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

Z'fle aun.

LONDON :
TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1837.

We beg to invite the serious attention of Government
to the petition of the principal Printers, Publishers, and
Booksellers of the United Kingdom—a copy of which will
be found in The Sun of to-day—praying for a large reduc-
tion in the present exorbitant rate of Postage. This peti-
tion, which was presented in the House of Commons, on
Wednesday last, by Mr. WALLACE, and in the House of
Peers, on Friday, by the Earl of RADNOR, is from a body
of men as distinguished for their general intelligence as any
in the country ; and as they are all men of business habits
and much practical experience, the decision to which they
have come ought to have great weight with the CHANCEL-
LOR Of the EXCHEQUER, and the POST MASTER-GENERAL.
We refer, of course, to tho conviction they express,
that a reduction of the present rate of postage would not
materially affect the revenue. More sanguine than the
petitioners, we are persuaded that a reduction of the post-
age duty—provided it be large enough—will materially in-
crease the revenue at present derived from that source.
On the contrary, however, a small reduction, or one of
partial and limited operation, will be productive of no good
to the country, while it must. embarass the Government
by creating general dissatisfaction. Such a peddling line
of policy w;11 only occasion a defalcation in the Reve-
nue, without being of the slightest advantage to any party
law suffering from the gross mismanagement of the
Post-office authorities. Better leave matters as they
are than touch them with a hesitating or unwilling hand.
By far the best plan will be to establish an uniform rate of
postage throughout the kingdom, as that, in the first place,
will relieve the country from the burthen of any of the
Clerks who draw large salaries for the performance of du-
ties which can no Longo- be required. Every shilling thus
saved is so much gained ; and ought to be taken into ac-
count in inquiring into the beneficial operation of any Post-
office experiment that the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER may adopt. A simple plan like that of stamped covers
is not to be partially tried by a complicated expensive
machinery, and then taxed with not realizing benefits
which could only accrue from it, and which it only pro-
mised to realize, in the event of its general adoption. We
do not contend that it would be necessary to reduce the
rate of general postage to a penny, in order to
satisry the country—we believe that a rate of fourpence
on letters by the General Post, and a charge of a penny
where twopence and threepence is now demanded, would
give universal satisfaction. Stamped covers, specifying the
weight which they would carry free, would be far preferable
to the old single and double sheet system—so liable to ob-
jection on account of the official pretext which it afforded
for a violation of seals, and the consequent abstraction of
valuable enclosures. Were weight assumed as the standard
of charge, the Post-office could dispense with the services
of the official fumbkrs, and the whole of the members of
the blue-tight board—for a knowledge of whose practices
the country is indebted to the indefatigable exertions of
the Hon. Member for Greenock.
After the statement set forth in this petition we question
if there will be any official wiseacre silly enough to Contend
that a reduction of the postage duty would not increase the
number of letters transmitted by the mails throughout the
country. The petitioners state that were the postage duty
reduced, many of them would circulate, in the regular
way of business, from 20,000 to 50,000 letters in the
year more than they do at present! What an impulse
would not this addition to the usual correspondence
of the country—extending as it must in a limited pro-
portion to all other branches of useful and ornamental
industry—give to the trade and commerce of the nation in
the course of a few years ! Presuming the additional let-
ters sent by any of the petitioners not to exceed 37,000 a
year, this, at a penny postage, would amount to upwards
of 1501., a sum sufficiently arge in itself to tempt the

cupidity of a CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
To maintain the utility of the Post-office, the Govern-
, ment must reform it, and that speedily. No law will be
able to secure to it the monopoly which it now enjoys, after
the country is intersected with railroads, unless it be
placed on an equal footing with other Establishments.
This is the age of competition and of change—the age of
quid pro quo. The Post-office must keep pace with the
progress of those whose servant it professes to be, or it will
soon be loft so far behind as to be regarded as the last relic
of by-gone barbarism. The people of England will not be
such dupes as to pay three or four shillings for the con-
veyance of half an ounce of paper a distance for which
they might get half a hundred weight carried for six-
pence ! To talk of enforcing obedience to laws
at once unjust, impolitic, oppressive, and restrictive of
trade, is mere moonshine, after the country shall have
the means of evading them provided by extensive lines of
railway. The Government may rely upon it, that when
the different lines of railway now in progress are completed,
there will be an immense falling off in the number of letters
now sent by post, unless an extensive reform be effected in
the management of that establishment.

In the House of Lords last night, Lord BROTIGHAn pro-

sentcd a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Common Council of the City of London in favour of Mr•
RowLAND HILL'S Penny-postage Post-office Reform
Plan. The Noble and Learned Lord supported the prayer

