The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-24 00:00:00

r

lion
Of the Civil List, unless the Crown was placed in a
Vein"!
an to require it. Sir, I shall not trouble the House with
14 t any length into the history of the Civil List. The
Us it
the
.„ perfectly aware, and every gentleman who has paid
kr.'_',l,gfitest attention to the subject must be aware, that the
theamer,e,ments relative to the Civil Lisii have been various from
• time
,elgn of George the Second up to the present
ere' that at one period the hereditary revenues
H suPl'orted by an additional grant from the
011 e, and the'surplus of that grant, whatever it might be,
tied; beL Appropriated to the purposes for which it was i9ten-
, .111311 t At another period a supplementary grant was given,
tu'rletif toile event of there being a surplus in the income so se-
other t. the Sovereign, that surplus was not io be applied
of Gewoise than by the direction of Parliament. In the reign
the argrreanlglC:nthe first approach to what I consider a satis-
factoryent of the Civil List gas made. In that reign
eii_,6rovereign surrendered the whole of his hereditary revenues,
eceived in exchange from Parliament a settled Civil List;
cru_
I‘rtfthose revenues consisted of tire casual revenues of the
(:)", and of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
rested the matter until the reign of William the Fourth,
and
stet
tttotat period a slight alteration took place in the manage-
latr, .t the Civil List. By the arrangement made during the
reign , • .
rende.. s.o his Majesty surrendered not only what had been stir-
kid rled by his predecessors, but also the casual revenues, droits,
that aa.ibraltar revenues. Now, Sir, I know it was stated at
alder time that these revenues did not amount to any very con-
le ~ able sum, and I think, therefore, that I may be allowed,
re44:Blng, to state to the llouse, that the value of the surrender
r .°Y his Majesty William the Fourth, amounted during
pub,?lgn, to a sum of 70,000/., which was paid over to the
0:: service, and forms part of the revenues of the year.—
to „I",' hear.) Nor it was not alone in this circumstance
ff•4l'eh I have adverted that the Civil List of William I.V.
itched from those of his predecessors, but at that time a
the greater and more salutary change was introduced, for by
arrangement made in the reign of his late Majesty, as
r.„..,roposed to this House by my Noble Friend (Lord Spencer),
47 the first time the principle was laid down that
iuheioiCivii List of the Crown was limited to those matters in
the honour and dignity of the Crown was more essen-
tially concerned— ( Hear, 'hear)—it was told us at the time,
‘47 it formed one of the arguments against such an arrange-
abeist, that that change could not be made without consider-
ei,isconvenience, and some danger to the character and
ate 113' of the Crown itself.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
ti,_,was said, and figures were used on the occasion,
(71 I, to surround the Crown with all the attributes
the administration of justice—and even with those, Sir,
r well are attached to your honourable office—was to sur-
und it tith so many safe-guards and, supports. But
led When consider the former state of the Civil List, lam
the to believe ;.! et those parties were placed upon it not for
puer Purpose of givOig a protection to the Crown, but for the
thePe,se of protection them under the name and character of
reiehotovtereinn • that their incomes being in the Civil List
oe Sovereign
less subject to public observation,
arid „
resti‘o the interference of Parliament. Is there any gentle-
the here present who is not ready to admit that we approach
st settlement of the Civil List of her Majesty under circum-
Onees more favourable. and more satisfactory to her Majesty
t -"elf, and one that must lead to a more satisfactory conclusion,
te,eonsider it in its reformed state than as it stood in former
t;leges• I know that it will deprive many Hon. Members of
a_e oPportunity of introducing into the debate a number of
Civil
observations. I know that on former discussions of the
alien List the House used to be taken away from the main
et of debate to notice a few accidental and unconnected ar-
eu'sts; but if we lose anything in the facetiousness of
„„: debate, or in the opportunities which it might afford to.
ttmhers of displaying arguments and wit, we in much in
ad forwarding of that which is our main object- to make an
t. equate provision for the Sovereign, which may be propor-
blesal to the necessities of the case ; at the same time that we
,e not extravagant nor regardless of our obligations to the
: Do we not, Sir, approach the subject more con-
veniently,
th .7, and have we not a better mode of conducting it
to
--o reformed state than in the state of anomaly in
it used formerly to be presented ?—( Hear.) Nor
tuts all; I have to state to Honourable Gentlemen, that
the
Sirenreformed proposition of the last reign was not a dry and
• •
si principle, but that it led to good and practical results.
