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

THE SI TN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1837

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Dgc. 8.
The SPEAKER having taken the chair at the usual hour, the
Earl of Lincoln took the oaths and Ifs seat.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the sureties
whose names had been given in to prosecute the petition against
the return for the borough of Tralee, had faded to enter into
their recognizances.
Mr. PALMER presented a petition for, and obtained leave
to bring in a Bill for the better and more speedy recovery of
small debts in the parish of Oaking, Berks.
On the motion of Mr. G. W. WOOD, a Committee was
appointed for the purpose of reporting upon all private peti-
tions presented to the House.
POST-OFFICE.
General SHARP presented a petition from Dumfries, pray-
ing for an improvement in the Post-office.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petiton from the
Chairman and Directors of the I3irmingliam and Midland
Joint Stock Bank, praying the House to adopt Mr. Rowland
. Hill's plan for the equalization of the rates of postage. The
Hon. Member thought that the subject of the petition wes a
grievance that ought to be redressed, and he should do all in
his power to effect that object.
Mr. BLFWITT s.id that he had given notice that it was
his intention to move for leave, after the recess, to Lying in a Bill
to enable spiritual persons to hold shares in Joint Stock Banks.
It was his intention not to carry out that motion to th' full ex-
tent, and he begged now to give notice that it was his inten-
tion to bring in a Bill to render valid all contracts entered
into by persons in holy orders.
COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.
Colonel SIBTEIORP gave notice that he should very
early after the recess move for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend and restrict the p-esent power of the Ccenmissioners of
Sewers.—( Hear, hear, and a lauzh.)
SOUTH AUSTRALIA. _ _ .

Mr. LEADER, seeing the Hon. Member f r Lymngton
opposite (Mr. Mackinnon), whom he believed was one of the
Australian Commissioners, he wished to ask him when they
might expect the Second Annual Report of the South Aus-
tralian Commissioners, as he had put the question to the lion.
Member for Devonport the other night, who said he would
make inquiries en the subject.
Mr. M ACKINNON said the only answer he could give to
the question was, that in consequence of the dissolution of
Parliament in June last, it was the desire of the Com-
missioners to delay this Report until they could obtain
further infJmation as to the state of Australia. Tr at
information they had now obtained, it was of a most sa-
tisfactory nature, and the Report would be presented to the
Government in the course of the month. As he was now on
his legs, he would beg to state that the accounts they had re-
ceived were of a most favourable description. Land which
was sold about a year ago for 129. an acre in South Australia,
was now valued at Si. per acre.
Mr. LEADER was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for
bis very satisfactory answer, and assured him he had not the
slightest intention of casting any blame on the Commissioners.
THE GLASGOW WEAVERS.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petitiren which had been
agreed to at a numerous and most respectable meeting, but
which was signed only by the Chairman on behalf of the meet-
ing. The petitioners prayed for the repeal of so much
of the law of Scotland as permitted a vexatious delay
of justice, through the interference of the Law-officers of the
Crown. The petitioners had been induced to appeal to the
House, in consequence of the great hardship suffered by cer-
tain working men of Glasgow, who were accused of con-
spiring to procure a violation of the law, and were also ac-
cused of murder. Their trial had been vexatiously postponed,
and he (Mr. Wakley) was glad to see the Lord-Advocate in
his place, and he hoped the Learned Lord would be able to
give an explanation of that oppressive delay.
Captain PE CHE LL supported the prayer of the petition,
and bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting from
which it emanated.
The LORD ADVOCATE was sure that he could satisfy
the House of the propriety of the proceedings complained of
by the petition. A murder was committed in the streets of
Glasgow, under circumstances which gave the authorities no
means of ascertaining who were the murderers. An investi-
gation was made, of which the result was that the President,
Treasurer, and Secretary of the Glasgow Trades' Union
were taken up upon the charge of murder. The trial of
these persons was delayed, because, according to the laws of
Scotland, no witness could be brought forward at the trial
whose name and description were not set forth in the summons.
Every person must see that it was material to have a full de-
tail of all the circumstances and all the documents that could
be adduced in evidence.—( Hear, hear.) When the case came
before the Court, Counsel took objection to the relevancy. of
the indictment. The Court came to the opinion that the in-
dictment was relevant—it entered into a chain of incidents
which went over a considerable time. After that decision was
pronounced, information of most important evidence was com-
municated to the public prosecutor, which he could not avail
himself of under that indictment. Accordingly a new indictment
was framed. By the law of England a man might be tried
the day after the crime was committed. In Scotland, how-
ever, he could not be tried until full notice had been given by
such a paper as that which he (the Lord Advocate) now
held in his hand, containing a full detail of all documents
and papers. The case was of great importance, and he
should not be doing his duty if he entered into any
details which might prejudice the prisoners in the minds of
the public.—( Hear, hear.) But be could assure the House
that no delay should take place that could possibly be avoided.
