The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-20 00:00:00

DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY'S BILL,

On our entrance into the Gallery we found
Sir M. S. STEWART on his legs, moving as an amend-
ment that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Mr. E. TENNENT would oppose this Bill, not on any
private crrounds, or from any private interest that he had in
any other Company, but entirely upon public grounds. He
opposed this Bill on the broad principle that it was totally un-
necessary for any great national purpose, to grant peculiar
privileges to a great Company like this.—(Hear, hear.)
He objected to the limited responsibility which this Bill con-
ferred on the shareholders. Their first Bill was obtained in
1828, and in that was inserted a clause to prevent the exten-
sion of the Company's capital. In 1833 they claimed per-
mission to add 74,0001., and they obtained it on the under-
standing that it was to be expended on the improvement of the
Shannon ; but the House should know that they never
published more than one account--and that one since they came
to ask for the present measure. And yet while they ask for
leave to extend their capital, 10,0001. of the 74,0001. was yet
unpaid. In the present Session they asked for 150,0001., and
in the Committee they added 300,000/. more. He admitted
the Company had conferred benefits on the South of Ireland,
but that should not inducelMembers to accede to the present
application.—( Hear. )
Lord CLEMENTS said, it was to be remembered that this
Company was the first one which established steam navigation
between Dublin and Liverpool, and was the first also to intro-
duce the steam navigation inland in Ireland. He would be
most happy to see the same privileges extended to the Scotch
Companies as were now sought for ; but because they had
them not, was not a good reason for throwing out the Bill.
Mr. W. N. ROCHE saw no signs of monopoly in the
Bill, and gave it his most warm support.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE opposed the Bill, because he
conceived it an injustice towards other Companies, to confer
such a privilege on this.
Mr. L ABOUCHERE could assure his Hon. Friend the
Member for Glasgow that he was mistaken in supposing that
any offer had been made on the part of the Post-office Com-
missioners, such as be had described. Letters bad undoubtedly
been written to two or three Companies, containing certain
queries to which they desired an answer, but beyond this
nothing else had taken place which could justify the report to
which his Hon. Friend had referred.
Dr. BO\VRING was of opinion that nothing could be more
disgraceful to the mercantile community than the law which
made the private property of every shareholder liable. He
could not agree with his Right Hon. Friend (the Member for
Dundee) as to the injurious consequences of a limited
responsibility. He believed, on the contrary, the time
was come when the principle of a limited responsibility
was recognised as the most judicious one.—(Hear, hear.)
The arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
were not at all felicitous. He would ask the Hon. and Learned
Member, if any other body came forward and claimed to be ex-
empted from that rule, would he consent to it ?—[Mr. O'Connell:
yesi_All lie could say was, that if so, he was very bold,
and in is (Dr. Bowring's) opinion, very. few members would
be found to follow in his wake. The principle was the same
as if the Hon. and Learned Member would advocate a party

TELE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAX, APRIL 20,.)

setting up a newspaper without responsibility.
feel it his duty to oppose the third reading.
Mr. O'CONNELL explained.—( Cries of " Question,"
" Divide," &c.)
Lord MORPETH contended that the principle of the Bill
should have been discussed at the second reading. The effect
of the measure would be of signal advantage to Ireland, and he-
hoped it would receive the support of the House.—( Question.)
Mr. YOUNG opposed the third reading.
After a few words from Lord F. EGERTON, who sup-
ported the Rill, and Mr. FRESHFIELD, who opposed all
the Reporters were ordered to withdraw.
A division took place ; when there appeared—
For the Third Reading l2O
Against it
Majority against the Third Readiug —s4
The Family Endowments' Bill was read a third time and
pissed.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY.

He should

Lord GEORGE LENNO X wished to have the opi-
-I,ion of the House upon a point of some importance,
ith respect to the London and Brighton Railway. The
Honourable Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnard) had
applied to be placed on the Committee on Rennie's
line, on the ground that he was a Member of the
Sussex list. Now the House would bear in recollection, that
last Session two Bills passed that House for establishing a
Railroad from London to Greenwich, and another from Lon-
don to Croydon. There was at this moment a Committee sitting
upon Sir John Rennie's line, from Brighton to Croydon. That
line at Croydon adopted the course taken by the London and
Greenwich Railroad; and the question was whether, in con-
sequence of that, the Hon. Member for Greenock had a right
to be put on the Sussex list, and sit on the Committee on
Sir J. Rennie's line ?