thr. I have to befre the House documents which will show
.e amount of reduction which has been practically the result
rei the improved mode of regulating the Civil List in the last
gu• The account which I hold in my hand is some-
What complicated—(Cries of ",,Hear, hear")—but I think
bus been
Gentlemen will understand that the reduction
been considerable. In the reign of George the Fourth
Civil List amounted in the first instance to 1,156,0001.,
Lsia was afterwards increased to 1,193,000/. The Civil
the in the reign of his late Majesty King William
Fourth was 1,095,0001., showing a diminution of
`IV charge upon the public of 100,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
el•
l, Sir, the greater part of that could not have been sa-
LCtorily accomplished if the whole of those charges had
"e'en left on the Civil List. It is true I must add a small
Ittliount of increase of about 2,000/., but the entire saving
to the country is upwards of 97,0001. There is,
therefore, Sir, an actual saving within the interval I have
sdverted to in the last reign of very near 10 per cent. on
the whole revenue of the country. Now, Sir, this alteration
QM been effected, and still the Civil List has been equal to its
exl)enditure, and abundantly sufficient. It has been effective,
as the House will recollect, without the creation, ou the part
,„,
;;ois late Majesty, of a debt of any sort or kind, or the neces-
....4q of resorting to his people for any extraordinary payments.
hoeihn.°,rs.) Sir, the support of the Crown, I therefore say,
• whi,,,aa
themeoe case and in the other, shows that the principle
conim duction has been made was reconcilable with
his ii,ll sense, and led to economy. Notwithstanding which
the 'aJestY was enabled to carry on his expenditure without
41i contraction of debt of any sort—(Cheers)—and I may be
tatt°aiweelti Sir, to say in passing, that this result has been
rkstne by his late Majesty consistently on his part with the
enlarged charity—( Cheers)—and consistently with the
eti_ of life of the most unbounded hospitality.— (Cheers.)
his Majesty was not protected from debt by any narrow
11*—e of life, or by the adoption of any course unworthy the
hi-fi station he held in the country, or by denying to his heart
out Principles the exercise of the most beneficent charity ;
he was protected from debt, because the income which he
Was
Was
allowed from Parliament was adequate, and because it
Sir, administered with a wise economy.—( Hear and cheers.)
`, I have already stated that it is my intention to
x:°.Pose in the present instance the adoption of that course
°f moving
has been pursued on former occasions, viz., that of
'clilll°ving that the whole subject should be referred to a
'feet Committee ; but before I do so, and as
44Ppleraentary to the remarks I hare already made, and
42,esseatially necessary to enable the House to determine
t income they will allo to their oereign, I ish to call
heir attention to trio facts—t one is thSev amount ofw the casual
revenue which in former reigns were placed at the disposal
• the Crown, and the other point is the avowal of Parlia-
. '"entary interposition, which, on former occasions was ne-
ss
ce:arY in order to pay the debts of the Civil Lists, be-
-use if you Civil compare Lists with Civil Lists,
e
Must take into account the extraordinary interposition of
Il Legislature which it became necessary to make.
n the reign of George 111., the House will learn with sur-
Pise, that the amount of droits received, and at the disposal
ofr
the Crown, was 12,705,4611.—( Hear)—that was the gross
ltraount ; and it was true that of that enormous sum his Majesty
;tlaropriated 900,0001. to the Navy, 100,000/. to the Ordnance,
th:,000/. to the annual supplies of the year, and 900,000/. to
to Consolidated Fund. So that the Sovereign voluntarily
it ntributed 2,600,0001. towards the national necessities. And
was also right to say that the expenses of collection and pay-
fie pt to those concerned amounted to 5,000,0001. But
lueting that 5,000,000/. and the 2,600,000/. from the
usual 'OOOL, the House will see that an enormous amount of
1,41 revenue was then appropriated to the Crown.—( Hear.)