the Post-office authorities entertained of any change in the
management of that branch of the public service. "With your
Lordsip's leave," observed the Noble and Learned Baron,
after expressing his respect for the scruples of the sages of
St. Martin's-le-Grand, and deferring to their superior know-
ledge of Post-office affairs generally, " I will refresh your
recollection of what took place when the great improve-
ment of Mr. PALMER was suggested, in the mail-coach
department in 1784. Tho net revenue of the Post-office
was then 150,0001. per annum, and the mails ran some-
where about three miles and a half an hour. Great in-
dignation was felt by some old official persons, and
they viewed with absolute contempt the vast improve-
ments then suggested. Those official persons, indeed, all
with one voice exclaimed against the proposition, and they
united in a chorus of applause which rent the ears of Par-
liament in favour of every man in the establishment—of
every rule—of every regulation—declaring, in short, that
the Post-office was conducted in the best possible manner.
Parliament, after an inquiry into the plan, reported that
upon the -whole Mr. PALMER'S plan contained the great-
est difficulties, and, as a scheme, it RAS in tote, impracti-
cable. With respect to fees, the Report stated, that
after examining the oldest and ablest officers in the Post-
office, the Committee were of opinion that not only was
Mr. PALMER'S plan impracticable, hut.absolutely dangerous
to commerce and finance. So that the commerce of the
country was not only in jeopardy from the French Revo-
lution, and the events which followed its train, but also
from the scheme of Mr. PALMER ! Let your Lordships
only think of what risks the country ran, without knowing
it, as regarded commerce and finance, when Mr. PALMER
produced his unhallowed scheme for improving the speed of
the mails—when he laid his hand upon the department,
and sought to increase the speed of the mails from three-
and-a half miles an hour to seven miles—the whole revenue
being 150,000/. per annum ! The scheme was, however,
adopted in spite of 'the oldest and ablest officers,' and the
revenue increased to 1,500,0000 In conclusion, the Noble
and Learned Lord, after apologising to the House for
citing such an amusing specimen " of the wisdom of their
ancestors," complained that the Government, in making a
partial trial of stamped covers, had entirely overlooked
Mr. ROWLAND HILL'S plan, which, after the support it had
received, was entitled to the consideration of Ministers.
Lords DUNCANNON and LICHFIELD admitted that such
was the fact, but adopting the convenient precedent laid
down by the " oldest and ablest officers" of the Post-office
before the parliamentary Committee in 1784, they con-
tended that Mr. HILL'S plan " was not only impracticable,
but dangerous to the revenue and finance." Lord LICH-
FIELD, however, cemfessed that the present rate of postage
might be considerably reduced without injury to the re-
venue, though his Lordship was silent both as to the
reduction which he would grant, and the time when it
would come into operation—points of some importance to
the country. Now we respectfully ask the Noble Post-
master-General, when is the reduction to take place ?
Twelve months ago the Noble Earl stated in the House of
Peers that a reduction might safely be made in the price of
postage. Why then has it not taken place ? Is it not an
insult to the country for any Minister of the Crown, in
answer to petitions from most respectable bodies of citizens,
to get up in his place in Parliament, and laconically tell
them—" Much of what you ask might be safely given,"
and then sit down, leaving them to reflect for a year upon
what was intended by such a speech ? But while respect-
fully addressing this question to the Postmaster-General,
we have to observe that a trifling reduction of the present
rate of Postage will not satisfy any party, or serve any na- ,
tional purpose. What is sought is such a reduction in the,
price of conveyance, and such a reform in the mode of collec-
tion, as will invite commercial intercourse, and maintain
inviolate the sanctity of a seal, and the secrecy of an in-
closure. For this purpose, stamped covers are preferable
to any other plan yet devised ; and to avoid contusion, an
uniform rite of postage would be decidedly an improve-
ment upon the present graduated scale of prices. Wo are
not so unreasonable, as to be satisfied with nothing short
of Mr. HILL'S Penny-postage plan. We are persuaded
that a general postage duty of fourpence, and a reduction
of the present threepenny and twopenny postage to a
penny, would satisfy the country, and rather increase than
diminish the amount of revenue now derived from the
Post-office Establishment.