Mr. BARNARD contended that he had a right to sit on
the Committee.

The SPEAKER said the question was, whether the exist-
ing portion was not to be taken as a part of Sir John Rennie's
line?

Mr. D. W. HARVEY and Lord EASTNOR made some obser-
vations which did not reach the gallery.
Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him that the
question was not as to the equity of having the Hon. Mem-
ber on the Committee; but whether as Member for Greenwich
he had a right to belong to the Committee by the rules of the
House. As the railroads did not pass through any part of
the county of Kent, he conceived if the Hon. Gent. were ad-
mitted on the Committee, so ought also every Member within
the county. He did not think his claim was a good one.
Mr. O'CONNELL understood the Bill was entitled the
Brighton, Shoreham, and London Railway ; and if so the
Hon. Member for Greenwich had a right to be on the Com-
mittee.

After a few observations from Major BEAUCLERK and Mr.
HUME, Mr. POULETT THOMSON made a few observations in re-
ply, and the further consideration of the Report of the
Railway was postponed.

B:j6

as new expressions were often consecrated and rendered clef-
sieal by the rank of those who used them when they would
be deemed vulgar and disgusting in the mouths of plebeians,
in the language of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ire-
land there was this number of " he and she pensioners."._.
( Loud laughter.) Yes, there were 1,303 whom the Noble
Lord characterised as " he pensioners" and " she pensioners."
Now, out of these 1,303 " he pensioners" and " she
pensioners," 281 were persons of title—that was, he and
she titled pensioners. These pensioners in the whole were in
receipt of 150,0001. per annum of the public money. Though
he was quite aware the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
say, " In the course of a few days I shall have to present to
you a budget of 50,000,0001., and, compared with that amount,
what after all is 150,0001., even if you could save the whole of
it ?" But surely this would be strange language to fall from
the lips of any Member of that Government which had always
prided itself upon its rigid spirit of economy. Nay, the
Right Hon. Gentleman himself was always the first to state
that they were guided by the principle, and not by the mere
amount of saving, and was ever ready to volunteer a long
catalogue of the financial advantages which the public had de-
rived from the present Administration. He trusted, therefore,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Hear)—would not think
the small saving of 150,000/. a year beneath his notice, for
he found in one of the catalogues of the inestimable economi-
cal reductions for which the country was indebted to the pre-
sent Government, that no less than 14,682/. had been saved
in the article of madder—a most important reduction of
4,641/. had been made in wax—nay 6,328/. had actually
been saved in skins ; but what would the House think when
they were told that a reduction of 827/. had been made in
prunes ; that the finances of the country had actually been
weakened to the extent of 1,6761. in grapes ; and that, push-
ing economy to the very verge, the public was indebted to the
present Government for no less a saving than 361/. per annum
in dried apples ?—(A laugh.) He mentioned these facts for
the purpose of showing that the Government had prided itself
upon every saving, however small, and could not, therefore,
with any fairness, treat a saving in the Pension List as a matter,
even in an economical point of view, to be despised. There
were many and very different kinds of opponents to this mo-
tion. One class of opponents (but he believed they were now
very scarce) were the prerogative politicians, who always main-
tained, and up to 1828 maintained successfully, that the King
had an uncontrollable and irresponsible right to deal with the
civil list as he thought fit ; that it was most odious and repre-
hensible in the people to enter into any discussion as to the
mode in which he dealt with the public money ; that his Ma-
jesty had a sort of divine knowledge which enabled him to
select the most proper objects of benevolence ; and that it was
a matter little short of treason to impeach the way in which he
exercised his powers. Mr. Burke, in his celebrated work on
economy, which fully displayed the vast powers of that extraor-
dinary man, seeing the manifold and extended evils to which the
abuse of the pension list had led, and anxious to repress them,
contended that it was necessary to set a limit to the royal extrava-
gance as sanctioned by the Government; and he said the extreme
