a single pension from those who held them during their lifetime. When Lord Spencer came into office the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed to take a review of the Civil List, for the purpose of depriv ing all those persons of pensions who could not prove public services in return for them ; but Lord Spencer was one of the first to oppose that proposition. He declared on that occa sion that it would be unwise, unjust, and injurious, and he moreover said that as a gentleman he would never take part in any such , proceeding. Thus the whole course of Parliamentary precedent, and the whole course of conduct of the party with which he (Lord J. Russell) acted, had been shown to be directly adverse to the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman's views. He would now beg to call the attention of ............_-----------...—.........---.pith the . the House to some of the circum stances connec eformed early pensions in the List. The Pension at that Mr. Burke's Bill on the Civil List. The' pensiotho owes period were paid secretly, not at the Excheq: t er; this was of the parties receiving them were not known. that fee ° abolished by Mr. Burke's Bill, which declared . a re _ thenceforward there was no disparagement in rec.eivinhgonour ward from the Royal bounty, but, on the contrary 'had Lee, _List wa.siris These were the principles on which the Pension List !!, ; ell - P°l lan's. reformed, which it would at once be could not be tested by the Hon. and Learned Gentleeo ,_ comparison in regard to the Poor Laws—that labour altogetherrei should be rewarmed. That comparison was Laura misplaced. The question with respect to the poor .e_ was, whether money should be allowed topersons able a tti . _ work, but unwilling to do so. But was that principle y_t. plicable to the Pnsion List granted by 'l ed; services done to the monarchy by persons of a liber as , e cation to whom no test of ability to labour such , ... „ I _,,e . . Hon. and Learned Gentleman suggested could be pt La' Gent. ing two of the names quoted by the Hon. and Learned t woul d —those of Sir Sidney Smith a od Professor Airy-- w aGentle , be said if Parliament, acting on the test of the Hon. denten , when these the Croawl genand we. man's comparison, should observe, were proposed for pensions, "They may deserve its • i e or within the princioparod admit the Law but they do not come the Poor Amendment Act." 'Zile fi °° • o , B 4 ., nd L e of Gentleman had instituted the compariso n for '"- pure:s o . exciting odium against those individuals who held pen I nap : hut such an imperfect one as it was, and eo Perfectly never i h plicable to the case at issue, he (Lord J. Ressell) id that heard. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had sa id who the Pension List contained the names of tive se ,°. Y y or had been recommended for their political Pre' (Lordian . 1 * their private vices to the Crown. It was not i.-a acter of Russell's) business to stand up in defence of the c hal ; 'directly these individuals : he was not concern ed directly or el s i r W. in more than two of them—one to the daughter ot h i s fa- Scott, and the other to Mr. Thomas Moore, or one of - ,i . t hat mil y : but when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman sal' . y. or ail of them were recommended for their public protliga‘,..„oo private vice, he could not refrain from expressing* hi! d e e P r ' eu . i that it was a character tbey did not merit, and he consi an d his duty to say he disbelieved it. But supposing the I "' w hat Learned Gentleman got the Committee he moved fo re 0 _ to were they to do ? There were 1,000 individuals, accortb cg 0.. the statement, on the Pension List who were liable to the out mittee. Was the committee to sA day after day, b ent at l g o us- - these individuals ? Would anything be more "ve x ows or more advantageous to private malignity —more a nd sHe less conducive to the public interest ?