In compliance with the wish of the House of Commons,
loudly and repeatedly expressed in the early stages of the
discussion on the Pension List, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER mentioned last night the names of those whom
he proposes to place on the Committee of Inquiry. To
these names we have nothing to object ; they seem fairly
enough selected, and are guarantees that the investigation
will be conducted in a frank, manly, and impartial spirt.
So far, therefore, Ministers arc entitled to praise. But the
case is different, as regards their behaviour to Mr. HARVEY.
Here they have acted not only indiscreetly but meanly They
have seized on a point of no earthly moment; purposely exag-
gerated its importance ; and having thus made a mountain
of their mole-hill, urged it against the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman as an objection of the most serious and disqua-
lifying character. Mr. HALL well observed "it was na-
tural for the Government, when prOposing a Committee of
Inquiry into -Pensions, to place on it the name of a gentle-
man who had devoted his time and.his talents to the consi-
deration of this subject, and session after session had
brought it before the House. The Member for Southwark
was so much identified with this question, that unless his
name were attached to the Committee, those who felt the
deepest interest in the progress and results of the Inquiry
would not be satisfied that it was fairly gone into." And
yet, Ministers, knowing this, object to Mr. HARVEY'S ap-
pointment, on the puny plea—a plea to which even Sir
ROBERT PEEL himself, stickler as he is for privileges, pre-
cedents, tie., confesses he does not attach much importance
—Ministers, we say, object to Mr. HARVEY, that he once
published Committee evidence, end has thereby disqudified
himself for assisting in the Pension List Inquiry ! Mr.
W A KLEY, who at once saw through the subterfuge, put
this objection on its proper footing—reduced it to its fitting
level. "It was a mere farce," observed the Hon. Gentle-
man, " to be so particularly nice about breaches of privi-
lege. Had they not a Standine. Order for the exclusion of
strangers, daily violated ? Were not their proceedings
daily published, in violation of another Standing Order ?
And if they at tempted to enforce those Orders, would the
people submit to any such attempt ?" The truth is, Mr.
HARVEY is excluded, not because he on one occasion pub-
lished detached portions of the Poor Law evidence,
but because he has rendered himself obnoxious to
Government, by his shrewdness, his sarcasm, and his per-
tinacity, on the ticklish question of the Pension List. He
has forced Ministers to grant an Inquiry, and to make this
Inquiry an honest one. He has prevented them from
twisting, or wriggling, or standing-stock-still, but compelled
them to move straight on. It is here the shoe pinches.
It is here that Mr. HARVEY'S offence lies ; and it is for
this he is excluded from an investigation which, of all
men living, he is the most competent to deal with. Just in
the same petty, personal spirit, that the Whigs now
behave towards Mr. HARVEY, did the Tories behave to
Mr. O'CONNELL. The latter forced Sir ROBERT PM.
to grant Emancipation, and, as a punishment for his having
done so, was instantly excluded from the representation of
Clare ; the former forces Mr. SPRING RICE to grant an
Inquiry into the Pension List, and is immediately (like his
predecessor) punished, or attempted to be punished, by
exclusion from the Committee And this is called libe-
rality—proceeding upon Parliamentary and statesmanlike
principles ! Verily, in matters of this sort, we see little
difference between Whig and Tory—except, indeed, that
the latter tells you plainly what he is, while the other is
constantly boasting of what he is not. We look on Mr.
HARVEY'S exclusion from the Pension List Committee, as
a very indiscreet and splenetic act on the part of Go-
vernment. It savors of the worst sort of party persecu-
tion, and, sure we are, that the country will regard it
in this light, and in no other. As for Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
objection to the Hon. Member for Southwark, it is the
most direct acknowledgment of the necessity of a search-
ing Inquiry into the Pension List, ever yet made in the
House of Commons. " Mr. HARVEY'S sarcasm," said the
Right Hon. Gentleman, " disqualified him for sitting on the
Committee." Wherefore, good Sir ROBERT, if there were
not revelations and exposures to be made, that would jus-
tify the severest censure and sarcasm ? It is truth and ap-
positeness that give effect to satire. Without these re-
quisites,the most cutting and epigrammeic sentences make
no more impression on men's minds, than cannon-balls make
on a wool-pack.