BLACKMORE—That includes the period of the
,I,LeneY•—( Cries of Order, order.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—(As we
"nd.rstoo
Turd .)—Undoubtedly. In the reign of George the
the the farther sum of 400,000/. was received from
f se droits. But, Sir, this House ought to know, under
tortne Civil Lists many applications were necessarily made
In tParliament for the payment of debts contracted.
I'orh.,.e,reign of Queen Anne two applications were made—one
thin '"°,000/., and another for 500,000/.—( Hear. ) the
for teen Years of the reinn of George I. application was. made.
Geor'00;0001. In theb thirty-three years of the reig❑. of
the -e si a considerable sum was also granted. During
sixt
3398 ofiY Years of the reign of George 111. the sum of
and ee f-•• was granted for tire discharge of Civil List debts;
teeeh,„,,
it ,ether sum of 413,000/. from extraordinary funds was
Sir, the same object, making a total of 3,811,000/.
to the is scarcely necessary to call the attention of the House
how contrast that exists between the state of things I have
late. Pointed out, and those which existed during the
tian erreign• I say, that of all the difficulties and
to be s to the crown—( Hear)—none are so much to
st. guarded against as this—that the Civil List should be
dehtxrasged that there should be no probability of contracting
to p_if,nPosing upon the Crown the necessity of coming
alot, lrifament for their discharge.—alear.) We ought
We t"en, to proceed without great caution as to the steps
atuo,rse shout to take, and we should also take care that the
sary"nt to be proposed should not be less than may be neees-
Int (Hear,--hear.) When I state to the House that that is my
entio •
'abject, ,In proposing the Civil List, Ido not do so with the
peel„ of thinking or avoiding any kind of responsibility that pro-
Ildel-Tlecuelongs to me. Sir ,1 should feel unworthy of the eon-
to of this House and of her Majesty, if I was not_prepared
tau tst ou on my own responsibility what t I consider the Civil
ti 3 as 6lit to be. It will be the object of the Committee
ertain whether the proposition I shall make is a just one,
1,, "ether it requires revision. Therefore among the papers
of rnil°se to lay before the Committee, will be the scheme
thattho ,...kit List which I shall propose. It will be considered
fritned-' Queen in some respects stands distinguished from her
ono late predecessors of the House of Hanover. I believe
ease since the accession of the House of Hanover has there
Thronao instance in which the Sovereign succeeding to the
eon e of England did not inherit very considerable per-
,o.; r, thpsr ray from those who preceded her.—( Hear, hear.)
, o,-
ease
was the case with respect to William IV., it was the
in e With George IV. ; it was also the case of George 11. ; for
leyetit-rone.oCthese cases there was a personal property Con-
n the from the late Sovereinn to the Sovereign who succeeded.
aoeei Present instance, her'Majesty succeeded to no such per-
terserlsri°lll)..e.sty whatsoever.' Her 'Majesty inherits nothing of a
t P°l'evP lier nature. Her Majesty's dependence, consequently,.is
hereditary revenues of the present moment, and the
'5170ur." which it will please Parliament to decide to be in her
1 °I her 4But
,' sty are is another distinction also—there is no one
tt,
Engle the red s royal predecessors who did not succeed also,
venues of Hanover, as well as to the revenues of
th„nd. y
PubrNoble Friend stated he did not conceive that
vt th elreointerests of England would suffer by the severance
'etraeetl wn of Hanover from the Crown of this country. I
Y concur in that opinion,—(Continued cheering.)

And I do riot think there is one of her Majesty's subjects on
earth—l do not think there is a gentleman here or in Eng-
land—who will think that the interests of England, either in
its foreign or its domestic relations, are likely to be prejudiced
by the severance of the Crown of Hanover.—(Cheers.) Btit
though that may not be the case, still we must take into
account, in the Civil List, that that severance deprives her
Majesty of resources which her predecessors had at their
command. Another distinction to be made in the settlement of
the Civil List is, that her Majesty's establishment as Reign-
ing Queen must be of a different character from that of a King
or of a Queen Consort. It must be an establishment partak-
ing of the nature of both. It must be partially an establishment
of ladies, and also of gentlemen ; therefore, in going through
the arrangements I am about to propose, I shall endeavour
as far as I can, to enable the House to make comparisons be-
tween such establishments, and then leave the House to draw
from those comparisons thht conclusion which is likely to befit
an establishment for her Majesty. The fist class of the Civil
List granted to his late Majesty, consisted of the Privy Purse
of I I 0,000/.-60,0001. for the use of the King, and 50,0001.