line of bounty should be defined at 195,000/. a-year. In the
spirit of his recommendation an Act was introduced and
passed, debarring the Crown from the power of granting any
!urther pensions until that amount was shown to have been
Fairly expended, and a strong case was made out for new pen-
sions. Ile stated this, to show that even in those corrupt days
there was some regard shown to justice, decency, and public
feeling. He did not mean to trace the progress of the Pen-
sion List consecutively from that period to 1820, when his
late Majesty was seated on the throne. But he would 'ask
Members to look to November, 1830, on the accession of his
present Majesty. The Duke of Wellington was then Prime
Minister. He introduced to Parliament the subject of the
Civil List ; the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-
bridge, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the individual
who brought the subject under the notice of that House. He
would not enter into all the details of his proposition at that
time, but would confine himself to one proposal—that made
with respect to the Pension List. He said it was meant to
limit the amount of the Pension List to 140,000/. a year. At
this monstrous proposition the Opposition, now his Majesty's
Government, were at once up in arms. They cried out—
" Horrible, monstrous—what, 140,000/. to be paid in pen-
sions—it should not be."—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) They
examined, they analysed the proposition—they pulverised it,
and sifted it all through—(Cheers and laughter)—and at last,
they came to the wise conclusion of resisting it. The Right
Hon. Member for Dundee, then Member for the Queen's
County, was put forward on the occasion in the van of the
fight between the contending parties, for it was a regular
struggle of party, and he moved as an amendment for a Com-
mittee of Inquiry into that part of the Civil List that touched
on the pensions, the object being ostensibly to divide the
Civil List into separate departments, not to take it in the
lump, and to see the proper application of the funds belonging
to each department. The motion was hallooed and cheered
on and supported by his present Majesty's Ministers, and sup-
ported by their might and main. Lord Althorp also supported
it, having been one of its most prominent defenders. Well,
the issue came, and the Government of that day was over-
thrown by a majority of twenty nine. There was not, then,
that feline tenacity of existence—that dying men's grasping at
power—evinced by the Tory Government which has charac-
terised the present liberal or reforming Government.—( Loud
cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) No, like certain
sagacious animals they saw the coming visitation, that their
house was in danger, and, prudently adopting the resolution
of retreat, they acted like men and Gentlemen, and boldly
walked down stairs.--( Cheers and laughter.) The Duke of
Wellington's Government was not fond of many beatings;
single defeat for them was enough to induce them to break up
camp, and retreat ; but not so their successors, the present Go-
vurnment ; they required successive pummelings to bring
them to a sense of their duty ; they were like a tough beef
steak that required a good beating, and then was made more
tender.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) Well, the present
Government succeeded in ousting their predecessors and po-
litical rivals.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But when they came
into office, on the very strength of their opposition
to the Tory pension list, what was their redemption of their
former pledge, for their declarations were tantamount to a
pledge? Why, they exceeded by 12,000/. the Pension List
of the condemned and ousted Tories. (Prolonged cheers and
laughter,) Well, perhaps they might have done it all for the
better, having seen 'better. It was true that this additional
12,000/. they continued to fritter away in little contingencies,
but that did not do away with the virtual addition to the List.
The Hon. Member for Middlesex, in his usual spirit of eco-
nomy, moved the abolition of this rider of the 12,0001.; but
from some cause or other he afterwards withdrew his motion.
At the period he alluded to, 1820, he remembered that it was
maintained in defence of the proposition of allowing his
Majesty the disposal of so large a Pension List, after
the delivery of the Speech from the Throne, that his
Majesty had resigned the hereditary revenues of the Crown,
such as the droits of the Admiralty, and the Four-and-a-half
per Cents., thereby giving the nation an equivalent. But
Mr. 13roughain said that this could not be taken as a fair