--(Hear, hear.) It was his most anxious wish to bring this
trial to a conclusion, as soon as the forms of the law of Scot-
land would allow.—( Hear, hear.)
WOODS AND FORESTS.
Mr. LEADER presented a petition from parties residing
in Abingdon-street, complaining that a Bill was now in pro-
gress through the House to enable the Commissioners of
Woods and Forests to purchase certain houses and tenements,
which imposed no restrictions as to time, and did not give the
petitioners the Usual power of appeal from the valuation, so
that their interests were left wholly unprotected. Mr. Leader
explained that these omissions arose from the fact of the
Bill having been treated as a public Bill, and sent to a Com-
mittee up stairs. Petitioners prayed to be heard by Counsel
• before the Committee.

POOR LAWS.
Mr. DUNCONIBE presented a petition from the visitors,
guardians, and 1,046 of the principal inhabitants of a Union

in Yorkshire, the name of which we could not catch, complain-
ing of a passage in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners,
which stated that the management of this Union is conductod
on erroneous and vicious principles. The petitioners state
that the Commissioners made this representation, which they
contended is entirely unfounded, in order to induce the House
to repeal the new Poor Law Act. He fully concurred in the
prayer of the petition, and hoped that the Union would not be
broken up.
The petition was referred to the Committee on Poor Laws
sitting up stairs.
REDUCTION OF POSTAGE.
Mr. H AWE S presented a petition from the Borough of
Lambeth, praying for a uniform rate of postage, with a view
to its reduction, as recommended by Mr. Rowland Hill.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MA HONY brought in a Bill to amend the laws re-
lating to Grand Juries in Ireland.
THE FACTORY BILL.
Lord ASHLEY begged to ask the Noble Lord, the Se-
cretary for the Home Department, whether it was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill into
that House, for the amendment of the Factory Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said ;—lt is the intention of her
Majesty's Government to propose a Bill to amend the Factory
Act ; but I wish to apprise the Noble Lord that it will not in-
clude the clauses suggested by the Noble Lord in the course
of last Session.
DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER.
Mr. HARVEY gave notice that on an early day after the
recess, he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into
the respective rights, revenues, management, and offices of
the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.
JEWISH CLAIMS.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that as early as possible
after the recess he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to
relieve her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Mr. SHAW begged to ask what course the Government
intended to take with respect to the Irish Municipal Bill.
There were many Irish members present to whom it was of some
importance to know when its different stages would be brought
before the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL intended to move the second reading
of the Bill that day se'nnight. He would fix the time for the
committal of the Bill immediatel; after the holidays.
Mr. SHAW would be glad if the Noble Lord did not fix
the committal for an early day after the recess, as some of the
Irish Members might not be in their places, and it was under-
stood that the sense of the House would then be taken.
PENSION LIST.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I
rise for the purpose of redeeming that pledge which I gave
in the face of this House and of the country upon the occasion
of my moving for a Committee on the Civil List.—
( Hear, hear.) I rise for the purpose of moving that the
pensions charged on the Civil List of his late Majesty, as
also those which, by the Act named in the notice are
chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, be referred to a Select
Committee. Now, Sir, upon that occasion, as there was a
total absence of anything like serious opposition, I did not
apprehend that there would have been more than a
protest on the part of Hon. Gentlemen who differed
in opinion with me as to the policy of the course I intend to
pursue. Sir, it did not enter into my belief that it could have
met with any serious opposition upon the present occasion.
My Right Hon. Friend near me undoubtedly stated he wished
to reserve his full opinion on the-subject. I admit that most par-
ticularly, but I also take the liberty of saying if, as I have
heard rumoured since, there is to be on the part of the great
Conservative party in this country a resolute determination to
resist this inquiry—if they are resolved upon taking this course
iu the face of the public and the House—l must say that I
should have expected, on the occasion of making the state-
ments I did, that there would have been some virtuous in-
dignation manifested by them.—( Cheers.) Under what
circumstances, Sir, is it, that by the Votes of this House
we see that the proposition lam about to bring forward is to
be opposed ?—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see on the benches
opposite, Gentlemen whom, I am sure, will not be opposed to
my proposition ; indeed it is a proposition which has been
advocated by them as long as I have had the honour of
knowing them.—( Hear.) I allude to the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Limerick and to the Hon. Member for Caith-
ness—( Cheers)—and I am glad also that I shall have going
along with me the Hon. Member for Southwark. lam glad,
Sir, that in the great phalanx of those generally opposed to
us, there are many who will, no doubt, give us their support.