for the use of the Queen. I should, therefore, propose that
the first class of the present Civil List should stand at
60,0001., excluding the 50,000/. which were voted before
for the use of the Queen. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I do not suppose Gentlemen will consider that that amount of
privy purse is the same amount of privy purse which for upwards
of 60 years has been appropriated to the use of the Sovereign.
The next class of salaries is the class of salaries of the Officers
of the Household. It will be in the recollection of the
House that on the occasion of the reference of this
subject to a Committee up stairs in 1830 an.l 1831, that
certain reductions were recommended of the salaries of
the great officers of State. 'they did not amount to any very con-
siderable sum. I believe they amounted to 10,0001. ; but they
were considered to be important in point of principle. The Com-
mittee recommended them to the House ; but after a deliberate
discussion, and upon the best view that could be taken of the
subject by the Government of the day, it was not consi-
dered expedient to carry those reductions into effect, and the
total suns was voted. Sir, I shall not go back to the arguments
that were used on that occasion ; but I think the present
affords a fitting opportunity of reconsidering the salaries of
those great officers of State.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) I
was a member of that Committee, and the recommendations

which were then given with respect to the salaries of tha
great officers of State were recommendations which at
that period met tic ith my assent, although it was not considered
expedient to carry them into effect on that occasion. But I
have now to announce to the House, that with respect to the
reductions in the salaries of the higher officers of State, the Lord
Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, and the Lord Steward, it
is my intention to propose a reduction in the amount of those
salaries to the full extent which was recommended on that oc-

Now I have seen names pointed out, and made matter of re-
proach to the Pension List. I will take the case in the first
instance of a political opponent. It has been made matter
of reproach that Lord Farnborough is in the receipt
of a pension ; and it is said, what has he done to merit the
continuance of a pension ? Why, Sir, the slightest possible
attention would have shown that Lord Farnborough
has not been in the receipt of that pension for many
years post—( Hear) ;—and one single question put to me
or to one of my Noble or Hon. Colleagues, would have enabled
me to have said that Lord Farnborough, when he came into
possess'on of prope...ty which de;olved to him; had given up
that pension of his own accord, with a statement that his circum-
stances had improved, and that he bad felt it due to
the public to give up that pension. (Cheers.) I have seen
another attack of a similar kind made upon another Noble Lord
aqd political opponent, that he has likewise received
a patsen. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly notorious that upoil
squiring property that devolved to him by inheritance, he at
o.ice gave up his pension.—( Hear, hear, hear.) So much
then for two pensioners on the other sido of the
II also, anal now {b.. two Mlle Friends of my own.
On this side a the House a Noble Friend of my own—now Go-
vernor-Geheral of India—l have seen it in the public prints within
the last g eek asked what the Governor-General of India
should continue to receive a pension for? Now, my Noble
Friend, instantly upon the receipt of office, gave up the pen-
sion. Another Noble Friend—Lord Elphinstone, Governor
of Madras—the first act he did when he received his appoint-
mAtt, was instantly to write to say that he gave up his pension.
Mr. II u M E.—He must have done so by Act of Parliament.
Mr. S. RIC E.—The Hon. Gentleman says he must have
done so by Act of Parliament. Well, let us suppose that the
lion. Gentleman was right, that would not bear out his'assertion
—because the imputation being that those two persons are in
receipt of pensions, whether they cease to be in the receipt of
those pensions by Act of Parliament or by their own act, the
accusation in both cases is false.—( Loud cries of hear, hear.)
