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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1837.

to in the course of this evening, and so much was founded on what
he said in this House, that I cannot forbear from reading to the
House the opinion which he expressed in 1834 with respect to some
of the pensions. He said, " He was aware that many persons held
pensions who had public employment for which they received re-
muneration, or who had other property on which they could de-
pend for support ; and, although he could not enter into the feel-
ings of others, yet he was ready to declare that if placed in such a
position, in being possessed of means of supporting himself, and
at the same time that he was entitled to receive a pension, he would
not, under such circumstances, consent that the payment of the pension
shouldbe continued to bim. The question then before the House was
simply this, would the House, by its vote, deprive those of their
pensions who had a legal right to receive them ?" That was the
argument then employed, and in what position does it place the ar-
gument now? The state of the question as regards that argument
is this. In 1834 the parties had a legal right to their pensions,
and because they had that right they could not be taken from them.
That legal right now exists no longer, as it ceased en the demise
of the Crown. Then what equitable claim is there ? None and
there is only that demand can be made for the pensions which Lord
Althorp declared he should be ashamed to urge. Now I do say
that this is a case for inquiry. The obstacle in 1834 was that there
was a legal bar to the removal of the pensions. The pensioners
then had the law in their favour, and they could not be deprived of
their right. Now there is no legal right, and there is so little of an
equitable claim that no injury would be done by the loss of the pen-
sions, because if it were so, how could Lord Althorp say that the per-
sons in the receipt of pensions were in affluent circumstances, and
that they ought to abandon them? In my opinion it is the con-
duct of these persons in not following the advice which was given
by the Noble Lord, that is the great cause of the want of public
confidence.—(Hear.) There are occasions, although I regret that
they are not frequent, when persons having a right to pensions
make a voluntary surrender of them ; and I cannot but say, that
in most instances the persons who thus sacrifice their own interests
to the general public welfare are those who have the least right,
from various causes, to keep the pensions which have been granted
to them for past services. Lord Sidmouth was an honourable in-
stance of this ; for he was a person who had a perfect right to re-
tain the pension which he gave up, from his long services to his
country ; and to instance two other cases, Mr. Graham More and
Mr. Marsden were gentlemen, who, with equal generosity and
liberality of feeling, refused any longer to accept funds from the
Government for their support, and they also voluntarily gave up
their pensions.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I do not believe
that the Committee would have refused to continue some of
the pensions ; but with respect to those persons, whose claims,
as compared to those I have referred to, are as nothing, and
who retain their pensions, is no inquiry to be made ? The
Noble Lord has referred to a denial which I made that this case
could be compared to those under the new Poor-law. Ira of that
opinion still ; I think with some exceptions, which are where pen-
sions have been given on the ground of distress, those are the only
cases; and when the regulations under the Poor-law Act are
compared with those cases in which pensions have been earned by
long service, and have been given on that ground, I have no hesi-
tation in saying that there is manifestly not the smallest analogy.
—(Hear, hear.) But it is asked what is intended to be done with
regard to the pensions, and whether the proposition is to continue
them all, or to take them all away ? I say that is the question
which this House will give to the care of the Committee to deter-
mine, and on which 1 think the Committee will come to a fair de-
cision, and in their inquiries I have no doubt that they will act
with due regard to the feelings of the parties called before them.
The benefit I look for is, that the public be satisfied with
respect to the question, and if they are satisfied, I, personally,
should be content to continue the name of every pensioner on
the list ; but I think that the public have a right to ask for an
inquiry when a strong feeling intervenes, and in a case in
which no injustice shah be done, and I do not agree with those who
say that this House, or that a Committe of the House has not a
right to be liberal or to be generous upon the. subject. I think
they have a right to represent the people in this respect as in every
other ; and I think that, if it were possible to place this question
before the people in the first place, there could be no doubt of there
being a majority in favour of the inquiry ; and, secondly, if the
whole people had this case before them, and they were to know all
the circumstances connected with the business, I think there could
not be a provision more liberal, more beneficent, that that which
would be made by them, if, on the ground of public service, any
one had claims on their generosity or liberality.—(Hear, hear.)
In putting the question, therefore, before the Committee, I would
put it as I would before the whole nation. Suspicions have pre-
vailed, with regard to the Pension List in the minds of the public,
which the frequent refusals of the House to grant an inquiry have
tended to increase. Had it been a question of justice I should have
felt myself bound, on theidemise of the King, as a question of justice
to maintain it ; but it being now not a question so founded, that
argument must be put aside. I say that the question of the
justice of the case no longer exists, the pensions have ceased by law,
and Lord Althorp having declared that the persons by whom many
of them were received should in justice have given them up.—
(Criec of " Oh, oh !" from the Opposition.) I will read that
portion of the speech of Lord Althorp which I have already read,
in which this is stated : " Though he could not," said Lord Al-
thorp, " enter into the feelings of others, he was ready to declare
that if he were possessed of funds sufficient fur his own support
he would not receive any pension from Government." Well,
then, when he says that the pensions ought not to be received,
does he not say that they cannot justly be taken?—(Cheers.)
Such being the case, then the only question is, whether the
inquiry shall take place or not, and on this point not one single
gentleman opposite has said a word—they have all been silent.
There will be this satisfaction, that it being felt that it is proper
that an inquiry shall be gone through with respect to all the
pensions, with regard to those on which the Committee shall
be satisfied the public will be satisfied, and the persons thus
selected will receive their pensions to the end of their lives,
and the public will feel no further curiosity on the subject, know-
ing, as they will then, that due inquiry had been made. I am
sure, however, that if we take the opposite course, and refuse to
grant a Committee, that we lay the foundation for another motion
with respect to this subject—for increased mistrust in the minds of
the public—for increased difficulty with respect to the Civil List.
1 am confident the people wish to do justice to the parties, and if,