Now, Sir, in order to bring the present question clearly and
distinctly under the consideration of the House, I wish, in the
first instance, in order to avoid any possible misconcep-
tion, to state, that it is my intention to make this
motion in the precise words in which the origi-
nal notice was given by the Honourable Member
for Southwark. I shall do so, Sir, without al' ering one single
word. Why do I do so? Because it contains et once a recog-
nition of the principle of inquiry, and a recognition also that
that inquiry is to be made with a due regard to the just claims
of the parties.—( Loud cheering.) Gentlemen seem to cheer
me, because I say lam disposed to take the words of the
Hon. end Learned Member for Southwark.—( Hear, hear.)
Is there anything, I would ask, unusual in proposing a resolu-
tion in the words of a political opponent?—( Chores.) I take
those words, Sir, because while they suggest inquiry, they put
a limitation to it—because they declare that the inquiry
is to. be carried on, subject to the just views and claims of
the parties. I shall now, Sir, endeavour very shortly
to state historically the circumstances which connect
themselves with the Pension Lis., and with Parliamentary
interference on the subject. Gentlemen no doubt are
aware that the whole effect of Parliamentary interference
his been an interflrcncc of restraint. Originally in early
times, on this subject, so far as the possessions of the Crown
enabled the Crown to confer marks of Royal favour, they
were conferred without any controul or embarrassment—
without any condition ; but as soon as the Constitution of
England developed itself in i,s fullest maturity—as soon as it
came really and virtually into operation —the principle of re-
straint was considered necessary, and was therefore resorted to.
This shews itself, as Honourable Gentlemen are aware,
from the earlier times of Charles the Second, down to
the time of the Prince of Ofange. Gentlemen will
also remember the great discussion which took place in
the year 1780. Sir, at the time when the Parliamentary
Opposition of this country comprehended the names of indi-
viduals whom we on this side of the House have been accus-
tomed to look up to with deference and awe, and whom gen-
tlemen who are opposed to us will not be disposed to under-
value—l mean the names of Sir George Saville, Mr. Dun-
ning, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Burke—then began the Parliamentary
investigation upon the subject. Sir, in these days the first
question that was entertained was to know who the pension-
ers were, and the amount the pensioners received ?
( Hear, hear.) The first attempt made in those days was to
mark by the distinct interpositinn of Parliament, their sense
of the responsibility of the Minister who recommended
the pensioner to the bounty and favour of the Crown. On
these principles it was contended by those great and illustrious
men, that the pension list was a document which ought be laid
on the table of the House of Commons. I need not go
further than state that that argument was maintained, and was
carried to an extent beyond any which it is necessary for me
to appeal to, in support of the present motion. But it was in
the year 1782, when Mr. Burke first brought forward, in
that unrivalled and master-speech of his—the speech upon
economical reform—a speech which, no doubt, I shall
hear extracts read from on the opposite side of the House,
but which extracts I shall be prepared to meet by distinguish-
ing this case from the case he then argued—it was at that
time he brought forward the question of the Pension List.
He then called the attention of the House and the public,
first, to the principle of the application of pensions, and se-
condly, to the limitation of the amount. Sir, what are the
principles laid down in the preamble of the Bill, or the pream-
ble of the cause by which the power of granting pensions
was conferred, Mr. Burke, in the preamble of that Bill,
states. I will read the very words, because they are so clearly
stated, and they are so clearly applicable to the argument
which I shall make use of hereafter :—" Whereas,"
Mr. Burke, " it is no disparagement for any person to be re
licved by the Royal bounty in their distress, or for their great
and neglected desert, but, on the contrary, it is honourable to
be thought worthy of such reward, be it enacted,"
—and then, Sir, he proceeds with the enactments.