The object of my argument is to show the delusions that are
abroad upon this subject.—( Hear, hear.) I do not know
whether the Act of Parliament bears the interpretation or not
which the Hon. Gent, puts on it, but this I know, that the
resignation of the pension was put into my hands by Lord El-
phinston the very moment he was appointed to the office he now
holds. Now I say those matters in themselves ought to be
understood by the House. Again, Sir, particular names are
used, and made matters of interest, without any inquiries
having been inst:tuted. I will give a very few instances. I
have heard questions put, especially with respect to the names
of females—for instance, Miss Charlotte Stewart—what has
Miss Charlotte Stewart done to deserve a pension ?—( Hear,
hear.) Now, Sir, I take that case as an example.—( Hear,
hear.) That Lady was the infant daughter of one of the
very best public servants who ever served the country either
in a civil or military office—l mean the late Col. Stewart,
Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.—( Hear, bear.) That
gentleman, after going throutzh the whole service of the war,
after being wounded and suffering in his health, he applied
himself to the Civil Service of his country. lie was ad-

casion by the Coininittee, up stairs —( Hear, and cheers.)
Sir, we have had angry discussions in the House on the sub-
ject at the time, and I now hear that those gentlemen who
then endeavoured to persuade us to carry these reductions
into effect will be satisfied with the extent to which we
now go. There are some other reductions which we re-
commend to be made with respect to the lesser officers of
State. We do not propose to reduce the amount of their
salaries, but their number. We propose to make a reduction
of 1,085/. in the salary of the Lord Chamberlain; 4361. in
the salary of the Lord Steward ; 850/. in the salary of the
Master of the Horse. The office of the Groom of the
Stole is to be abolished, which, together with some
minor reductions, will make a total of 9,8291.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir, I may now be required to inform the House what is the
proposed increase of the Establishment necessary for a Lady.
In a very few words, I will inform the House what we propose
that to be. The Establishment in attendance upon her Majesty,
as will be proposed, and wilt be laid before the Committee,
will amount to 8,9001.—it will be under 9,000/. The Go-
vernment, in considering what the Civil List should be
for the female Sovereign, have not had recourse to
the more immediate precedent to which they had
access—l mean that of - Queen Anne. Queen Anne,
our last female sovereign, of course had a female esta-
blishment upon her Civil List, but the salaries charged
upon that List were greater than the Government thought
proper to suggest for the consideration of the
Committee on the present occasion. For instance, the
Duchess of Marlborough enjoyed several offices, which in
these days would be thought of an incongruous character for a
lady. She was Keeper of the Privy Purse, Groom of
the Stole—(loud laughter)—and Lady of the Bedchamber.
As Privy Purse and Groom of the Stole, she had 2,0001.,
while the Ladies of the Bedchamber had 1,000/. each—the
Women of the Bedchamber being paid 500/. each. Now, Sir,
we propose that in place of 2,0001. and 1,0001., the Ladies of
the Bedchamber should have 500/. a-year, and the others 300/.
—the foundation of the salaries to be upon the same scale as
in the household of the Queen Dowager. Now, Sir, I trust
the House will sec that we have manifested every desire to
put the Royal Establishment upon as satisfactory and econo-
mical a footing as possible.—( Hear, hear.) The next head
of expenditure, Sir, of the Royal Household is that of its
servants. There will be laid before the Committee all
the particulars requisite to come to a proper understanding
upon that subject. The fourth class of expenditure is a very
small one—it is for the special servants, and amounts to
23,200/. The next head of expenditure is one to which
I expect more opposition. The question of the Pension
List forms the subject of the fifth class of the ex-
penditure on the Civil List. During the late reign a sum
of 75,000/. was granted under that head. Sir, I do not anti-
cipate that with respect to the four first classes of expenditure
there will be any real practical difference of opinion in this
House, for I well know
,what was said on those first classes
on former occasions. But I do know, Sir, upon the
subject of the Pension List there will probably be much
more opposition.—( Hear, hear, hear.) I do not disguise
that from myself, but I wish to deal with the matter fairly.
This matter of the Pension List undoubtedly has been much
discussed. I shall therefore endeavour to be as brief as
possible while bringing under the attention of the House
its actual state. Prior to the Act of Mr. Burke,
there was no limit whatever to the amount of pensions which
might be granted, but the discretion of the Monarch and the
amount of the Civil List by itself. Unlimited as it was in
amount, it was equally so in point of principle. In the preamble
of Mr. Burke's Act, undoubtedly there is reference to limitation
both in amount and in principle. I believe 95,0001. was the
amount to which it was limited, but the Irish Pension List was
for many years subject to no limitation. There existed also
a vague and indefinite power of charging the pensions upon
the Scotch hereditary revenues, and there was also a
power of charging them upon the Four-and- Half per Cents.