The proposition which is said to have been made to the
Government, with a view to restore tranquillity in Canada,
requires grave consideration. The plan is to make tlie
Canadas, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, integral por-
tions of the British Empire, with Members representing
the respective interests in the British Parliament. There
is no more serious objection to a union between England
and the three North American Provinces, than there was
to the union with Scotland at the beginning of the last

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of the Civil List Bill.
Mr. HUME was anxious to take that opportunity of having the
vote which he gave in. the Committee for the reduction of the
385,000/. to 335,0001. placed on the votes of the House. He
had before suggested, and he thought that it had been agreed to,
that all alterations in Committee of the whole House where
grants of money were made—he thought that it was understood
that they should be entered on the votes. They were not so, and
the result was that ten millions of money might be voted without
any individual being cognizant of it. In the Committee he had
proposed a reduction from 385,0001. to 335,0001., and he begged
now to move that that reduction do now take place. He did this
merely for the purpose of placing the motion on the votes of the
House. It was not, however, his intention to divide the House
upon it. But on the motion that the Bill should pass, it was his
intention to make some general remarks upon the measure.
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. GROTE proposed now to submit to the House the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, and which he expected to have
had an opportunity of submitting either on Friday or Saturday last.
The amendment was, that the fifth clause having reference to
pensions, should be omitted altogether. He was in hopes that he
should be enabled to show that the House would not be exercising
a wise discretion by permitting this clause to pass. Before he
entered into the circumstances he begged leave to say that he
thought, that when the Hon. Member for Southwark considered
the sum too paltry for the consideration of the House, that he had
done so under a mistaken notion with respect to it. Undoubtedly
the sum proposed to be annually granted did not sound very
largely. It was, to be sure, only 1,200/., and that was a small
sum compared to what the House had been in the habit of
granting. But let the House consider, that if her Majesty were
enabled to grant new pensions to the amount of 1,2001. a-year,
the new Pension List would swell to 41,000/. in 21 years, as
was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer • but he
( Mr. G.) thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
mistaken in his calculation, and that the amount would be consi-
derably more than 41,0001. in twenty-one years. When it
was recollected that it had always been the custom to place the
youngest and best lives upon the Pension List, it would be plain
that much mere - should be admitted as the accumulation than the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had calculated. There was more than
one reason to induce him to propose thatthis grant be struck out of the
Civil List. He thought it extremely improper and inconsistent to
fix the sum for future pensions, when the House was going on with
an enquiry into those that existed. The House having granted a
Committee of Inquiry, and having sanctioned the principle that
all grants which had been given undeservedly or for corrupt pur-
poses should be struck off, ought to pause for the result of that en-
quiry before it granted the means of additional pensions. It. was
not possible for him tos nticipate what might. be the result of the
deliberations of that CoMnittee, but he might speak of the results
hypothetically, and, he might say that when the Committee
had concluded its labours it would report to the House that
all, or nearly all of the existing pensions were good, and
ought to be continued ; or they might report on the other
hand that one-half or three-fourths were bad, and oug-ht to
be struck out. It was therefore, in his view, important that before
any sum was granted for new pensions that the House should know
to what purposes the Pension List in times past had been applied.
If they should find that it had been used for corrupt and profligate
purposes—that abuse was the rule and propriety the exception—
would they not naturally say that the House had not known to
what profligacy the Pension List 'gave rise, and that it was neces-
sary in future to check its liberality in placing at the disposal of the
Ministry the means of such corruption ?—( Hear.) Was it not
therefore necessary to have the result of the inquiry into the past,
before they decided for the future ?—( Hear.) Surely they ought
not to decide in the absence of the evidence which they were at
that moment taking the pains to collect. It is evident that
if they fixed what was proper to be allotted for future pensions, and
in effect anticipated the result of their own inquiry, they laid down
the principle that no possible disclosures which the Committee
might make would raise any objection to future pensions. He
was sure that if they proceeded to make such a grant in the pre-
sent stage of their inquiry, the public would be persuaded
that their object., in appointing the Committee, was to leave
the great bulk of the Pension List precisaly as it
was at present, and that they never intended their inquiry to be
searching and decisive. If they looked to the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Civil List they would see that they refused to sanc-
tion the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix the sum
of 75,0001. as in the case of the old Pension List, but they cer
tainly concurred in the proposition of the Meraber for Aberdeen,
were
,vas
s proper
equally t o
so fix
to thefix
that they should fix the suns which they would allow her Majesty
st
rug r
for
et
thefor
newh e
newp pensions, spi oe nn ohne' thought w fh
it
at it
the principal sum. To do the one thing and to do the other was
only doing the same thing under different names. He contended
that if the Committee on the Civil List were might in refusing
to assent to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
they were wrong in fixing the amount of the new Pensions. For
his part, he was of otinion, that instead of fizing what was to be
the amount of the now Pensions, would be better at once to fix
the principal sum, because by doing so they would know more ac-
curately what was charged on the Public 'I reasury than by the pre-
sent Civil List. These were the reasons why he asked the House
to strike the clause out of the Civil List. Besides, he contended,
that these Pensions had no proper connection or place in the Civil
List at all. He was of opinion that they ought to be charged
on the Consolidated Fund. The House would see that these
Pensions were unalterable during the reign of her present
Majesty—a reign which was likely to last many years. Now what
reason was there why they should fix them for so long a period of
time? He could understand why the sum necessary for the sup-
port of her Majesty's household should be fixed for the whole reign.
It was obviously expedient that the Sovereign should not be sub-
jected to the inconvenience arising from frequent changes in her
household. In fact, it was necessary to the personal comfort and
dignity of the Sovereign that such grants should last during
the entire reign. He would ask how it conduced to her Ma-
jesty's comfort or dignity to grant a certain sum to be distri-
buted by her in pensions any more than it would conduce
to her comfort or dignity to fix unalterably the civil and military
appointments, and other patronages vested in the Crown. If they
had a right to do the one, they had a perfect right to do the other.
He contended, too, that if the House in case of abuse or profli-
gacy tied up their hands for such a length of time from interposing
a remedy, they would be committing a most unwarrantable act.
The recommendation he , was now enforcing on the House was, in
point of fact, in full coincidence with the general principh
laid down by a Committee on the Civil list in 1831, al-
though he was aware that it was contrary to the specific
recommendation that the Committee came to in respect to the Civil
List pensions; that Committee had laid down the general principle
that nothing should remain any longer on the Civil List which was
not directly connected with the comfort and dignity of the Crown.
Under these words he contended that the Pension List could not
stand for a moment. The Committee in 1831 had assigned a rea-
son why they continued the pensioners on the Civil List, and that
reason was embodied in the Report of the Committee of 1837.
It was to enable the Sovereign to grant marks of Royal favour; it
such a definition was to be tolerated, it would give countenance to
a system of courtly caprico and favouritism. Now, he would ask the
House to look at the consequences of this • he would suppose that
they were now in the reign of Charles IL, who in that reign
would have been at the top of the Pension List?—why, the Royal
mistnesses--the Duchess of Cleveland, the Duchess of Portland.
and Mrs. Eleanor Gwynne, would have been at the head of that
List, because they would have been the parties the King most de.
sired to favour. He might make the same remarks with respect to
the Royal mistresses in the reigns of George I. and George 11.
It was in his opinion impossible for the House to consent to
abide by the decision of the Committee of 1831.—( Hear, hear.)
The recommendation of the Committee of 1831 as to pensions had
been entirely overruled by the resolution of 1834, and by the Act
of this House in granting a Committee of Inquiry, and thus recog-
nising the principle that they were good and proper claims. Whil,
the Committee on the Civil List-for 1837 abandon the definition
given by the Committee of 1831, they adopt the words of the reso-
lution of 1834, that " pensions are founded upon public services,"which
entitle the persons to the gracious consideration of their Sovereign.
The Pension List, therefore, became of great public importance.
and it was a great public act to distribute the pensions as they
ought to be. The Committee of 1837 ought to have recom
mended that the Pension List should be altogether disconnected from
the Civil List, and altogether placed as a branch of public expenditure
before that House. For these reasons he (Mr. G.) recommende-
the House to strike out the fifth clause of the Civil List Bill; bu
he had objections which lay deeper, and which led him to th,