Before this, there was the principle of secret pensions. There
was a statement made that this principle prevailed in the time
of Mr. Burke—l know not with what truth. But,
that in other times those secret pensions were applied
to purposes of Parliamentary corruption I believe
there is no doubt. Mr. Burke first struck at the root
of that corruption ; and next he procured the acknowledgement
of the principle that pensions should only be granted on the
ground, either of distress or of desert; and he limited the amount
to which the Crown might go in granting pensions on the Civil
List. This was a great step in advance—indeed there never was
a greater step made in economical reform. I need not trouble
the House with the intermediate discussions which took place
between
1782 and the times to which we belong. I have now to
refer to the discussion which took place in this House in
the year 1829. It will be remembered that in that Session
Mr. Hume moved for a return of the pensions upon the
Civil List, which motion was objected to by the Govern-
ment of the day, and was supported by Lord Althorp,
on the ground that Ministers ought to be responsible for the
persons whom they recommended to the bounty of the Crown,
and that Parliament had a right to hold them to that responsi-
bility. In the year 1830 a demise of the Crown occurred,
and I perceive by the resolutions which the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opposite has printed, that he attaches great and becom-
ing weight to the recommendations of the Committee to which
the whole of the Civil List was on that occasion referred ;
and by the words quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet, it was
decided, with reference to pensions granted previously to
that time, that they were to remain undisturbed and undis-
puted ; especially those which had been continued even in
changes of dynasty whereby they acquired a vested right by
usage, if not a legal right. That Committee recorded that
it was expedient to make a provision for those pensions. But,
with regard to my motion, there are words in the Report which
would make it impossible for me to acquiesce in the reso-
lutions of the Right Hon. Baronet.--( Hear, hear.) I beg
to call the attention of Hon. Gentlemen te the last passage of
this Report, which I find in these words—" These observations
do not apply to any future grants of pensions on the Civil
List, which should be given, subject to the understanding
that they are terminable on the death of the Sovereign by
whom they are granted, or on the revision of the Civil List."
From these words, Sir, I hold, that Parliament on that occa-
sion adopted the principle that the Pension List was sub-
ject to the consideration of this House.—(Hear, hear.)
But, Sir, I say, if the Right Hon. Baronet is disposed to
throw his shield over all previously existing pensions, it is
not just in him to object to my Committee for examin-
ing into pensions which have been granted subsequently
to that period.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The right of

says

examining into i these pensions, in the strictest manner, is
clearly reserve, I by the Report—( Hear)—and it is inconsis-
tent in him to adopt the principle of this Report, and refuse
to Parliament the power of inquiring into pensions granteel
under it.—(l leer, hear, hear.) It may be said these
pensions have not been granted with any distinct notice. It
is true, no dist inct notice was sent to each pensioner, that his
pension would be enquired into. Was it necessary that such
notice should 't given?—(Hear.) This is a Report brought
in by Lord S pencer, representing the Government of the
day ; a Civil List was founded upon that Report ; pensions
were granted i rpon the principle of that Report : shall it then
be said that t ;his Report did not give clear notice to each
pensioner—is i.t not to be held as bringing every one of these
pensions distin stly within the revision of Parliament ?—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, I say that Lord Spencer, against whom no im-
putation has e. Ter been brought in this House, and the recol-
lection of who ,n 1 is still honoured by his friends, and even by
his opponents- --(Cheers)--I say, Sir, it would be attributing
to Earl Spr nsier the basest of all disingenuousness,
to suppose t ha t be could have adopted the principle of
that Report, say .l at the same time protected these pensioners
from the censer pences of any Parliamentary inquiry. There-
fore, Sir, I thi ak I have shown that the principles of the Re-
port of 1830 lead inevitably to the conclusion that Par-
liament, if it- think fit, can appoint a Select Com-
mittee to ins ju ire into every pension which was granted
during the rei g a of his late Majesty William the Fourth.
I do not say w. hat test should be applied to them—that is
another question. —but I contend that they are subject to in-
quiry. I appeal -Le the common sense, the common understanding
of this House and of the country, whether, supposing even that
these pensions •of the reign of William IV. are not sub-
ject to this rev:is ion, those pensions which have been granted
subsequently to •the resolution of February 1834, arc not sub-
ject to the rev is ion of this House ? Is it not important to this
House and the cn untry, that deliberate resolutions be agreed to ?
Oh, but Gentle mien opposite will no doubt say you have had
an opportunity of examining these pensions before the Select
Committee aleav-e stairs. Undoubtedly Gentlemen will say
Government &id not shrink from justifying these pensions.
What an argunee nt is this I Of course the Government did
their duty in just ifying these pensions. I was prepared to lay
before the Con imittee, in reference to every pension, the
fullest and most minute details ; but was I allowed to do so ?
No; it was said to me, " You are about to have a Select
Committee on pensions above stairs, before whom you
can lay these facts—we will not examine into one of
these pensions—we will not look at one of your papers."