equivalent, innsmuch as the revenues of the Crown included
Close of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall which were
not surrendered. Sir Robert Peel repudiated this interpre-
tstion of the Hon. Gentleman, since Lord Chancellor of Eng-
land, and contended for the reservation of these revenues to
the use of the King. Well, what did Mr. Brougham do
after he became Chancellor? Did he act on his former de-
claration ? No such thing. He found, or at least allowed,
the interpretation of the Right Hon. Baronet to be a good
one.--( Loud cheers and laughter.) Lord Althorp said there
were some names on the Pension List which it was a shame
should be there ; and Lord Grey once said, that God only
knew how some of them came there, and the Devil only could
tell for what they were kept there. Now, after these tre-
niendous denunciations by these liberal Whig leaders when
out of office, could it be believed that the Whigs in office
could be such recreants to their own principles, for the sake of
keeping office, as to belie their former professions? But office
and lucre work strange miracles on the feelings and acts
of men.—(Hear, hear, hear.) This was the third time the
question was brought on, and was the most favourable time.
There was now no fear of losing place on the part of Govern-
ment—no struggle for office—all was tranquillity. What was,
then, the plea on which the Government could or did refuse
curtailment? This—" Oh, we must make concessions to re-
tain our places. We have turned out the enemies of the
people. The instalment into office of the friends of Reform
must, you will allow, be a great blessing, and, for God's sake,
do not disturb the public mind, and raise popular outcry against
us by broaching this subject. Let the thing rest, or else if we
be left in a minority you will' have a Tory Government."
Well, such an appeal as this was enough to frighten any body.
--( Hear, and laughter.) But this was not the course he
would expect from high-minded honest men. What ground
had the present Government for shrinking from the fulfilment
of their former principles when out of office? They were a
Government of sublimated purity : all the rotten timbers were
cut away, no dross or alloy of Toryism in them.—(Hear,
and a laugh.) They made no choice of office, did not court
it—( Laughter)—but were rolled by the tide of the popular
will on the Monarch, and kept in place by the popular favour.
Indeed, they had no other, for they could not boast much of
the Royal favour. Being then upheld by the people, will
they not have the independence to stand by the people—or are
they such men as, when the leader brought back their dis-
charge from their master in his pocket, will have the mean •
ness, without making stipulations, to serve again for the sam e
wages, and wear the same livery ?—( Hear, and laughter. )
The Government will receive the support of the people while
they deserve it ; but they are not likely to deserve it by
decrying the principles of their adversaries; and then acting;
on them. It was important that parties on the Pension
List should be known to deserve the pension. ' There was
one name on it, a Baronet, who was a magistrate in a po-
pulous town, who consigned the other day a poor woman
to gaol because she could not support her children. Now, it
was due to this gentleman to hold up the Pension List before
him, and give him an opportunity of stating whether he was
or was not in the same predicament.—( Hear, hear.) As to
the Droits of the Admiralty, they were very considerable in
time of war ; but from the passiveness of our present Foreign
Secretary, we were not very likely to be troubled with war for
a long time, unless the importunity of the Member for Oxford
drove him to it.—( Hear, hear.) The balance now in hand
was 1,000/. ; in 1830 there were 8,000/., which were handed
over to the public Treasury, in consequence of the outcry then
raised ; and the gentleman who held this got 4,000/. a year
salary. This Sir Frederick Anson had acted as stakeholder,
and he found that, according to an entry, a Mr. Henry Wheat-
ley, the King's 'Privy Purse, received on the 9th instant the
sum of 6,000/, which, instead of being paid over to the Ex-
chequer for the use of the public, had been used, as it had been
before, and applied to private purposes. If this were a true
return, he thought the pretence of having surrendered this re-
venue was a most monstrous imposition.—( Hear, hear.) This
was the gracious condescension of the fathomless liberality of
his Majesty in giving up the Droits of the Admiralty. The
next subject he had to allude to was the Four-and-a-
Half per Cents., which was another of the God-sends j