question of the wisdom and the policy of continuing the Pensions
upon the Civil List. at all. The House should recollect that their
hands were not tied up now as they had been in former reigns,
when they would only investigate the fitness of individual names,
• and when it was not open to them to lessen the amount or shorten
' the duration of the fund granted. They now were at liberty to take
a comprehensive view of the public benefit, or mischief, which
would arise from the continuation of the Pension Fund.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) At present Pensions were only granted by
Alinisterial caprice, and seldom with any reference to individual
merit. Was it wise to give the Minister a fund to be distributed
according to his own views, being limited only by certain very ge-
neral restrictions? What public benefit arose from the Pension
Fund as now administered? Were pensions granted as rewards for
service? No : for 999 out of every 1,000 in the public service
never obtained these rewards. Were they an incitement to supe-
rior activity and industry? No; they were far too uncertain—too
nittai in the nature of accidents to have such tendency. Were they
se encouragement to scientific habits and literary tastes? No—for
the chance of obtaining them was far too small to be appreciated
or calculated upon by the many literary and scientific men with
whom this country abounded.—( Hear, hear.) Neither were they
granted as rewards for signal public benefits conferred, for he (Mr.
U.) recollected several grants of money which had been made by
that House to persons who had conferred such public benefits as in
the case of Dr. Jenner and Captain Ross. They were creating a
fend for distribution, which was never attended with any public
benefit.—(Hear, hear, hear.) When a fund like that was de-
voted either wholly or in part to men• of merit and talent, the
public would sympathise with such men, and would rarely
express dissatisfaction with that application of the public money.
But that was not the consideration which ought to weigh with
he House in creating such a fund. Undoubtedly, if a nobleman
were to lay apart a portion of his income for the endowment of de-
serving men in literature and science, that would be a praiseworthy
~ppropriation of his wealth. But the case was very different from
that under consideration. Let the House look to the way in
which the persons coming within the influence of theproposed fund
would be affected by it for good or for evil. Those persons were
a small circle of individuals immediately under the eye of the Mi-
esiker, and he contended that the effect produced upon that silent
circle was positively of an undeniable character. If any one of those
persons desired to obtain the benefit of the fund, would he not keep his
eye on the Minister, and do every thing by obsequious conduct to
insatiate himself with the partisans of the Government of the day.
(Hear, hear.) That was the natural course into which the House
by this grant would tempt men of merit and character, and in-
stead of good to them and to the public, it would do great and
serious evil, by holding out to them such a temptation. Let
them look to another effect of this provision in the Pension
List, on the circle of Ministerial bounty. Suppose the Minister
has a vacancy on the Pension List, and he wishes to promote a
man of literature and science ; what would the effect be of enabling
the Minister to select such a man—say a mathematician—from the
body of men in the same walk of science ; would it not create
dissatisfaction and discontent ? Would they not say "We don't
care about the money, but to select the favoured individual was to
imply that he was pre-eminent above us all."—( Hear.) So that,
in fact, they were not enabling the member to compliment the
science to which the individual belonged, but to rouse the jealously
of scientific pre-eminence in the breasts of all others who laboured
in the same walk. He (Mr. G.) did not complain of the grants
which had recently been made, but he objected to the principle on
the grounds which he had stated; and he could say, that within the
last few years some of those grants had been complained of, and in
a tone of asperity which he did not -mean to copy in that House.
But, in fact, the portion of the Pension List that went to scientific
and literary persons was but small. Out of the whole 75,0001.
they received but 5,0001. It was a very small portion of the
Pensioning power that went in that way. He contended that
it would be a great mischief if the Minister had a large fund
to divide .in that way.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It would enable
him to pervert the minds of intellectual men, as the Minister
with such a sum at his command would find abundance of authors
who would tread in the path presented to them. He knew that in
discussing this topic there were many cases which might be referred
to where relief was necessary; he did not deny that there might be
many literary men in want, and many a scientific man might be unable
to proceed with some valuable scientific research, for want of the
means. He would not deny that such might be the case, but he
denied that it was wise to create a public fund for that purpose.
Another ground taken by the defenders of the Pension List
was that it was not merely applicable to persons who had
distinguished themselves in the public serviee or who were
remarkable for their scientific or literary attainments, but also to
objects of charity. Now he did not think that this was a more
tenable position than the others • for if objects of charity were
to be included in it, the value of the compliment was diminished
when the distinctions of merit were lost sight of. He was one of
those who supported the Poor-law Amendment Act most warmly
on its first introduction, and he supported it still more warmly now,
that it had been found' to work so well ; but well as it worked,
and great as the benefits were which it had conferred, he could
not deny that there were cases, which pressed hardly on individuals,
which it did not meet. There were many cases of suffering and
want, from which the Act compelled them to withhold relief,
which they would have relieved if, without looking to its general
effect, they had followed the impulse of their own sympathies.
The Poor Law Act did not allow relief to be bestowed except upon

the indigent and destitute. No case of special hardship WU by the
Act allowed to receive relief if it fell short of those extreme cases,
so that suffering merit was left to the chances of private bounty and
charity. He desired the House to apply this analogy to the
Civil List.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Would they not be act-
ing most unjustly and inconsistently if, after refusing relief to
-those special cases, they created a fund to meet special cases
amongst the higher classes? In cases of special reward he con-
tended this House was the proper tribunal to apply te. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, no doubt, says that the House would be
profuse and partial, but he thought that on the whole this system
woul.i be much less objectionable, and productive of less mischief
to the public than the course proposed in the present Civil List.
If it were contended that the pensions were granted by the So-
vereign as a reward to old and faithful services, that might
be a reason for making an addition to the fund which was
to be granted to her Majesty for charitable purposes,
and which he (Mr. G.) thought was amply sufficient for such
purposes ; but it was no reason for creating a fund to be
administered according to arbitrary and irresponsible caprice.—
( Hear, hear.) Upon the grounds which he had stated he did
think ;hat considering the jealous inquiry which was now pending, it
was proper at all events to await the result of that inquiry, before
they detcrmined whether the Pension List should be continued at
all, or if so under what restriction's and regulations.—(Cheers.)
The lion. Gentleman concluded by moving that the clause be struck
put of the Bill.