The Hon. Ge ntleman may differ with me as to his impression
of what occurred before that Committee, but I will appeal to
the other Gentlemen who served on it; and I ask the Member
foe: Somersetshire, and the Member forLarabeth, did I not tender
to the Commit'tee the fullest information with respect to every
pension for which we were responsible? Was I not then
stopped from doing so, and did I not state upon that occasion
that I would not conceive that I was discharging my duty
if I did not enter into those details ?—(Hear, hear. )
I was not, however, allowed to enter into them, and am I again
to be stopped by the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet ?
—( Hear, hear.) I say that this is not fair play—it is not fair
or just to preclude an individual who wishes to give informa-
tion to the public in one place, and when he comes there
to be told that he is to give it in another, but he is there again
precluded by a similar answer. It may be said that it is a mat-
ter of indifference, and that no one charges abuses on pensions
granted since 1831. It is true we then introduced resolutions
into Parliament to remedy the acknowledged abuses of the
Pension List, and they have been sufficient for their purpose.
I ask if the Right Honourable Baronet oppo,es this
inquiry, are we to be precluded from examining into the pen-
sions granted since 1831, in order to examine into the effect of
Lord Spencer'S resolution, what is the intent of this proceeding ?
You are excluded from the consideration of abuses to which
you have on every ground of the argument an unquestionable
right, for the purpose, and with the effect of shielding and
sheltering the other Pension List, which does not come within
the category to which I have adverted.—( Hear, hear.)
Now let us see whether gentlemen are warranted in saying
that no inquiry ought to take place into that list. I admit
that nothing could be more unjust both to the Government
which granted tlaepensions, and to individuals by whom they
were received, than applying as a test either to the one or the
other—a teat subsequently enacted, and having its origin
in the year 1834.—( Hear, hear.) Nothing could be
more unjust than such a course. But before I admit that to
be unjust, am I called upon to admit, that previously to the
enactment of that resolution there was no test at all ? On
the contrary, every statement that has been made goes to show
that a test was applied to a period anterior to the year 1834,
although the test was not so distinct a one, but still it went as
far back as the time of Mr. Burke. What did he say, and on
what grounds does he defend pensions? On two grounds
which he stated these grants could only be defended upon—the
one was desert and the other was distress, and in the stasute
of 1782 these grounds were distinctly stated. I admit that
the granting o; pensions in ancient times was loose, and did
not follow those obligations to a considerable extent ;
and therefore I admit that these ancient pensions ought
not to be lightly disturbed; but what is the mean-
ing of the Honourable Gentleman's notice, if he does
not say that the just interpretation of that resolution referred
to existing claims and rights ? I don't mean to say, however,
that these ancient pensions—if they had been proved to
have originated in fraud—l don't mean to say that they
should be protected from inquiry.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
On the contrary, if a case of thot sort could be
made out—if it could be proved that the pension had origi-
nated in fraud or deceit—.hen the guilt and responsibility was
incurred by the Govern Lent that advised the continuance of
that pension.—( Cheers.) But does the present motion decide
a bother a single pension is to be struck off or not?
The present motion decided that whereas we are about
to be called on to vote a considerable sum for pen-
sions, and before we vote that amount we should inquire
into the facts of the case.—(llcar, hear.) The Honour-
able Gentleman will not think, that because I take the words
of this moticn, I em bound to strike eff one single pen-
sion, unless good grounds are shown for adopting such a
course. If a pension has been granted before the resolutions
were passed, and it is shown to be corrupt, I am ready at
once to strike it off.—(Cheer.) But again I say, that lam
not entering upon this inquiry with the intention of rigidly
prying into those pensions ; and in all cases where they are
impugned, the onus of proof shall rest upon the shoulders of
those who do so impugn the pensions. Ido not ask the
House of Commons to condemn one single pension, but I call on
you to enquire before you grant so large a vote as 140,0001.
You will have to answer to your constituents for such a vote.
—( Cheers.) I call upon you only for an enquiry. Go into
the Committee, and let every pension stand which shall not
be impugned upon the most clear and positive proof. The
enquiry that I propose is to see that every bad or profligate
pension shall be struck off—all shall undergo inquiry, but at
all times having reference to the fair and just claim
of the party. Now, Sir, if the House of Commons
refuse me such an inquiry, it will be absurd for the
House or the public again to talk of the responsibility of the
Government with regard to the Pension List. In fact, the
vote of this night, if against my proposition, will say to the pre-
sent, and all future Governments, " Gentlemen, you may do
as you please ; you may fill the Pension List as it
inquire
into you ; the House of Commons will never
into any thing that you have done"—( L oud Cries of " No,
no," from the Opposition.) Well, Sir, let me take a case.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite say no—l say yes. Surely, Sir,
this must be the proper time for an inquiry, if you are ever
disposed to enforce the responsibility of the Government. How
can you ever have a more fitting opportunity than the present?