for the untaxed people of this country. He held in 1.
his hand a return for i*'34,, by which he found that the
Four-and-a-Half per Cents. aniotlated to the net sum of
20,890 t, and that there was paid 21,2401. into the Court of
Exchequer. It Waz; a little important, however, that the
House and the public sholild understand what the Four-and-
a-Half per Cents. were. The 'oar-and-a-Half per Cents.
were originally a charge on the Leeward Islands for maintain-
ing the batteries and edifices there—that is to say, there were
four-and-a-half hogsheads of sugar and four-and-a-half hogs-
heads of rum allowed for every one hundred sent out of the
country, and which was called dead goods. This imposition, ,
by an ancient order of their own Council, dated as long back
as 1663, instead of being expended as originally intended,
were sold, and converte'd into 44- per cents. That was to say,
there was the sugar for the old gentlemen, and the rum, as
being more appropriate, was given to the old ladies.—
(Laughter.) By this ingenious method the Government had
an actual fund of 20,8901. But how was it distributed ?
Was it given to the gallant soldier who had lost a limb in
the service of his country ? Was it given to those widows
who had been deprived of their husbands—or to those or-
phans who had no longer a parent ? No ;it was distri-
buted in the true Whig- spirit of taking care of themselves.
—[The Honourable Gentleman then read the names of several
ladies and gentlemen, attributing a hogshead to one and a
puncheon to another amid considerable laughter, and at the
conclusion said that none of them had resigned, and that all
the pensions existed in full force that ever were on the Pen-
sion List since the agitation of the subject, and that Lord
Farnham was the only exception,' he having voluntarily with-
drawn his name.] The Hon. Member then proceeded to
state that the Four-and-a-Half per Centg. were encumbered
with 20,0001., with the addition of 13,836 t. for the payment of
salaries, so that the change on the Four-and-a-Half per Cents.
considerably exceeded 30,0001., although a former Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had rated them at 25,0001. There
was one other subject to which he begged to call the attention
of the House. He (Mr. D. W. Harvey) had risen the
other night at the same time as the Right Hon. Member
for Tamworth, to speak upon the subject of Irish Muni-
cipal Corporations, but had been prevented by the Right
lion. Baronet, to whom he had been glad to give way. The
Right Hon. Baronet had conjured the House in that large
style of eloquence and elegance of decoration so familiar to him
to do justice to Ireland—to give her equal laws, equal rights,
and convince the people of that misgoverned country that they
were citizens on the same equality with ourselves, and to let
them know that there was not one law for the rich and an-
other law for the poor. He would say the same thing here.
He would remind the House that they were sitting there in
two capacities. They were not there only to sit as a House
of Commons, but as poor law commissioners, who had to su-
pervise this great State workhouse. ---:(Loud cheers from
the Ministerial side.) He understood that cheer. One side
of the House understood the other. His Majesty's Opposition
of to-day might be his Majesty's Ministers of to-morrow—
(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and they would both agree in
return to crush by numbers the Radical and audacious attempt
comprised in that motion. He had ever been an advocate of
the New Poor Law Bill, which he considered one of the most
stupendous attempts of modern legislature, and it was not pos-
sible for him to disapprove of it, entertaining the sentiments
be did. It might occasionally give birth to unnecessary harsh-
ness and local oppression, but it contained a principle sound in
itself, which was, that all men should exert to the utmost of
their power those natural energies with which it had pleased a
benignant Providence to endow them. That Bill gave power
to the Commissioners to enter alike the cottage and the slop-
ing rafters:of the workhouse, the abode of idiotcy and ofgaping
ignorance, and gave them altogether a power which was one
of the harshest attempts ever made upon human endurance.
The Hon. Member here read a clause from the new Poor
Law Bill which forbids relief by money, and drew a com-
parison between the conduct of those who supported that
clause and who were also supporters of the Pension List.
He thought that if the Pension List was continued the law
of right would at last become supreme over the law of Parlia-
ment, and that ten or twenty thousand men might assemble
on a common, determined that they would not allow their
mothers to be denuded, and the pledges of their love sepa-
rated from them—one sent to the workhouse, and another to
the hospital—while eleven hundred State paupers were sup-
ported in affluence, three hundred of whom had brothers,
sisters, or other relatives capable of rendering them assistance.
The pauper was not allowed parish relief while the father or
grandfather could contribute to their support. Why, then,
talk to him of the independent spirit of British Noblemen,
their elegant manners, their tasteful drawingrooms, and their
polished literature ? Why was there not the same law for the
strong-bodied Peer and the strong-bodied peasant ? Many
of those whose relatives were on the Pension List were as
:Arcing as he was, and never did half the good lie had done.
He had been robbed by the oligarchy, and that House had
not the courage of honesty to give him redress, and yet those
pauperlbeggars those Peers, were supported. He confessed
that if a hundred thousand had assembled to resist such laws
that he would join them. It was downright robbery and
plunder. After some further remarks, complaining of the
gross injustice of the Pension List, the Hon. Member con-
cluded by appealing to the justice of both sides of the House,
Reformers and Conservatives, that they would no longer per-
mit Englishmen to live under unequal laws, and stated that he