by the inquiry taking place, they should think injustice would be
done, I am sure that they would have instructed Hon. Members
not to participate in permitting such a proceeding to take place.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The proposi-
• tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite is this, that provi-
sions shall be made by which the Crown can continue the whole
of the pensions which are on the list, and which were conti-
nued by the Crown on the accession of the late King, or which
were granted by his Majesty. This amounts, then, to a sug-
gestion that the House shall vote a sum of 120,000/. without any
inquiry, to meet the demands of the Pension List, while the propo-
tition which I make to the House is that the whole shall be voted
if, on inquiry, it s'aall be found to be justified, and that at
all events every part shall be voted which the inquiry shall
prove to be just and proper : that is the proposal, and on the
part of every individual on this side of the House I believe
I may say that there is not one who votes to-night that does
not do so with a sincere desire and resolution of making provision
for every one of the pensioners whose claim shall appear to be
founded on justice. The Noble Lord opi,o,ite, with whom I was
tong on terms of intimacy and fr e .dship, and to whose remarks,
therefore, I will make no answer, I trust, on his being undeceived
on the point to which he has referred with regard to the M niste: s,
he will be the first to acknowledge the error into which he has
fallen—hej made: use of the speeches of the Ministry, and of the
opinions which he alleged they expressed; but in doing so he
excluded altogether those portions of the speeches which were
of an opposite tendency to the point which he desired to
urge, but which, if I had taken a different view of the question,
would have been quoted against me. My Noble Friend—for I
must still call him so, notwithstanding what has taken place this
evening in the first place, says that the question which I now sup-
port is the very proposition which I before resisted. I say it is
not.—( Cheers. ) The proposition of the 18th of February was
that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and
consider each grant on the Pension List ; but the terms of the
present proposition are of a far different character. They are,
that a Select' Committee shall inquire how far pensions granted
ought to be continued, " due regard being had to the just rights
of the parties, and to economy in public expenditure."—(oh, oh,
from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial side of the
House.) Are Hon. Gentlemen indifferent to the distinction be-
tween the two cases? For how often have we been asked, on our
bringing forward any proposition of this nature, to insert the
clause, " subject to the just claims of the parties."—(Cries
of Heir.) Again, Sir, I am taxed with inconsistency, inasmuch
as that it is said my present course differs from that which I
pursued on the 6th of May. Sir, the proposition on the 6th of May
was, " for a Select Committee to inquire how far the rules adopted
in February, 1834, were applicable to the whole of the Pension
List, as it then stood." I say that it would have been most unjust
to apply those rules to the whole of the Pension List. We had no
right to adopt rules made in 1834 to pensions granted fifty years
antecedently.—(Hear.) I repeat, therefore, that neither of the
propositions referred to was at all similar to the present one ; there
is a clear distinctian, moral as well as verbal, between them.—
( Hear.) Sir, the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentleman
have been good enough to quote more of my expressions in Febru-
ary, 1835. Sir, when I was taunted with what my own constitu-
ents would say, as to the vote I then announced it to be my intention
to give, my answer was " I have already told the electors of Cam-
bridge that I was not prepared to resume what had been conveyed
to individuals by the law of the land, and by these sentiments I
am willing to abide. Be the origin of the act rightful or ob-
jectionable, as relating to those who advised it, have not these
parties who hold under these grants the security of an Act of
Parliament—passed after full deliberation, with all means of
inquiry in our power--passed, too, above all, with the character of
a compact ? I say that these parties have a peculiar right, and a
right, too, that from our engagements with the Crown is of the
nature of a compact entered into by the Legislature, after full de-
liheration and with all the means of judging in its power ; for
during all the discussions on the Civil List Act and the other Act
aLuded to, this Pension List was in the hands of Hon. Members,
who were then, as now, aware of all the objections existing against
it. The question
.was then an open question—till these Statutes
it
partiesbe m made, oughteo,m thisl
list,
framed,,bbeut toeeu snuovtesstiht he aHvoiueswe
atstrike
Go-
vernment o
were passed—but it is no longer so.—(No, no.) At present the
fornd
. passing these Acts. I have said that these engage-
srnet:nal.letfnre in the nature of a contract. At the time of the acces-
sionmvmoeueortntucitmoe
of his present Majesty, we obtained from his Majesty an entire
andabsoluteabandonnent, not only of the hereditary revenue which
upon any former occasion had been surrendered by the Crown, but
of other revenues which, up to that moment, had been kept within
its uncontrolled dominion. The House of Commons looked na-
turally, but it looked justly, to the restriction of this vote for pen-
sions ; and therefore the Committee suggested, and the House and
Legislature acquiesced in the suggestion, that there should be im-
posed a limitation on the Civil List pensions greater than was ever
think it
undoubtedlyadvisable to
o'paeluter to.
anyUp
agreed to by any. former Sovereign. And yet it is now expected,
the compact having been executed, that we should proceed to re-'
contract,s we
may
St
was
tvoisesueh prtmfnof
such
iht a
Hon. Member to raise such objections as he might think proper ;
but I say that his Majesty s faithful Commons, having made this
the
period o
o
compact with his Majesty, the case is now far different, and the
time for inquiry has passed away. I again say that I object to this
motion, because I think it is opposed to the Acts we have passed—
because I think it is contrary
.to the. compact we have made with
the Crown—because I think it will lead to fruitless and painful
personal discussion—and because I am of opinion, that, with-
out a forcible viclation of existing rights, it cannot be
productive of any beneficial result.' —(Hear, hear, hear.) Sir,
I appeal to the House, to those who heard the Noble Lord
and Right Hon. Gentleman, whether the grounds I then rested on,
namely, the circumstance of a compact having been entered into
with the existing Sovereign, does not precisely leave the question an
open one at the present moment, when we have no compact on the
subject with the Crown 7—(Hear, hear.) Were such a compact
now in existence I would again as strenuously insist upon our
strictly adhering to it as I then did ; but there is no such compact
with the Crown. But, Sir, have we no compact with the people
also.—( Hear, hear.) What is the question that is to go forth to
the people ? According to the proposition of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, we are to vote for the lives of those parties annuities
of 150,0001. a-year ; and I say, too, let us vote these annuities
if they be just ones, bat let us first enquire whether they are
just.--(Loud cheers.) I will go farther. The principle of im-

