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

rest secure and set itself up against the cause and reason of
all law ; but such a case very rarely happens, and this meat
certainly is not such a case." To which my Right Honour-
able Friend interpolated—" I perfectly agree in that sen-
timent as being perfectly applicable to the present motion."
The mere time of the reform is by no means worth the
sacrifice of a principle of law. Individuals pass like sha-
dows ; but the commonwealth is fixed and stable. The
difference, therefore, of to-day and to-morrow, which to pri-
vate people is immense, to the State is nothing. At any
rate it is better, if possible, to reconcile our economy with
our laws, than to set them at variance—a quarrel which in
the end must be destructive to both." Now this was the quo-
tation which my Right Honourable Friend made use of from
Mr. Burke in 1834 ; and he objected to the motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member, because the direct assertion of
the persons in authority, because the report of the Committee,
because the sanction of Parliament, because the unvarying
assent of every authority to which any human individual could
look for security to his property had given to these persons on
the Pension List the right, according to the plainest sense in
which the most indifferent words could be used, of believing
that they bad a claim which Parliament would terminate only
with their life ; and I defy the Government, and any member
of the House, to point out a single passage used by a single
Member of Lord Grey's Government which was either at
variance with, or which did not positively maintain that con-
struction and that interpretation. I know, however, that my
Right Hon. Friend will say, " Oh, but this was in 1834;
the Act had passed, the compact was made with the Crown."
I know that, as far as the case of compact with the
Crown goes, there was a distinction between 1834 and
1831. But there was also a distinction between 1834 and
1837. But as to the compact between the law and the indi-
viduals on the list, as to the case between the faith of
Parliament and those persons, show me what is the distinction
between 1830 and 1834, or between 1834 and 1837, if the
distinction be not this, that all your acts from 1830 to 1837
have given them additional reason to be positively certain that
they will remain in possession of their pensions.—( Opposition
cheers.) The principle of the Pension Act was to be applied
prospectively for the benefit of the public, but not retrospec-
tively to the disadvantage of individuals. I know not what
course the Government intend to take upon this point, so mys-
tified, so obscure has been their conduct as to the line they in-
tend to take, or the measure of justice or of favour which they
intend to deal out to those miserable persons who are to be cited
to the bar for their acquittance before the Committee. I know
not whether you mean to take the pension from a single one
of these individuals. I should like to hear whether you mean
to deprive any of them of these pensions which you—indivi-
dually you—( Opposition cheers)—when you asked for a
change in the law, and pledged the faith of Parliament—
told them that they were entitled to receive, so far as you
as a Ministry could control it, for the remaining period of
their lives.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Do you mean to
take one of these away ? If you do, I say without hesita-
tion you violate the faith of the Parliament—you commit,
as Lord Althorp told you it would be, an act of fraudulent
injustice.-- Opi..osition cheers.) If you do not—why, what a
mockery—( Hear, hear)—what a poor, what a wretched pro-
ceeding is this! In what terms can I characterise it strongly
enough, if you really mean that you will only cite to your bar
those individuals who for a period of sixty years have been in
the receipt of the pensions, more or less merited, I care not—
but to which they believe that they have a right, but of which
in many cases it would be impossible for them to produce any
proof—if you only mean to call upon them in this way, with no
serious design of taking away a pension from a single one of
them, can anything be more shuffling, can anything be more
disgraceful, can anything be more unjust ?—( Opposition
cheers.) But fortunately for me I need not take the trouble
of seeking for any expres,don of mine to qualify such an
action. I find it characterised in the forcible language of
the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment in April, 1836. The Noble Lord on that occasion said,
" The question was, whether the House, on the bare state-
ment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, unsupported
by any witness and unaccompanied by any proof, would be in-
duced to enter into an examination of the Pension List, and
to go through it name after name, and person after person,
in order to hunt out some circumstance which might show
that at the time the pension was granted it. was not conferred
for meritorious services, or that the person on whom it had
been conferred was not in circumstances which entitled him to
the benefit." Do you mean to take that course now ? Is it
not the very mildest course suggested by the most moderate
supporter of the present proposition ? Hear, then, how it was
characterised by the leader of those who support that proposi-
tion. The Noble Lord exclaimed; " Could any proposition
be more odious or degrading ?—( Opposition cheers.) Could
any proposition be better calculated, by raking up the per-
sonal affairs of individuals, to 'eTatity private animosity and
malignity? And all was to be done without any object."
The Noble Lord goes on to talk of the poor end miserable
saving which would ha effected even if )ou were to diminish
the amount of existing pensions to the extent pr, posed.