Mr. HUME and Mr. CLAY rose together to second the motion
of the Hon. Member; but the latter gave way. He (Mr. Hume)
was anxious to second the motion of his Hon. Friend, because the
proposition that was now made was one which he submitted to the
Committee in 1831, and also to the Committee in the present
year. He had no hesitation in saying that his Honourable Friend
had exhausted the subject, and that it would only be a waste
of time to occupy the attention of the House with any re-
marks. The opinion which he had formerly entertained, that
no pension ought to be granted to any individual whatever out of a
public fund, gained strength every day. In his opinion, the system
was so vicious that it ought to be abolished altogether.—( Cheers. )
The grant of 1,200/. a-year, in his opinion, would neither add to the
honour or dignity of the Crown, but would take away that respect
which the mass of the people ought to pay to the Sovereign. Be-
lieving that the grant would be administered in future as it had
hitherto been, he should second the proposition of the Honourable
Member for the City of London, and he sincerely hoped he would
take the sense of the House on this most important principle.
The question having been put from the Chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose.—Undoubt-
edly he had nothing to complain of the mode in which the Hon.
Member for the City of London had introduced the subject. On
the contrary, he must say that he had discussed it in a meaner that
was most likely to bring the whole measure perfectly before the
House, but he could not but censure some of the principles he had
laid down. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the question
upon principle, and the difference of amount was, therefore, of
little consequence. But he had fallen into a mistake in the ques-
tion of amount. The Honourable Gentleman had stated that the
new charge of 1,200/. would in a period of twenty years amount
to 41,0001. and upwards, and stated farther, that he (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) had so admitted. In that the Honour-
able Gentleman was completely and decidedly mistaken.—
(Hear, bear, hear.) The accumulation could nut in any way
bear upon the best and youngest lives, amount to any thing at all
like such a sum.—(Hear.) What he (the Chancellor/of the Ex-
chequer) stated was, that the combination of the old and the new
pensions would amount in 20 years to 41,000/., and he would now
call the attention of those Gentlemen who denied that there was
any diminution in the new List to the explanation he was about to
offer of the Hon. Gentleman's mistake. If the new List were
founded upon the old principle that the Crown should have the
power of keeping up the pensions to the full amount, they would,
of course, continue to be 75,0001. at the end of 20 years.. But by
the limitation which he proposed to make the country would
have the benefit of terminating pensions above the amount
of twelve hundred pounds a-year, so that in 20 years, taking the
combination of the new pensions and the surviving old pensions
together to amount to about 41,0001. a year at that time, there
would be a saving of 33,000/. a- year and upwards.—( Hear, hear.)
The lion. Gentleman's argument divided itself into two parts—
first, whether pensions should be granted at all ; secondly, whether
they should be granted by the Crown. He ( the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) feared there was a great difference between the principle
on which he proposed to act, and that which the Hon. Gentleman
would recommend. The Hon. Gentleman would take from the
Crown the power of conferring rewards, which he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) regarded as essential to our monarchial consti-
tution. There was an irreconcilable difference between him and the
Hon. Gentleman on that part of the question. Perhaps the Hon.
Member would go the length of taking from the Crown the dis-
posal of all rewards, and transferring it to Parliament. That
would strike at the root of our limited monarchy.—( Hear.) If
she Hon. Gentleman would carry out his principle he would sub-
vert all the institutions of the country.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Would he take from the Crown the appointment of the
Judges ?—( Hear.) If not, why refuse that the Crown should
be the source of reward, as well as of honour? As to the ques-
tion whether pensions should be granted at all, the Honourable
Member himself admitted that he would allow retiring pensions
and superannuated allowances ; and certainly it could not be denied
that the Pension List might, under Parliamentary responsibility,
he made a means of justly and economically rewarding public ser-
vices. The Honourable Member had said that on the part of
science and scientific men ho wished there were no pensions, and he
gave a reason which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
would not have expected to hare heard in these enlightened
lays—(Hear, hear)--that the pensions might be granted to
influence the opinions of literary and scientific men. Why ! was Dr.
Dutton's, or Professor Airey's, or Mr. Moore's, or Mr. Southey's,
or Mr. Wordsworth's pensions, granted to influence their political
sentiments, whatever they might be, Whig, or Tory, or Radical ?
—( Hear, hear.) He had a better opinion of scientific and literary-
gentlemen than the Honourable Member. He was satisfied
.hat even if Government were disposed to abuso the power
;hat was vested in them, there was a spirit in literature and
science, which would not suffer such a degradation of their talents
and attainments. He would now refer to what occurred at a
very early period, when the question regarding literary pensions
was brought first before the House. It was on the occasion of the
grant of Dr. Johnson's pension, and they all knew what the Doc-