The money has not yet been granted—the money has not
yet been voted to the Government; then surely if you mean
to apply this test of responsibility, the proper time iee do
it is before the vote has been taken. If you vote the money
first, your mouths will immediately be stopped by the fact of
your own vote. Surely, Sir, this is the proper time
forinquiring, when we are about to vote so large a
sum as from 140,0001. to 150,0001--( Hear, hear, hear. )
Why, Sir, this inquiry ought to be entered into upon the acces-
sion of a new Sovereign and the settlement of a new Civil
List.---(Hear, hear.) I say further, Sir, that entering
into that List you ought t• enter into it in a just and li-
beral spirit. You ought not to enter into it assuming that
everything has not been done for which you cannot give a just
reason ; on the contrary, if ever there was a subject for inves-
tigation—if investigation be useful for protecting the just
rights of parties—it is that subject which we now propose
for the attention of the House.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. )
I say that, Sir, with a knowledge of facts. I have had the
honour of being in communication with many of these parties,
and I must say that those communications, have, where pre-
vious doubts existed, given me information which resolved
those doubts, and satisfied me that many of these
early grants to which, if they had been given in
later times, objections might have been made, have been
justified under the resolution of the year 1834. For the
sake of those on the List I ask for this inquiry—if
it were unjust I would not support it ; but I say you
have gone on ton long with mystery upon this subject ;
and that mystery, instead of giving safety, has only been pro-
ductive of dagger. The calumnies that have gone forth
against those who have enjoyed these pensions have produced
more danger to the Pension List than any inquiry. I have ano-
ther ground for inquiry. If there are any here, who object
to it—and I am afraid that there may be gentlemen who
may be indifferent to the just claims of these pensioners—
I hope there are not many—but it surely cannot be contended,
on the part of the House generally, that the right of the
owners of sinecure offices was less sacred than the right of the
Civil List pensioners.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear."
The one has his sinecure for life ; he has it r
family. Here is a case in which you are called upon to vote
the money, and yet the House of Commons in cases where
they were not required to vote the money have granted a
full inquiry which has been conducted with the greatest fairness.
Did that inquiry, I would ask, lead to any injustice? No.
Did it lead to the contentment of the public ? yes. It put
an end to the outcry of the injustice of sinecures, and I say that
this inquiry will put an end to the outcry against the pension list.
Sir, I say this outcry is to be mainly traced to the secrecy
that, up to the present time, has been observed on these mat-
ters. There have been delusions circulated day by day, both
through the medium of the public press and other agencies,
which a full and free inquiry are calculated altogether to remove.
_( Cheers.) Then, I say, that on these grounds I may move
for the enquiry, and I say again that if you wish to relieve the
Government from all responsibility, you will not miss the op-
portunity upon a new reign of enquiring into this subject.—
( Cheers.) In what position will
the question practically pre-
sent itself to the House. There is a report on the table of the
Committee which was held up stairs, and it is essential to
my argument that I should state the arrangement there en-
tered into on the subject of pensions. It is proposed in that
Report that a provision shall be made by law to enable her
Majesty the Queen to grant to the extent of twelve
thousand pounds a-year for pensions in each year„ and

From

no more. That provision is recommended to be made,
but no provision is recommended in the Report for the
old Civil List Pensions. It is not necessary for me to
make any other provision. I should have wished a provision
to be made for other pensions. I stated to the Hon. Member
for Southwark, when he and I had some conversation, and he
asked me, " Do you mean in your Civil List Committee to in-
terfere with those pensions which you have now given ?"
—( Hear.) I stated to him distinctly—" Ido not mean to
prejudice the examination of that Committee in the slightest
degree ; and I do not believe her Majesty will be advised to
prejudge one single question." I conducted the Committee up
stairs. I asked the Committee to confirm the principle of
the amount it might be expedient to vote, but to reserve
the right of a Committee of this House to have a full
investigation into every one of the pensions.—( Cheers. ) I
say that was fair play. I request the attention of the Hon.
Member for Southwark for one moment. I have no right to
complain of him on this subject ; on the contrary,
his conversation with me shows he perfectly under-
stood the course I was about to take ; but as it has
been stated I took a course up stairs contrary to
to the course I took in the House of Commons, calculated to
prejudice and defeat the very enquiry I had promised myself to
undertake, I now take this earliest and most fitting opportu-
nity to give the most direct and also the most authoritative
contradiction to that statement, as being not only unsupported
by the truth, but the direct reverse of the truth.—( Cheers.)