mutable justice has been loudly appealed to. Now, let me ask
you—you who take upon yourselves so high a tone in speak-
ing of the decisions of Parliament—do you mean to put
such a judgment on the proceedings of Parliament as to say
that the iappointment of a Select Committee is synonimous
with injustice ?—( Hear hear.) Whatever Honourable Gentlemen
opposite may think, I have a better or higher opinion of the Mem-
bers of this House than to concur in any such judgment.—(Hear,
hear.) Ido not believe that its recommendations will be unsup-
ported by authority and reason. I will say for myself, that, no
more than Lord Spencer, will I ever be a party to injustice, towards
any individual ; but I say that I consider, in ju sties to the pension-
ers themselves, we ought to grant the inquiry.--( Cheers.) Let us
grant the inquiry, and go through it seriously and discreetly, but at
the same time honestly and searchingly, for by these means—and
do not let it be said that the two things are inconsistent—we may
reach the truth, which is all we wish to reach.—( Hear, hear.) Let
us act with the greatest consideration, with the greatest deference
for the delicacy of the feelings of all parties; for this way of pro-
ceeding, so far from being inconsistent with the attainment
of truth, will be found the best mode of attaining it.—( Hear,
hear)—and having so conducted the enquiry, that the pen-
sions remaining have borne the brunt of searching investigation.
dispose of them at once, by putting them on the Consolidated Fund,
and let us have no more annual discussion on the subject.—(Hear,
hear.) You may rest assured that the persons whose names are
deservedly on the Pension List, will be very delighted at the altered
state of things. I thank the House for the opportunity it has given
me of making this brief personal explanation. The point on which
we are about to divide, I repeat, is this :—The Noble Lord and
Right Honourable Gentleman ask us to vote annuities of 150,000/.
for the lives of these parties, without au inquiry into the merits of
the respective cases : we tender him an inquiry first, accompanied
with the pledge to vote all or any part of these annuities, which
shall appear on inquiry to be just.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided—

For the motion ... . ...295
Against it 233
Majority
The announcement of the Majority was received with loud cheers.
Committee to be —inated on Tuesda•

nonainateu _ .y.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS BILL.

Mr. C. BULLER moved the commitment of this Bill pro
forma. He intended, he said, to move its recommitment on the
7th of February.
Sir R. PEEL had not the least objection to the motion pro-
posed. As he found that the Bill was not intended by the Hon.
lover to have any reference to pending elections, he should give it
his best consideration, and in the discussion of it he should, as far as
possible, endeavour to allay all party differences.
The House then went into Committee,
Sir R. PEEL wished to know from the lion. Member for Lis-
keard, whether, in the amendments he intended to propose, he
purposed to leave out the last clause, by which it was declared that
the Bill was not to come into force during the present Session.
Mr. C. BULLER had not the slightest intention of leaving that
clause in the Bill. Its insertion in the Bill was a mere mistake
from a copy of a Bill of last Session. He should propose no change
now, as the Bill was only pro forma in Committee, nor should he
propose any change without affording the opportunity for a full and
fair discussion upon it.—( Hear. )
The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted on the 7th Feb.