Sir, in the year 1820 the amount of pensions payable
was 203,058/. ; in 1830, this amount was reduced to 160,944/.
At the period of the last discussion on the Civil List, my
Lord Spencer proposed a limitation in the amount of pensions,
allowing them to expire. But previously, by putting a certain
class upon the Consolidated Fund, and another upon the Civil
List, pensions expiring had been given to the Consolidated
Fund, and the Sovereign had the power of filling up vacan-
cies in respect of those which fell upon the Civil List.
Now, Sir, the present amount of pensions is 149,802/., that
is to say, there has been a diminution of the amount
of pensions, since the last settlement of the Civil List,
of a very considerable sum indeed. I think no less
than 26,000/. Extending that statement between 1820 and the
present time, there has been no less a saving effected than 50,000/.,
2nd supposing the law to be continued in its present state, the pen-
sions, which were in the year 1820, 203,0001., will be reducedby the
sum of 75,000/. This, Sir, is not all that was done in the
last reign. Undoubtedly during that period, a very great
diminution in the amount of Pensions took place.—
( Loud and continued cheering.) But an objection was felt
by the House and the country, not only to the amount
of the pensions, but the principle on which they were granted.
I do not think that it' the House and the public had
been perfectly persuaded that the whole amount, even
of the larger sum, had been bestowed upon judicious objects,
of the Royal bounty and national gratitude, 1 do not believe
that the question of amount would have produced half the
effect, as the principle upon which those pensions were given.
The objection raised to the smaller pensions was repeated
over and over again to be en objection to the principle of
the whole system of granting those pensions.—( Cheers.)
This was felt by the Government of Earl Grey, and
on the 18th of February, 1834, a resolution was moved
in this House, and passed, " that it is the bounden
duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to
recommend to his Majesty for grants of pensions and rewards,
only such persona as may have just claims upon the Royal
benevolence, either by personal services to the Crown, and
who, by the discharge of their duty to the subject—
or by useful discoveries in science, or art—merit the
greatest consideration of the Sovereign and the patron-
age of the nation." That was the first time that it had
been stated on distinct principles on what grounds pen-
sions should be granted. Mr. Burke indeed had faintly sha-
dowed it out, but that was the first time that it had been
distinctly stated, by a resolution of the House of Commons.
The consequence of that resolution was to shew that it was
not so much the amount of the pension as the object to which
it was applied. I speak in the. hearing of those who have
applied themselves to the consideration of the matter, and
who know perfectly well what the extent of public feeling
on the subject has been. I refer myself particularly to the
Hon. Member for Southwark who
.has repeatedly brought
the subject before the House. I submit to him if the enuncia-
tion of that principle did not tend to soothe and satisfy the pub-
lic mind—( Hear)—and if the cause of complaint was not more
as regarded that point, than the amount of the pension. I
have shown to the House that the principle was so affirmed.
Has it been acted upon ? I say, Sir, that the Committee has a
right to know. The House is entitled to know, and the Go-
ivte.rrTimheent pthoseerde.thcatomrepsaorleuttihoen
t,aernesiboonusngdivtoenawctituhptoht.ei
nameswho arel)ro
resolution of the House upon the subject,,. and censure us if
that that is a fit and proper subject of consideration for
we have misapplied that resolution. Sir, I therefore. say
the Committee, and they will have the list of those names
before them ; and I shall be prepared, with respect. to every
one that we have recommended to the Crown for pensions, to
lay before the Committee the express grounds upon which
we have thought it right to do so.—( Hear, hear.) Sir,
we shrink from no resPonsibilitv.—(Loud cheering.) We
did not adopt that resolution without being disposed to act
upon it. We have endeavoured to do so, and let the Coin-
mittee investigate what we have done, and let them determine
whether.„ our acts have not kept pace with our declarations.