" Let," said that Noble Lord, " that House compare t'ne
small amount which could by possibility be deducted from the
Pension List with the great and mighty reduction of ec arly
5,000,0001. effected by pursuing the honest and stnight-
forward course of reducing only where they had a
right to reduce, and where no expectations had been enter-
tained, and justly entertained, from interference. Let that
diminution be compared with the small diminution that alone
could be hoped for from acquiescing in the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman's petty and unjust proposition. The
one had the features of wise, great, and national retrench-
ment, while the other assumed the appearance of private
pique and miserable malice."—( Opposition cheers.) These
are the terms in which, in 1836, the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department qualified
the miserable saving which would be effected by this
petty and degrading proceeding as compared with that
great saving which had been effected, without compro-
mising the honour of the Government and the public
faith, by making reductions only where no expectations
of freedom from interference had been entertained. And
when is this proposition made?—( Hear, hear, from the
Opposition.) Why, when my Noble Friend the Member for
North Devon (Lord Ebrington) is apologising for the altera-
tion of his opinion, and for the vote he is about to give, and
for which he expects to he severely commented upon,
but which I only deeply regret without for one mo-
ment entertaining the least doubt of the honourable-
ness and integrity of that change of opinion. What was it ?
Why was he of a different opinion now than ha was in 1834 ?
Because the Poor-law Bill had since passed.—( Hear, hear.)
The circumstances which have since passed, even if it were
strictly accurate to give such a reason, is the strangest argu-
ment which I have ever heard uttered why a difference of
opinion should now exist, or why we should now commit an
act of injustice.—( Hear, hear.) Bet I will strip him of this
argument, if argument it can be called, for the new Poor law
had pissed in 1834, and was therefore just as much a reason
then as it is now.—( Loud cheers.) And, for the further sa-
tisfaction of the Noble Lord the Member for North Devon,
and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheshire, and that no
Hon. Member may be induced to institute comparisons between
the Poor-law and the Pension List, and for the information
of the supporters of the present motion, I will read another
passage from the same speech of the Noble Lord—(Loud
cheers, cries of " Oh, oh !" and " Order !") in which the Noble
Lord replies to this argument, and after most justly deriding
it, and showing that there is no analogy between the two,
proceeds to point out the difference between the principle of
the Poor-law and the intention of its provisions, and then
adds:—" A more odious comparison—(Cheers)—and one
less founded in the real nature of the two subjects, I think
that I never heard attempted to be palmed upon any public
assembly--(Hear, hear)---than that drawn by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Southwark between the principle of the
Poor-law Act and the Pension List."—( Loud cheers.) Why,
Sir, the argument derived from the comparison between the
Pension List and the Poor-law Bill, if even it can be called
•
an argument, made in the speech of the Honourable and
Learned Member for Southwark, is calculated by the most
plausible sophistry to create the most mischievous feeling
in the country—( Hear, hear)—an argument more calculated
to drown unfounded and invidious distinctions between the
rich and the poor, or more likely to lead to the supposition
of degradation to the poor, and of excess on the part of
the rich, I never heard than was contained in that speech.
—(Hear, hear.) Does, Sir, the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber mean to carry out in the revision of the Pension List the
principles of the Poor-law Act ?—(" Precisely so," from Mr.
Harvey.)—( Loud cheers.) This, Sir, this I say, that I do
trust and believe that her Majesty's Government will never
sanction the Honourable and Learned Member's principle of
interference. I believe that they will not be influenced by
this comparison, and I believe that they will never place the
Pension List in such an unjust and false position.—( Hear.)
What is the object of the Poor-law Bill ?Is it not to pro-
vide from the public funds, as a last resource, for those who
through misfortunes have been led into unavoidable distress?
—( Hear, hear.) I for one, would never have supported
the Poor-law Bill if I believed that in carrying out its provi-
sions I was pressing with hardship upon those who are in
penury and in distress.—(Hear, hear.) There are persons
on the Pension List of all ages, of both sexes, of every class
in life ; there are persons who have received a pension either
for their own services or the services of others ; and are all
these to be dragged before the Committee and to be examined,
according to the leaning of the Members, either in the strict
manner pointed out by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Southwark—( Hear, hear)—or are they to be subjected to the
more limited inquiry which I flatter myself will be recom-
mended by the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer? Are all their rights, is all their
fortune, is all their property, and are all their characters to
be subject to this most searching investigation and inquiry ?
(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark
has hinted to us the course of examination which he would
pursue. He tells us, first, that among the names of those on
the Pension List there are several hundreds who receive be-
low
the amount of 451. a year, misinterpreting the powerful
speech of my Hon. Friend behind me, and he sneers at the
feelings of Hon. and Right Hon. Gentlemen who would ac-
cept such paltry sums; and the Hon. and Learned Member '
would then ask of these persons whether they have no near
relation who can support them, whether they receive their
pensions from mere necessity, whether they have no wealthy
relative basking in the sunny clime of Malta who can afford
them assistance, whether they have no friends to keep them
off the parish ; and lastly, he says, that, having made these
inquiries, he would look with kindly favour upon those who
came before his tribunal; and after, by your vote this night,
subjecting these parties to this delicate cross-examination of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark, you will, on
.44; WN PA I-, presentation of the report of your Committee, bring them
e the House of Commons and in the face of the country
f2.:4;;t:T1:.7-to intain their right to what they have ever
tehonsmidred
yiA
'1:: Minis-
r' ,_.!;..:,;-: .ttieie.l
nnddoclaeteerds
from
theinheritance
Opposition
p?posiNtioon benches)—and aned unless
lITIY '''."..l4ltiO. prove that they are without father, that they are'
i
ettoptc
:.' .•)( v A.,
r-
'‘
111 A 9