If one man could have been more careful than another to re-
serve for the future Committee which I am now about to move,
the full and entire consideration of every one of those pensions, I
appeal to every member of the Committee above stairs to support
me in the assertion, that I was that individual.—( Cheers. )
But it did not suit the opinion of the Committee
to vote a given sum for the amount of pensions.
We have as it were opened a new account in the Civil List;
and instead of taking a very large sum, we take a sum of
which the public can judge practically, by stating it is expe-
dient that her Majesty should grant the sum of 12,0001. in new
Pensions. Now, what I would say of the Committee is, that
it would be a very unfair arrangement in respect to the other
pensioners, if we were to cast them off. On the contrary, we
ought to examine these cases carefully—we ought to examine
them—l will not say with jealousy and suspicion—but with
justice and generosity; and looking at them in that way, we
ought to make a provision for the old Civil List Pension List.'
Now let me ask those who oppose the appointment of this Com-
mittee, will they undertake that the House of Commons will vote
the money for the old Pension List without any inquiry ?
( Cheers.) That's a simple question.—( Hear.) The Right
Hon. Gent. opposite had experience of the office I now hold,
when he held that office with so much honour to himself; now,
does that experience enable him to say that he can look confi-
dently to the hope of obtaining a grant of 155,0001. a-year
in pensions, refusing this enquiry ?—( Much cheering.) Will
you undertake that my own friends will support me if I make
such a proposition as that ?—( Hear.) I take the liberty of
saying that any individual refusing this inquiry at the com-
mencement of a new reign, when it is necessary for him to
obtain a vote of upwards of lao,ooo/. a year for the payment
of these pensions, or of such of them as may be approved
of—l take the liberty of saying that that man must have
a very slight knowledge of the present state of parties,
and of the present state of opinions in this country—
if he titinks that he could have a chance of obtaining that
vote, if he refused that inquiry.—( Great cheering.) There-
fore I take the liberty of again saying, from a sense
of justice to those pensioners, that the only mode of
obtaining from the Parliament that which it is just
for Parliament to give in satisfaction of their claims, is to exa-
mine into the whole of their claims on the principle laid down in
my motion, viz, having a due regard to the just claims of parties.
Now, Sir, I think this inquiry is necessary, in the first place
to justify a large vote before the public ; and in the next place
it is one to which so far as the resolutions of 1830 can apply to
it, we are pledged. It is one to which we are pledged by
Lord Althorp's resolutions, as far as regards the pensions
of William the Fourth, from a revision of which we are not
precluded by the Act of 1782, which provided that everything
was to be presumed in favour of those earlier grants, against
which no case of fraud or corruption could be made out ; and
that a case of fraud or corruption should invalidate the grant of
the Crown. I know not whether the chance of the acquiescence
of the House in the present motion will be greater upon its
being made by me than if it had been brought forward by
the Honourable Member for Southwark ; but I have taken
upon myself the responsibility of proposing it, because I thought
the subject one of so much importance arid delicacy, that the Go-
vernment, which was ready to support it, ought also to be ready
to undertake it. It should be carried on not only with regard to
the claims of the parties, but also with a just sense of feeling
and in a gentlemanly spirit, so as not to indispose this House
and the country to give full effect to the recommendations of
the Committee. It ought also to be entered upon with
a determination to abstain from all prying into the
private affairs of individuals.—(Hear, hear.) If this in-
quiry be not carried on in this spirit, it may be in itself de-
feated. On this account I thought it necessary that it should
be carried on by the Government, and I think the effect out of
doors will be better if it be carried on through our instrumentality.
Now I took the liberty of saying, that I hoped I should have
the votes of some Hon. Members opposite. I hope so still,
for I find, that up a former occasion many Gentlemen oppo-
site have supported this proposition.—( Hear, hear.) I will
not go through all of them ; but I find in the lists
of the division, in favour of that motion, the names of the Hon.
Member for Kent, the Hon. Member for Aylesbury, the Hon.
Member for Frome, the Hon. Bart. the Member for
Caithness ( Sir G. Sinclair).—( Loud cheers.) Does he wish
to know when ?—( Loud cheers.) I also see the name
of the Hon. Member for Stoke-upon- Trent.—( Hear, hear. )
Now it may be thought that I am inconsistent in this, and it
will be said if you change your course now, why should not other
gentlemen be justified in changing theirs? The difference is this :
you had settled in 1834 the Civil List for the life of the reign-
ing Sovereign, and you are now called upon to grant 150,000'.
of the public money, and is it fair or just that you grant it
without a previous inquiry ? It is not necessary
for me now to stop and defend my own consistency.