Sir, at the same time I must be permitted to say, that with re,
spect to the whole subject of the Pension List, groat efforts
have been made to bring that into disrepute. Matters which
have been charged and satisfactorily refuted, have re-appeared—
reappeared, I do not say in this House, but elsewhere, for
the purpose, of at Irlst calculated to have the effect of at once
deluding
,and betraying the. yeblie mind. I do not think that
this matter has been quite fairly (Welt 4y, ft is very easy
to suggest names, and to object to names ;• and it is very easy
also, to repeat what IS trae, as appliPa4le atq stt'e
of things at the time whea the stataaws4 is made, which
is not true, as applicable to a preceding state of things.

vanced not by the Government with which I am con-
nected, but by other Governments, although he served
under us ; and I believe that my Lord Spencer—l believe my Lord
Grey-1 believe that every individual member of that Government
would give their willing and ready testimony to the unrivalledac-
tivity, to the indefatigable industry, and to the spotless
integrity which distinguished him while in otlice.—( Hear, hear.)
Allow me to detain' the attention of the House for a mo-
ment io this case. This gentleman was entitled to a
very high rate of retired allowance. We pressed and
urged him to accept the allowance, in order that he
might retire for the recovery of his health. He resisted,
however, all our entreaties; he said that as long as he was able
he would remain in the public service, as he could not bear the
idea of receiving the public money without earning it.—
( Loud and continued cheers.) He remained—and I will say
of him that never did a public servant reap the reward of his
fidelity and industry with more justice than did this Gentleman.
Ile had a salary of 2,300/. a-year, and if it is thought by the
Hon. Member that lie did not deserve it, I should like to know
what test he requires, or in what moaner lie measures t.l.e
services of public men ? Looking at the services given to the
public by Col. Stewart, I say there never was a more becoming
reward than the pension that was given to his daughter. It
might be said that we made a vacancy ; if we did, we
appointed a most deserving man in the Treasury. We found
him there, and we thought he was deserving of what we
did for him, and yet 'this is one of the cases, because there
is no mode of giving explanation, in consequence of which
imputations are cast upon us. I will give the House one
other example. I also heard it said that Mr. Morton
had a pension of 2001. granted to him the other day.
Pray who is Mr. Morton? I will tell the House who
he is. There was at one time a very difficult state of
the public accounts, in which it was thought that much
of the public money had been appropriated to an improper
purpose. Mr. Morton, at great risk and considerable
inconvenience to himself, devoted no less than two years to
the unravelling of those accounts, by which be gave in-
formation to the Government which enabled them to re-
cover upwards of 170,000/ , which would have been made
away with, but for that unravelling by a defaulter.
We had not the means of rewarding this gentleman
otherwise. He was in a public office certainly, but we
had no means of giving him a retiring pension on account of
that office.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Was not a pension in
the Royal Pension List well bestowed on this gentle-
man, who at his own hazard and expellee had secured
to the country the sum of 100,0001. ?—( Hear, hear.) This,
Sir, is another of the instances which are complained
of. Sir, I purpose now to call the attention of the House to the
names of some of those persons who appear upon the Pension
List, having been eminent in literature and science. I say, Sir,
that the way in which the ltt. lion. Bart. opposite and the
present Government have acted in this respect is highly
creditable to the Government of this country. Airey, Fara-
day, and Somerville, whose names adorn the literature arid
science of the country--it is honourable to any Adminis-
tration that pensions of the State have been bestowed on such
persons. Well, Sir, I should propose that the Committee being
appointed, it should have full power of considering whether
these resolutions and the principle laid down by the Civil List
Committee have been acted upon. But it will be said to me,
that does not answer all the objections to it. We look to more
—we look to a fuller inquiry—we look to an inquiry as full
as that, the notice of which stands upon the Notice Paper.
Sir, before I state my opinion with respect Us this point I wish
the House to consider a principle which has been laid down,
and which has has been the subject of frequent debate in this
House. It is a laid down and well considered principle that the
Ministers who advise the Crown are responsible for the advice
which they give, and therefore if they advise improper pen-
sions to be put on the Civil List, it becomes within the
competency of this Hon. House to express its opinion.