—ojeae, hear• i i P H , (Lord John Russell) much questioned whether if a l ; gi ld cedent could be set aside—an Act of Parliament id sho be broken with impunity—and engagements hick bile to be sacred might be violated—it would be wort h : flop obtain such retrenchment as the proposition ci f - th . e / 0 and Learned Gentleman would establish at such a•P n e c . the November, 1830, the whole of the pensions charge' t o& Consolidated Fund amounted to 80, 9 62/. ; on Januar'', li .ears . they amounted to 62,319/., making - a difference in in f e e . Y e able of 17,943/. in favour of reduction. The pensicnes ee'"b'lB3o, on the Four and a Half per Cents. in Noeeenbeney W ere amounted to 15,690/. ; on the lsteof January, 1836, th oest i o w 11,6341., making a reduction of 3,656/. Taking the' q en the the other way, there were in the accounts of pension 3 the Consolidated Fund the amount of 45,0001., in those r D ; so 100/. ; of that sum 20,000/. were grantd prior to 1„8 hind that if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were to conutte•iiehed self to pensions over 1001., 25,000/. was the whole su e ' F r iend to deal with. It had been stated by his Right 11° 13. a the (Mr. S. Rice) last year that the whole expenditureoo,B36l. country for the past eight years had been redneed tut bta i t ied He would ask the House to compare that might,/ s eleb e a ltrl s al° in a straightforward and legitimate way, with the e s p ied Ge,rii proposed to be obtained through the Hon. and L'ea r e ; e rracet e ' tleman's motion, by prying and spying and other ": 0 7, pain s proceedings, and say whether it was worth while to * w ord t e . about the one, while the other was so ample. On e. of stab to H the course of unlimited inquiry which the t notie I na . litai Hon. and Learned Gentleman had suggested. The ' - t rotre,,, s. Learned Gentleman had twice sought distinction in,_ a „. ; ,' eon, sion in this country, and twice had he been refused ane7i i ill it by . those who had the power to do so. They maereireej against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and he " e iliren himself ; but in every portion of his defence be el e. tb °' g i 0 against the injustice of instituting inquiry at such a le:, to time after the alleged transactions had take n p lace ' grounds that witnesses were dead or departed from the OA' s ea try, and many others of a similar natu re. The °° hac . h b° Learned Gentleman had claimed for hims elf that we v i , as ioll would fain deny those individuals who were on the 'he tl es List. They were liable in even a greater degree that .otnr to the death of witnesses, and their departure from tu e i f itbe try, Was it just ? Was it fair ?—(He ar.) Feeling t"evrhich Hon. and Learned Gentleman bad made out sso cas c o. , not called for inquiry—feeling that the course he proyos e i a tion'' senctioned by Parliamentary precedent since the r evo... e il eie and feeling that no great party in the State eneerta; with doctrines—as selso seeing that a bargain had been Oa e f the the Crown, which it was the duty in faith and hono e r ,,,, 0" Crown to abide by, whatever its conditions—and se,ll';tliateu of all, that a protracted inquiry was proposed to be t.aeleiserf into a great number of cases—that great individual gld h e would ensue, with no public good, and the House vi l e- is 1 1 plunged into a course at one unjust and Wel ' cld e " ( Lord J. Russell) should give the motion his Pu s ' 6 opposition.—( Hear.) ea 3 was An Hon. MEMBER asked the Noble Lord wbete - 0 1 ins not the principle of the Poor Law Bill that the ._° ° , l -1- 01 b e should be supported by his relatives, and that if be b e- a was not entitled to relief ? No answer was returned to this question e trong er Mr. lIUME said that no circumstances . could b te - , argu' in support of the motion of his Hon. Friend tha t : ;itnessese ments of the Noble Lord, respecting the death , 01 e his 1 -1 ° 11 „ . and their departure from the country. He motiondefenue" r and Friend in the course he had adopted in his f or mer assur ed t % ,posting unmerited pensions and sinecures, iettel i.nefer" iatte the a pe Noble Lord he had not forgot to follow u p the the committee. The Noble Lord laid great stres s ° we re s e sense of petitions on this subject; but 'the peoille t tro uble satisfied that justice must be done, that they did pot the themselves about it.---( A laugh.) The precedents wmootion' Noble ,Lord appealed to, as arguments against tb e in t hel were made in bad times ; and it became the Ihn is 2Vie ar j., reformed times to make precedents for themselves. 4 , Pa, One of the chief reasons they had sought a Befortn oe cur c ' liament for was to enable them to get rd O useless , 1 by '''' and unmerited pensions. A question had bee ° °- 0 re' h a d bee , to Hon. Member for Southwark, to which no ansWe r ..erea. f turned. Were the commissioners of poor laws entrhi".