But consistent or inconsistent, to gentlemen fresh from their
constituents—to gentlemen with pledges of economy on their
lips—to gentlemen with the abuses of the pension list on their
lips, now is the time to redeem their pledges. We tender them the
fullest and most complete inquiry, unfettered and unrestricted,
into all the pensions made by the obligations of eternal jus-
tice—made by the obligations of kindly feeling on the
part of the British Government. —( Cheers.) With these
motives and upon these grounds, I move that a Committee he
appointed to inquire into how far the sinecures and pensions
granted under the two Acts referred to, having due regard to
economy, ought to be continued. —( Loud cheers.) I have
now, I trust, redeemed the pledge I made on former occa-
sions, of acting fairly and candidly on the question of the Pen-
sion List. —( Vehement cheering from the Ministerial side of
the House. )
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, if this propo'sal of the Right
lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer involved
merely some consideration of temporary policy or expediency,
I might have been at liberty to advert to sonic considerations
to which he has adverted, for the purpose of enabling
me to decide upon the course which it might be my
duty to pursue. —(Hear. ) I might have occupied myself
in ransacking the votes of some Hon. Members on this side of
the House.—( Cheers.) I might have adverted to the pledges
given by some Hon. Members on the hustings. I might have
sought the means of avoiding a direct vote on this
question.--( Cheers.) I might have tried by declamation
and with a protest delivered in the most vehement language,
I might have followed the example of others, and have tried
to avoid a decision altogether—( Loud cheera)—but if this
question does involve, not considerations of expediency—
not considerations of mere policy, but of equity and justice—
then, Sir, I care not how some of my friends on this side
of the House might have voted on former occasions. I feel it
to be my duty—l am determined, in satisfaction of my own
feelings, and in, vindication of the eternal interests of justice—
I am determined, whatever the bearing of party interests—
I am determined, in order to show the sincerity of
my own convictions, to give the proposition the utmost op-
position that is in my power.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
I only ask the House for an attentive hearing to the appeal
which I shall attempt to make, and to the authorities to which
I shall refer, for the purpose of showing whether this
proposition be or be not founded in justice. Before
I address myself to the particular part of this question ;
let me first ask the House well to consider what is the
probability of profit which they will derive from the Inquiry ?
—( Cheers.) Profit I Do not suppose that in using that word
I mean the consideration of the sordid advantage of profit.
No. I take the word profit in its extended sense—not
the profit which a great country may derive from the conside-
ration of the saving of a few miserable thousands of pounds.
--(Cheers.) But that profit which arises from the detection
of abuse—( Cheers)—and the bringing to punishment of
those who have abused the liberality of their country.—
( Great cheering.) I only refer to profit for the pur-
pose of saying that if justice is against you, what profit you
are likely to derive. It is said the Pension List is unpopular.
The gentlemen on the other side of the House say there is a
misconception in the country with respect to it, and we wish to
remove it. That may be all very well ; but where justice is in-
volved in the consideration of popularity, let me tell you that the
resistance to justice will be attended with the worst of
consequences. (Hear.) In some measures of policy
that which is unpopular may en that account be unwise.
Of pensions upon the English Civil;List, granted since 1830,
there were 383 ; of that number only 58 had been granted by
any Minister now surviving ; of that 58, 19 were granted by
Lord Sidmouth more than 33 years since, so that of the
whole 383, only 39 had been granted within the last
thirty years. It was admitted by the report of the year
1830, that in consequence of a reliance on uniform
usage family settlements had been made, and various arrange-
ments which it would be absolute injustice to disturb, and Lord
A lthorp in 1830, admitted that he had instituted an inquiry
into all existing pensions. —( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.")
Lord Althorp, in speaking of the general character of
those pensions, in 1831, when Parliament was more
at liberty than it is now to enter upon the
discussion of them, said I will now proceed to
state the grounds on which I might propose to take away
the pensions from those who own them; but upon the
best examination that I have been able to give to those
pensions, I generally find that most of them have been
granted from mere charity, and that to take them away would
be to inflict great distress upon many persons. When you
recollect that those pensions have been the subject of settle-
ment, and that few of them have been granted by any survi-
ving Minister—you will not, for the mere sake of profit to a
great nation—l presume you will not proceed to cast a re-
flection upon those who are now in their graves. The
!list pension on the list published in 1835, was granted in 1769,
eluding a period of nearly 70 years. Will you say that the
pensions granted during a period from 1769 to 1830, namely,
down to the accession of his late Majesty, an interval of 69