That rule and the rules laid down upon the settlement of the
last Civil List offers some security undoubtedly ; but they
do not, in our opinion, afford an adequate security against
the granting of future pensions. You may make your words
as stringent as possible, but in order to afford a perfect
security, we consider that a few alteratious ought to be made.
The first alteration we would propose, Sir, is that the
latter part of those resolutions should be embodied in the
laws so as to have all the authority of law--( Hear, hear,)_
but even this, in our opinion, will not be enough in itself.—
( Hear, hear.) It is true the Government are to declare
when pensions arc granted, but still they may leave the
House in the dark.—( Hear, hear.) You may not know that
an improper pension has been granted till many years after the
fact. In order to avoid that evil, we propose that in future
the amount of the Civil List—the amount of pensions granted
every year for any particular service—shall be annually laid
on the table of the House of Commons.—(Cheers.)
would make it obligatory upon the Ministry to give the most
immediate information to Parliament, so that if there be any
thing wrong dune there may be immediate means of correction
if Parliament interpose.—( Hear, hear.) It may be said that
then Parliament would become the donor of the pension it
grants. Nothing is further from my intentions, for I believe that
if Parliament gave these pensions, in place of those responsible
to Parliament, the result would be lavish expenditure, cease-
less intrigues, jobbing, and cabals, exceeding all of which we
have ever heard.—( Hear, hear.) I put it only to Gentlemen,
without referring to particular cases in the miscellaneous esti-
mates, whether the) have not, as I have repeatedly, seen
something of these ill effects, where the House has come to a
vote and repented of it the following day--( Hear, hear)—
and I say that nothing could be more injudicious than
putting the power of granting pensions into the hands of the
House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) But if the House is not
competent to administer it themselves it is valuable as a check
to its exercise. Then comes the motion of the Hon. Member
for Southwark. As he puts the question I believe it has
never yet undergone discussion.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY handed a paper to the Right Hon.
Gentleman, observing that it contained the terms of his mo-
tion as lie now proposed to make it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued
—Before I read the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, I must say that I do not think the course he pursues
will be considered quite a convenient one by the House.—
( Hear, hear.) When I come down prepared to argue on a
notice given by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he hands
to me another motion, which is to be substituted for his no-
tice.—( Hear, hear.) The notice on the book is of a motion
for a " Return of all sinecures and pensions, of whatever de-
nomination, and upon whatever fund chargeable ; Select Com-
mittee to inquire how far such sinecures and pensions ought
to be continued, having due regard to the just claims of the
parties, and to economy in the public expenditure." The
new proposition is, " And that such Committee"—that is
f
b theut
being Sinecure npt ehocie
pointed
rteeteehdbe:o.
haus Committeeon:l.ype.
ai :fai
amount
opme:l:narwtt,
the Committee which I am going to grant—" cause a full ex-
amination to be made into the circumstances under which
each pension was granted, and whether the continuance of
the same is justified by any public service."—( Hear, hear.)
The effect of the one motion is to cast a new duty on the
Committee I am about to move for. This places me in a
considerable difficulty. In point of fact it would refer to
the Civil List Committee, that which has no reference to it.
There are no sinecures on the Civil List, and of the existing
ssinecures
holders. there areTh
The
none
Hon. whichm emdboe not Member
fo r London,terminate withwho the
was e
oxn-
Learned Gentleman mean that his inquiry should have refe-
o services--and readyoohllpfesasp:ute.4opni:psiiejonoarcitri
e)i 111::
into
that Does
s th them, statementelonn.
theirand
fatell I°qt:di ectQpatelillnsions for diplomati
for Government services? If he
t
does, my reply is, that the
ices
_....,11rne
dt
iDr:loc: sat
iiiiheoewpmgelleispiii4o n s
Civil List has no concern wtth them • my motion has refe-
rence to the Civil List, and to that only. The motion of the
iniotnt
c.
eand i
thli.eaanrniendq
uGentleman
subjectsth eni s
power of settling the Civil List of the
delay as possible,—( Hear,, hear.) I
ftooreeignenuttnobeirt,thuis.hCconmit
refpr poriplitlate4
fund to the pulp Committee. The result of adopting the
psiabcgmilinttot,4ilFlailatvoioh4;ilneiot

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1837.