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

amount of 75,0001., on the first part of the list, should be
placed on the Civil List, and the remainder charged to the
Consolidated Fund.
" That his Majesty's Government proposed, and Parliament
sanctioned, measures in respect to the Civil List Pensions,
founded upon the recommendations of the Committee, and in
precise conformity with them, making provision to enable the
Crown, if it should so think fit, to continue the whole of the
pensions on the Civil List of King George the Fourth.
" That at a subsequent period the Howe of Commons passed
resolutions in respect to the grant of all future pensions by
the Crown, expressing an opinion that they ought to be con-
fined to such persons as have just claims on the Royal Benefi-
cence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the
performance of duties to the public, or by their useful disco-
veries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts,
have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign, and
the gratitude of their country.
" That it appears to this House that the course advisedly
taken on the accession of his late Majesty, by the Cro7n and
Parliament, was calculated to justify increased confidence in
the continuance of the then existing pensions, and in the per-
manence of family settlements and arrangements of various
kinds,' made by parties relying on the adherence to invaria-
ble custom,' and that whatever harshness or injustice there
might have been, on the accession of his late Majesty, in over-
looking on that occasion the uniform preceding usage, would
on the present occasion be greatly aggravated, not only by
the lapse of time, and the intervention of a whole reign, but
by the direct sanction given, in 1831, by the Crown and Par-
liament to en expectation that the principles then acted on, so
far as applicable to the then existing pensions, would be there-
after adhered to. _ _ _

" That, under these circumstances, it is the opinion of this
House, that regulations having been established in respect to
the grant of future pensions, and precautions having been
taken in respect to the revisal or discontinuance of them on
new sentiements of the Civil List, it is advisable now to make
such provision as shall enable the Crown, if it shall so think
fit, to continue those pensions which were continued by the
Crown on the accession of his late Majesty, or which were
granted by his Majesty."
Lord ELIOT said, with respect to the motion of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, he thought that every Member who
voted for it, who had voted with the Right lion. Gentleman
on former occasions in respect to this very subject, would be
called upon to state his reasons for considering that an inquiry
which would have been fruitless axd disgusting in 1830 would
have become wise and proper in 1837. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, in coming forward to make this proposition, alluded
to the state of parties in this House, and seemed to shrink
from the disgrace of being left in a minority, and of sacrificing
some small share of popularity out of doors.—(Opposition
cheers.) Her Majesty's Government should recollect that
many of these pensions had been granted as far back as
1780 ; that it had been the invariable practice of Sovereigns
of this country to grant such pensions upon grounds which
seemed sufficient, and of their successors to confirm them ;
and he believed that hitherto no Minister of the Crown bad
ever stood forward to advise the Sovereign to depart from
this principle, and that the Right Honourable Gentleman (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) was the first Cabinet Minister
who had ever come forward to adeise a Sovereign of these
realms to venture upon a step of so much acknowledged hard-
ship and difficulty.—(Opposition cheers.) lie (Lord Eliot)
was one who thought that no one should receive a pension on
any other grounds but those of services rendered to the public,
and in no case upon considerations which might not be openly
stated to the world.—( Cheers from both sides.) Bnt the ques-
tion which they now had to decide was, whether that principle
should be applied retrospectively ?—(" Hear," from the Op-
position.) He was aware that there were a great number
of persons connected with high and noble families in the
kingdom who enjoyed some of these pensions, and he must
say that be should be glad to see many of these individuals
come forward and withdraw their names from the Pension
List.—( Cheers.) He had only one more observation to make.
It was in reference to a powerful and eloquent speech which
he had heard on a former occasion from the Honourable
Member for Southwark, in the course of which the Honour-
able Member taunted the Conservative party of England with,
while they stood up for the inviolability of the pensions granted
to persons in higher rank, consenting to the alleged cruelties
and hardships practised upon the poorer recipients of public
bounty under the new Poor-law Act. He ( Lord Eliot) did
not wish to enter into the accuracy of the latter allegations
against the Poor-law Act ; all be would say was, that one
case of cruelty or hardship could not justify another. What
he should advise would be, to leave to the dependants on the
poor-rates of the country the pittances they had been accus-
tomed to receive, and in like manner to these in higher life
the pensions to which, he conceived, the honour and dignity
of the country were pledged.—( Opposition cheers.)