•ai reh e withhold assistance from individuals claiming Par W t e a r c a l whose relatives were in a situation to afford it , ee eetili o the Noble paupers on the State Pension List tO /W h e al%) ci from the operation of the same principle 2—( l-103 P e h t er '„f ad heard no answer to this, and liPe con tended — l 6 , s s ius - ,.; meat was, therefore, treating the poor with hear t-- The tice, and the rich with shameful lenity and indulge n t e t e ; st el l t r h e ; was no sympathy in that House for the poor. I t • a to , r served for Peers with pensions. He called attenti9 t 00 ,e case of the Duchess of Newcastle, and wished tha or t hree' titled dames and Noble Peers, to I,:umber Of tein ore all hundred, whose names he saw on the Pens::" List, Ilitint% obliged to yield up their undeserved annuities. , ba di‘ a tfareu e-il out the examples of Lord Sidmouth and Captato I,ord a • highly worthy of praise and imitation. The Nob ; bu t o - 0 spoken of a saving of only from ‘)0,000/. to 40, 0° a sser t : l oo e of the only of 5,000/., it ought to be made, a : s f ell er eel fhie f right of that House to prevent the ar' s l e et 0` bad a plundering the people. He did not deny the, r i ; e nonsa it l"esty to dispose of the 75,0001.: but the i-',° env A 130100., also a right to know to whom this money Was g r f i P t e. was deserved. Let the King by all means retain well See"ee gative. He held that his Mai ty's conduct in s° t"fes cry' porting Lord Gre 'A • s es - • the ev en ere iog 'Zi t s y s Administration at of the Reform Bill had rendered him fully desh-olding yes loyal support of the Commons in return, lii ° P he doirt o le privileges on this subject: but they would onli iri awi- ha a act of justice to his Majesty by pointing out fir Dad a a most worthy of his b Bth l s l ehie a ' jails ounty. ut c ta me w as, spoken of an absolute compact between that Re'," cas e his and his Majesty on the subject of the Civil List. l'i l. y eeee 4 e however, riot so. The 'con act alluded to was e v et insu' i le Majesty and his then Ministers :he had afterwarus tre at f them ; and the present Parliament was now free ° t C 501 0 _el subject as they thought fit. He wished he could se __ s o ar th°,. those Noble paupers in blue coats and yellow ockibiahterh! o H th e er paupers were in some places. —(. Oh, stand ...„.(Isa e g ee had certainly seen them so dressed somewhere joestig ter.) It was the right of the people to demand this atteroptlne!, lion, and of the House to enforce it, not, however,reared th t i , to interfere (as the Noble Lord so groundlessW ', ea Mer l ,: were about to do) with public services or acknowle,urgedweion these • being expressly excluded from the p rOpOS ea foi l —(Cries of " Que'stion.") with a et Mr. H. G. WARD had entered that H o use ps e rliar e se e s f, conviction that it was the duty of that Refornic" elis ions 0 , to put an end to the payment of all unmerited cf 001 Print sinecures as soon as possible. He had professe d, s eat e ft o f ciples at the hustings, and it was not till he b ad iderat e)- • 0 0, House some time, and had gone through the cons 0 010 1 A e e te , ' the subject step by step, that he arrived a t tb tee• lm ie pac . ci p. that, as an honest man, he was bound by the co be grin r. into in 1831. There was no analogy between the hod to the :ect of the new Poor Law Bill and that which a pensions be's:olle istins pensions. The custom of granting P,,,, Berk's, the of right to the King, and till the period of '" r " Jo 1 83. ar form there were no bounds set to its exercise. be f o re Pp., subject was fully, fairly, and repeatedly brough t ~ t he Il i ese liament, and a compact was entered into betwee' ee llor ° ioa meat and the Crown, at the instance of the Che t ° the poll! a il Exchequer, by which it was finally arranged ath „ tiro , thn. or , Liot should be reduced to 75,0001., on the con' ee idett,', e , existing persons on the Pension List should be l a .. „ he voi ce The Chancellor of the Exchequer said distinctly meat tbiat. that the Crown felt itself ledged to the PaYe!til-e for tb e eti e existing pensions if the HouseP would not p e rov o t t . Ides tni a J, a ali The Civil List was then in the usual cours gon ercP'! by that takes place once in the reign of our ; ha rga l l l t he the House thought that it was making a g ° ., eoe nt, 811 die reducing the pensions one-half their former i .tiet to o ' oo ol question thus once fairly set at rest it oug!",._ an bist t t he turbed.—[The Hon. Member here entered intu_ . . toe , bu , eoe , review o f the subsequent discussions of this,o,stinet tu e f d the' nc" o at e continuous interruptions that prevailed, an, the pu t ot subjec• late in which the Hon. Member spoke, proven t 0 to the tete' his observations being fully heard.] As sto on t bst vested interests, he should wish above all thibrige ri foeliuga, be that investigation ; and as to the strong P as thr eaten existed on that point, and with which he . ve . efere t he o _ 9t i, should have no fear of going fully into it n "' h is e " body vi body of the public ins tead of the s mall b . 