Sir R. PEEL said he would give his decided vote against the
proposition of the Hon. Member for London, which went to de-
prive the Crown of granting pensions as the reward of merit.—
(Hear.) Still he was bound to say that the provisions of this Bill
were not satisfactory in many respects to him.—( Hear.) He
thought the sum of 1,2001. a year, which was to be granted annually
for new pensions, was a very scanty one, particularly as the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had said that in 20 years there would be a
saving of 30,0001. a year by that method. At the same time there
were advantages in this mode of granting an anaual fixed sum for new
pensions—for by the old system there was often a great disproportion
between the means of granting pensions, and the ability to govern
them ; and in many years—the former were in an inverse ratio to
the latter. He considered it, however, a very unwise prevision,
that when the Crown, in any year, did not grant new pensions to
the whole amount of the 1,2001., there was to be no increase
allowed next year. He thought it expedient to exclude the
Crown from the power of carrying over to another year so
much of the 1,2001. of the preceding year as had not been granted.
By the Bill in its present form, there was an inducement held
out to the Crown to appropriate the whole 1,200/. in each year.
He thought it would be better to a'low the 1,200/. a year for a
defined period, and leave the appropriation of it to the forbearance
of the Crown. He hoped that part of the Bill would be reconsidered.
—( Hear, hear.) objected decidedly to laying the Pension
List on the table of that House every year. The Crown had
shewn every disposition to consult the wishes of the House
in regard to the Pens:on List, and to act upon its re-
cornmendations.—(Hear, hear.) But they were not satisfied
with that, and they were going to make it imperative on the Crown
by law to lay an exact account of the pensions upon the table—to
invite and challenge discussion, in order that the House might see
whether the Crown had acted, not only to the spirit, but to
the strict letter.—(Hear, and loud cheering. The Right
Ho:. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
argued in favour of our limited monarchy, but his own Bill was in
opposition to his principles.—( Hear, hear.) In his anxiety to sa-
tisfy both sides of the House, he used two opposite lines of argu-
ment.—( Hear, hear, ar.d laughter.) The night Hon. Gentle-
man said that Parliament ought not to have the exclusive power of
granting pensions, and he said that the Crown alone should be
the source of reward as well as honour. He (Sir Robert Peel)
agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman. He thought the Crown
ought to have the uncontrouled disposal of a certain amount
of pensions, and he would admit that upon a new arrangement of
the Civil List or when the mind of the public was inflamed with
suspicion, the Pension List should be laid before tne House. 'But
when the Right lion. Gentleman was addressing the other side of
the House, he said, you shall have the pensions before you every
year, and turning to his (Sir R. Peel's) side, he said, the
" Crown is the source of reward as well as of honour."—(A
laugh.) Well, then, suppose it were proposed to lay before Par-
liament every year a list of the honours and distinctions
conferred by the Crown in the exercise of its preroga-
tive for the . reward of merit—Peerages, Baronetcies, and
Knighthood--what would the Right Hon. Gentleman say to that?
There was a very close analogy between the power of the Crown
to grant pensions for merit, and that of granting honours and dis-
tinctions for merit.—( Hear, hear.) The monarchical principle
was involved in one as much as in the other, and there was as
much reason for calling for an annual return of honours and dis-
tinctions as for a return of pensions. Undoubtedly the Pension.
List had been laid before the House under the circumstances he
had mentioned, but there was a great difference between such occa-
sional presentation and an annual presentation by Act of Parliament.
He objected to the 1,200/. a-year, as not being a fair equivalent
for the 75,000/. The aniestion, therefore, was, that haring this
objection, ought he to concur with the Right Hon. Gentleman
in depriving the Crown of the power of conferring rewards on dis-
tinguished merit or public services? He certainly should not.
After all that had been said in that House from time to time
with respect to the expediency of granting such rewards,
the speech of the Honourable Member only showed him what
rapid changes of opinion were likely to take place on this as well
as every other subject. It only showed him what he must expect
to be the consequence seven years hence if the course now proposed
were adopted. It would be, he had no doubt, that the grant of
pensions should be wholly transferred from the Crcwn to the House
of Commons. At present the Hon. Gentleman would put a stop
to the granting of airy pensions. Special cases calling for
the consideration of the House world, however, from time
to time arise, until the grievance would at length become
so crying that they would at length be compelled to rescind
their own decisions. He contended that the transfer of the power
of granting pensions from the Crown to the House of Commons
would be a heavy blow to the monarchical principle. It was said
by the advocates of such a transfer, if it could be shown to them
that the Crown would look out for objects of merit, they would
then be satisfied. Surely after passing resolutions, declaring who
are really the persons to whom it was intended these rewards should
be extended, such an argument as this could not be maintained.
The House had passed a resolution for the purpose of enabling the
Crown to reward literary merit, and now it was asked to treat that
resolution as a dead letter. The Honourable Gentleman said he
would take away the Pension fund, which was subject to restriction,
but he would give an increased means for the charity of the Crown,
which was subject to no restraint. Wkat was this but saying,
" I will give you what you want, provided you will exclude merit."
It was said, to confer upon a literary man a pension, was
an invidious Act. It used to be said, look at the difference be-
tween the English Government and foreign ones. See what des-
potic Governments did—they rewarded science—they selected emi-
nent men—and were anxious to pay a compliment to them by con-
ferring upon them some substantial reward. —(Cheers.) The
argument of the Honourable Member was completely against Sir
Walter Scott being made a Baronet, because he (Sir R. Peel)
contended that it applied equally to granting a dignity as a pen-
sion.—( Hear, hear.) Doubtless the Honourable Gentleman
would say the honorary distinction cost nothing, while the pension
would put the country to the expense of 3,000/ a-year.—(Laugh-
ter. ) He (Sir R. Peel) kad always thought that when a literary
man of eminence was selected for Royal favour that the whole class
was elevated. He recollected night after night it had been stated
that one of the great blots in giving rewards was, that it gave a
false balance to literary merit. He would put it to the House,
whether such was the fact ;or not. The House had passed resolu-
tions for the purpose of rewarding literary merit, and now
it was to be said that the giving of such rewards was de-
rogatory to the party to whom it was given.—( Hear, hear. )
In his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion it was proper that literary and sci-
entific men should receive the aid which they required, or be
honoured with the conventional distinctions which were established
in a Monarchy—he thought that these rewards should be conferred
only by the Crown ; and that unless there was suspicion of abuse
in the exercise of the power of the Crown, it should not be ques-
tioned by that House ; still less should it be exercised by the ma-
jority of that House. ( Hear, hear.) On those grounds he
should, as he had before said, oppose the motion of the Hon.
Afembsr for London.