Mr. G. H. WARD assured the House that no taunts or in-
sinuations should deter him front doing what he considered
right and equitable.—( Cheers.) The party on his side of
the House were taunted with being driven to support this
motion by the apprehension of losing some portion of their
popularity out of doors. For himself' he could only say, that
he came into this House in the year 1833, strongly im-
pressed against the abuses of the Pension List ; but he
had always supported the arrangement which had been en-
tered into between the Government and the House of Com-
mons on the subject, because he considered that the practical
justice of the ease required it. If he voted this evening in a
say which seemed inconsistent with his previous line of con-
duct in reference to this question, he begged to say that it was
not because be happened to represent a larger constituency
than he did before, nor with the slightest view to catching a
little temporary popularity. They were now for the first time
in a condition to consider the Pension List with a mind per-
fectly free and unfettered by any previous arrangement. They
could now, therefore, freely do their duty to the people, whose
representatives they were, tempered at the same time with
every feeling of leniency and consideration towards those who
depended in a great measure upon public liberality for the
means of subsistence.—( Hear, hear.) But he would say that
Parliaments bad a right to examine the list of these indivi-
duals, in order to see that there was at least some shade of a
plea of public service to warrant tine continuance of these al-
lowances. lie was not an opponent of a properly regulated
Pension List. Far from it. lie believed that in a country
like this, where there were so many roads to distinction
and fortune opened to men of ability and acquirement,
if they did not hold out the expectation of a perma-
nent provision to those who devoted their services to
the public good, they would exclude all men of talent
from the public service except those who were con
nected with hereditary means.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It was
always most repugnant to his feelings to see men who had
wasted their strength and faculties in earlier life in the public
service discarded in their more advanced years, and left to beg-
gary and want. He had always considered it disgraceful to
America, that such men as Jefferson, who had sacrificed to the
public cause talents, which if exerted in other ways, would
have ensured fortune and honours for life, should be deserted
without provision in their declining years.—( Hear, hear.)
lie had witnessed a delightful instance the other day of the
principle that great public service should meet its reward
even after a long lapse of years ; and he could wish that
all faithful public servants should be treated as the East
India Company had recently acted towards the Marquis
Wellesley.—( Cheers.) If treated in this light, a pension
list would then, indeed be sacred to all who loved the
glory arid prosperity of their country.—(Cheers,) He would
go further, also and allow that private secretaries to
mi-
nisters, even though their public services were not so sig-
nal, should not go unrequited.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But
when he looked at that list, and found on it the names
of the wives, the mothers, the aunts, and relations of some of
the richest aristocrats, he felt that, however right might might
be the feelings displayed by his Noble Friend opposite, he
was bound, as a trustee of the people, to ask the Government,
on the renewal of the Pension List, how it happened that a
public fund of this nature was made to contribute to the sup-
port of such individuals ?—( Cheers.) When he saw, too, on
the Pension List such singular marks of partiality, of gene-
ral and undefined favouritism, he would not mention names,
for he did not think it fair that persons about to submit to
examination should be publicly noticed, when they could not
be mentioned with favour—but when he observed six names
of one family, and seven of another, and ten of a third, and
twelve of a fourth, and fourteen of a fifth (for he had noted
these numbers down), he had a right, and felt compelled to
demand how this singular distribution of a public fund had
taken place, and on what principle of utility these persons had
been favoured by the Crown?—(Cheers.) Making every al-
lowance for, the merit of these individuals, he could not con-
ceive that their claims to reward should run in such a con-
tinuous stream that the individuals bearing these several
names should be deemed worthy of some mark of their
Sovereign's approbation.—(Hear, hear.) Great use had
been made in that discussion of the authority of Mr. Burke.
But he begged to remind those Hon. Members who rested so
securely on the favourable tendency of that Gentleman's opi-
nions to their views, that he might be quoted most effectively
on either side of a question.—( Hear, hear, and an expression
of dissent from the Opposition.) Adverting to the question
of the responsibility of the Crown, he held " that it possessed
no public right or property in these pensions. That the power
which it possessed over them was held in trust, and enjoyed
for certain purposes—those of good government and the well-
being of the community." That principle, if fairly carried
out, would justify no pension except as the reward of some
act of public services—( Hear, hear.) There might be cases
of charity having a fair claim to relief ; but these ought not to
overbear the number of pensions given for ostensible and ac-
knowledged merits.—(Cheers.) It should not be forgotten
that there was a great difference between the case now be-
fore the House and the motion for economical reform made
by Mr. Burke in the middle of a reign and during the life of
an existing Sovereign. The matter had been, as it wnew
ere,
forced on them. They stood at the commencement of a
reign. The Right Honourable Baronet asserted that the pro-
ceedings of the House in 1831 strengthened the claims of
those on the Pension List. Now what was the value of that
precedent? In 1831, the question being open whether the
House should grant a shilling in support of pensions or not, a
proposal was made by the Crown that his then Majesty would
give up half the amount of funds to which he was entitled on
this head. provided all the existing pensions were continued
during that Sovereign's life.—(Hear, hear.) They had. had
the benefit of that agreement on one side, and the Crown on
the other. They fulfilled the pledge, and kept it with a fide-
lity that made nature almost tear the seal from the bond into
which they had entered not to revise the Pension List. He
could not, therefore, attach the slightest weight to the argu-
ment contained in the amendment, that the injustice of inter-
fering in the manner contemplated by the present Committee
would be greatly aggravated by the expectations held out in
1831 to the objects of the bounty of the Sovereign, The con-
tract entered into in 1831, was not even considered binding for
the duration of the existing reign. If a doubt could be en-
tertained on this point—that the question of the revision of
the Pension List was misunderstood by the country, or at least