9 o f the tuents merely.--(Cries of " Question, questi °Woven. ~,,,bt a r h se n Sir R. INGLIS con tended that since t ebe A 0 111 oro ilb l i ament Civil List as it at presen t stood, CALL OF THE HOUSE. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that in moving the Order of the Day for the Call of the House, he wished to ask the Noble Lord, whether it was his intention to oppose the motion of which he had given notice ? If such was his intention, then, in Moving the Order of the Day for the Call of the House, his course would be to move that the House be called over. The Order of the Day having been read, Mr. DANIEL WHITTLE HARVEY, in now moving that the House be called over, said—l am anxious to say that on looking at the unprecedented attendance of Members, I should be willing to dispense with the Call, but at the same time I think that I cannot do so consistently with the call of which the Noble Lord, the Member for Buckinghamshire, has given notice for Thursday next, if the Noble Lord intended to persevere in that call. The object of the Noble Lord was to call the attention of the House to the distribution of the surplus, which is fortunately at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as the object of the Noble Lord is one of economy, and my motion is one in aid of it, it will be impossible for me to be rightly understood with reference to my Intended call, if I waive it on the present occasion. Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the call being made. On the contrary he thought the very full attendance was a reason why the call should be persevered in, and not aban doned.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time, as there did not appear any reason to expect that there would be any diminution whatever of attendance on Thursday ncxt, on the motion of the Noble Lord to consider the relief to the agricultural interest, he ( Lord John Russell) hoped that the Noble Lord Would not think it necessary to give the trouble of having the House called over again.—( Hear. ) The Marquis of CHANDOS made no reply, and the Speaker then proceeded to call over the House— And the names of the defaulters being called over, several of them appeared ; and those who did not attend were ordered to attend as follow :—That Lord Viscount Acheson, Lord Viscount Andover, Hon. Henry Ashley, Sir Jacob Astley, John Barham, Esq., Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, Esq., Richard Montesquieu Bellew, Esq., William Blamire, Esq., Denis Cauldfield Brady, Esq., Henry Bruen, Esq., Sir Charles Cockerell, Edward Michael Conolly, Esq., Sir Charles Cootc, Robert Westley Hall Dare, Esq., Lewis Weston Dillwyn, Esq., James Deans Dundas, Esq., Earl of Euston, 'James Milues' Gaskell, Esq., Sir Stephen Glynne, Henry Grattan, Esq., Hon. Sir Charles Greville, Hon. Dou glas Gordon Hallyburton. James HalLe, Esq., Sir Edmond Samuel Hayes, Sir Gilbert Heathcote, Hon. Syd ne y H er b ert , Sir Robert Heron ' Lord Arthur Hill, Si r R ow l an d Hill, H on . Edward Howard, Charles Denham Orlando Jephson, Esq., John Hodson Kearsley, Esq., David Ker, Esq., Henry Gaily Knight, Esq., Right Hon. Thomas Lefroy, Richard Long field, Esq., Captain Aleynell, William Henry Miller, Esq., Hon. Augustus Henry Moreton, Frederick William Mullins, Esq., Sir Richard Musgrave, Sir Gerard Noel, Jonathan Peel, Esq., Edmund Peel, Esq Sir John Walter Pollen, Philip Pusey, Right Hon. Sir William Rae, David Roche, E-1., John Bonfoy Rooper, Esq., Colonel Seale, Right Hon. Fre derick Shaw, Thomas Assheton Smith, Esq., Sir Henry Smyth, Alexander Speirs, Esq., John Stewart, Esq., S,r George Strickland, Charles Hanbury Tracy, Esq., Sir Robert Vaughan, Granville Harcourt Vernon, Esq., Charles Arthur Walker, Esq.. Thomas Peers Williams, Esq , William Ad dams Williams, Esq., Sir John Wrottesley, do attend this House upon Thursday. On our return to the gallery we found Mr SCARLETT putting a question to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs relative t o the transfer of a correspondence as to certain transactions in the Barbary States from the Con sular department of the Foreign Office. Lord PALMERSTON (as we understood) .assured the Hon. Member that the transfer had taken place. Mr. SCARLETT then moved for the production of the papers and corrrespondence between the naval Commander in-Chief in the Mediterranean in 1832, and the Pacha of Tripoli: but, at the request of the Noble Lord, withdrew his motion. NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Mr. BUCKINGHAM inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any intention to limit the sizo of the paper to which the newspaper stamp was to be affixed? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was aware there was some ground for the opinion which had got abroad from what was stated in the schedule, but it was his intention that the duty should be reduced from four-pence to one penny per sheet on the largest single sheet now in ordinary use ; but he did not intend that a double sheet should have the same advantage. It had also been suggested that it would be a great convenience to the proprietors of coun try and weekly newspapers if they were permitted to issue a sheet and a half, and he proposed to permit them to do this, on payment of an additional duty of one halfpenny on the half sheet. Mr. GOULBURN—Does the Right Hon. Gentleman in. tend that a double sheet shall only pay single duty ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—CertainIy not. PENSIONS. Mr. D. W. HARVEY then rose to bring on his motion. Next Thursday, it was to be remembered, there was to be a call of the House, the professed object of which was to pro mote economy, and to obtain, on behalf of the agricultural in terest, some portion of that surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to bestow. It would be seen whether that call would be honoured in a similar way to this. It might certainly be said that a considerable number of the Members were present at six o'clock.—( Hear.) Oh, yes he knew it had been said that he had done wrong to make this call ; but there was no unfriendly want of curiosity to hear him speak ; but that he could scarcely expect that Members, though they came down in obedience to the call, would prefer a dry debate to a good dinner.—( A laugh.) The result was, that most of them had gone home, and that by-and-by they would come down to give their votes without having heard a single word of the argument.—( Hear.) It had been said to him repeatedly, that as the Members themselves were concerned, the debates of that House were but of little use ; that they came down with their opinions formed, their minds made up ; and that nothing which occurred in the course of the debate in any way affected the vote which they had predetermined to give. Why then debate at all ? was the obvious question— to which it was always answered—." Oh, th e public mind is crude, and it requires repeated discussions in this House to form and fashion it rightly." Let not, however, H on. m em _ of the M an y hers " lay this flattering unction to their souls." On this sub jectthe ijus T ti h ce e the public were far in advance of the Government. opfublic continuingan ted thei argument Pension Ltoistcooonviitns presentcethem a Member now absent would recollect the promises which he made to his constituents to take the earliest opportunity of redeeming himself on this point, and if the constituents of those gentlemen were not now satisfied, at least they could not say that he (Mr. Harvey) had not given them an opportunity. It was perfectly notorious in all the Clubs that a certain Noble Lord, who was then leaving the House , was most anx i ous, in deed panted with eager desire , to state the rea sons why this motion should not be assent ed to. Th e Noble Lord was ready th o erefore, e rpeofoin r t e, a all he was as Members to come down, at all events, at a later period of the evening, to theretsarc some m hei inducement wasmasteroeetoent for of Hon. against hi m , an d, hear the Noble Lord, if not to take the subject into their consi deration. The House would, doubtless, well remember how indignant that Noble Lord was on a former occasion when he entered that House just after his too liberal associate, Lord Althorp, had consented to the motion. The Noble Lord on that occasion rose and stated that his Noble Friend had in cautiously assented to the moticn. He did not wish to divide the Cabinet, and therefore gave his reluctant sanction to it ; but if ever it came before the House again so as to give him (the Noble Lord s a a n id o ) pp i o f r h tu e n ( i m ty r.ofHdaeravleiylsworitvhiviet,d why the their discussion, A laugh.) thought he had a right to remind the House of He be exceedingly surprised.—( he should this,in order to show them that there would be at least an amusing afterpiece, however dull the preamble might be. The object of his motion was to re vise the list of pensions returned to that House on a motion of his own made in June last. They were 1,303 in number, and ) -4qti