Mr. CLAY said he should vote for the Honourable Member
for Loudon's proposition, because he thought that on the authority
of the Committee on the Civil List, at the commencement of the
last reign, the Pension List ought to be separated en-
tirely from the Civil List of the_ Crown, and because he
thought that the proposition for granting 1,2001. a-year,
to the Crown for new Pensions was an injudicious, a crude,
and an improper one ; at the same time Ihe begged to be
understood that he could not go along with his Hon Friend (Mr.
Grote) to the full extent of his argument, and say that no pensions
should he granted except by this House ; still less was ho prepared
say that no Pensions ought to be granted at all. He
agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the power of
granting pensions ought not to be vested in that Houses All
history, remote and proximate, had shown the unfitness of the
House of Commons to exercise the functions of the Executive. If it
took upon itself the exclusive power of granting pensions, it would, he
feared, often overlook unrewarded merit, and sometimes be led away
by public feeling to an excess of liberality. As when Yorick, in
his sentimental journey, was condemned to give " all the money he
had" to some person who excited his companion ; being afterwards
asked how much it was, he did not answer directly, but said, " I
thought at the time it was too little, but I think now it was far too
much." That would be often the case in the House of Commons
if it took upon itself to grant pensions. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by saying that he should vote for the motion of his lion.
Friend.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS rose to oppose the amendment, but from the
low tone in which he spoke, most of his observations were inaudible
in the gallery. The Hon. Baronet was understood to say that
although the Flouse of Commons might be a fit tribunal to decide
upon Parliamentary grants, they were not competent judges of the
amount that ought to be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the
distribution of pensions, and that the merits of such pensions
were not a fit subject of investigation in that House. The present
Civil List, he contended, was a mockery of the rights of the Crown,
and placed it in a most invidious position. The country, he
had no doubt, would have sustained the Government if
they had defended the privileges of the Crown, but they
had yielded up the principle to which they had professed themselves
so much attached, without satisfying by their concessions either
side of the House. He preferred, however, the proposition of the
[tight Honourahle Gentleman opposite to the amendment of the
Honourable Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and
should feel it his duty to oppose the latter.
Mr. C. BULLER should not have interfered with this de-
bate, reluctant as he was to force himself upon the House, did he
not stand in a situation on which he thought would induce the
House to grant him its indulgence; because he was going to vote
against every person whom he was in the habit of backing on his
side of the House. He did that, not from any of those
motives that might be imputed to those who voted for a
Civil List, but because he wished to convince the House

Sir RONALD FERGUSON said that. the Honourable, Mem-
ber laboured under a mistake in supposing that Mrs. Somerville
was in such affluent circumstances as ho had stated,

Her husband was merely physician to Chelsea rolpital ; beyond
the salary which he received there they had no other pecuniary re-
sources ; and if Dr. Somerville died to-morrow, she would be left
without any means of support.
Mr. BARING said that he had attentively followed the
Hon. Member for Liskcard through his speech, and
she thought

that the manner in which he introduced and discussed the merits

of the parties to whom these pensions had been granted, afforded
them a pretty fair sample of the sort of discussions which would

arise if the granting pensions were transferred from the Crown to
the House. Some explanations, he thought, were necessary
with regard to these pensions—(Cries of " No, no, no.")-not
with respect to the individuals themselves, but with re-
spect to the conduct of Government in granting them.
The Hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Wallace had been re-

rttsel a pension. The truth was, that when the matter came under
the consideration of the Government, Vs name could not be

placed on the list, because there vras no vacancy ; and if
he (Mr. Baring) was not misinformed, an offer was mtdc to put
Dr. Wallace in the same situation, which he would have been in ha•l a

vacancy taken place, out of the pecuniary rneaus of th• Crmn, un-
til a vacancy did occur. Dr. Wallace he wai- informed did receive

the [money out of the private funds of the Crown ; the other case
was that of Mr. Coleridge. A suin was granted by George IV. for

for the benefit of literary characters. On.that monireh's death those

allowances dropped. They were not renewed in the subsequent reign;
but as vacancies took place in the, Pension List. the parties were
put upon it. for the same amount. The Right Hon. Bart, started
with saying that he considered twelve hundred vounils was too
small an amount. Perhars he (Mr. Baring) might agree with
the Right Honourable Baronet in that.- opinion.—( Hear. )
The Government had no right to claim any merit for that reduction,

as it took place on the recommendation -of the Committee. The
Right Honourable Baronet also stated, that if the Crown was to be
limited to granting 1,200/. a-year in one year, and it was not granted
in that year it would not be granted at all; that was the statement.
He had no rightto quarrel with that statement, but in a Select Com-
mittee upon the recommendation being made of the 1,2001. a-year,
he called the attention of the Committee to the point in almost the
very words of the Right Hon. Baronet. lie regretted that he had
not had the assistance of the Right Hon. Baronet on that occasion, but
he had endeavoured to persuade them to make a larger grant, but
without effect.
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded amid loud cries of " Di-
♦ide, divide."
Mr. HAWES assured the House that he would detain the
House only a very few minutes. As his llon. Friend merely pro-
posed to remove the sum of 1,2001. from the Civil List to the Con-
solidated Fund, he felt bound to oppose him. 'l•he Hon. Member
fn. the Tower Hamlets had fully stated his sentiments on the sub-
ject, and he would on the present occasion fellow up the same
oaurse he had pursued in the Committee.—( Hear. )
Mr. WARBURTON thought great injustice had been done to
the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for London. He
objected to a Pension List of 1,2001. per annum to be distributed
amongst literary and scientific men. Such a plan would, he
thought, interfere with their independence and character. His
firm conviction was, that a Pension List, subject to the imputations
which attached to the old Pension List, would be less objectionable
than one granted in the form now proposed. It appeared to him
that literary and scientific men would much rather depend on their
own exertions than to receive favours from any Court.. On those
grounds he proposed to vote with his Hon. Friend, the Member
for London.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Mr. GROTE briefly replied.
Mr. HAWES said a few words in explanation.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For Mr Grote's motion
Against it ...
Majority —lo2
(LEFT SITTING. )