should await with confidence the result of his motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the ingenious reasoning of the
Hon. Member did not justify the gross breach of faith the mo-
tion proposed. Under a mistaken feeling, this was a ques-
tion on which great popular excitement had prevailed ; but he
believed it was a delusion that had passed away. He had
looked in vain for the reports of petitions in support of the
motion, the only ore presented being one from St. Mary, New-
ington, and the other from Ipswich. On questions of great
public importance petitions, with the signatures of 30,000 or
40,000 individuals, were net of uncommon occurrence, but on
the present occasion there was the extreme of paucity. But
even one of these petitions did not exactly support the mo-
tion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, which by the
way, was not the motion of which he had originally given
notice on the 17th of March. The motion of the 17th
of March was for a committee to revise all pensions and si-
necures charged on any fund under the control of Parliament.
Following up the principle of that motion the parish of St.
Mary, Newington, was led to petition against all sinecurists
and pensioners charged on any fund under the control of the
Legislature. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man why he had changed the terms of his motion? He had
discovered between the two periods, the present and the past
time of noticing his motion, that sinecurists were entitled to
more forbearance than the pensioners? \Vas that the reason
wily he had omitted all mention of them in his motion? Would
not his argument—drawn from the poor laws—admirably ap-
plied he (Lord J. Russell) would admit, and eloquently illus-
trated as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was able to do
it—would it not, he (Lord J. Russell) would ask, have told
with equal force against sinecurists as against pensioners ?
Admitting that it would, for it was undeniable, why, then,
did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman altogether leave out
that branch of the subject which involved those individuals ?
He (Lord J. Russell) had, indeed, heard that there were Hon.
Gentlemen in that House who thought that sinecures, when
properly bestowed, were no grievance, and who were for con-
tinuing their existence as a reward for deserving men, un-
der the sanction of Parliament. Was it that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman wooed the support of these Hon. Members,
or that he expected their opposition to his motion if he touched
on these items in the expenditure ? Could that be the cause
why the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted all men-
tion of sinecures in the motion he then brought before the
House? If that was the cause of the lion. and Learned
Gentleman's proceeding, and if that were the course he had
shaped out to himself, he (Lord J. Russell) could not help
commending the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's prudence ;
but he felt bound to say that it was a more cautious and less
broad and bold one than he could have reasonably expected
from the former proceedings of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, and the continuous excitement he had kept up on the
question.—( Hear, hear.) Before he (Lord J. Russell) pro-
ceeded further, he should mention to the House what had been
the course of Parliament, and the precedent which had been
set for its adoption, on the subject of the pensions in the Civil
List since the period of the Revolution. At the period of the
Revolution the Civil List included all those who had obtained
pensions under the reign of Charles 11. In 1731 Sir Robert
Walpole stated that there was a heavy debt on the Civil List
and a great many pensions, but that most of the latter were of
the time of Charles 11. and Queen Anne, and that few of
them had been granted by his then Majesty, George 11.
When Mr. Burke brought forward his plan of Reform a great
excitement prevailed on the subject of the Pension List.
But did Mr. Burke, like the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, propose to take away at once from existing
holders all pensions and sinecures which could not prove
public service as an equivalent for them ? No ; on the
contrary, he had stated that it would not be wise, or just, or
prudent, or politic to interfere with them during the lifetime
of the individuals to whom they were payable ; that the pe-
riod which would lapse between the passing of his measure
and their death was as nothing in the age of a nation ; and,
more than that, he had stated that no act even of individual
hardship should be inflicted for the sake of the country coming
a few years sooner into possession of this amount which they
enjoyed of its money. Such was the view of Mr. Burke. The
views of Mr. Fox were not different from those of his friend
Mr. Burke. When Lord G. Cavendish brought forward his
Bill for the reduction of the enormous salaries received by the
tellers of the Exchequer in the time of war, Mr. Fox resisted
the retrospective operation which it was proposed the measure
should have ; and insisted strongly that it should be only of
avail when they fell off in the natural course of things, and
that while they lived it should be wholly inoperative. Such
was the course adopted by Mr. Fox in reference to a similar
principle with that of the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman attempted
to throw upon his Noble Friend Lord Spencer, and those who
acted with him, although he used no specific term to that effect
the accusation that when they sat on that side of the House,
they were friendly to the abolition of all pensions and sinecures
undeserved by public service. He (Lord John Russell) totally
denied that such had ever been their sentiments. They bad
never attempted in one solitary instance to depart from the
principles of Burke and Fox, and never had expressed on any
occasion a wish to take away a single pension from those
who held them during their lifetime. When Lord Spencer
came into office the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed
to take a review of the Civil List, for the purpose of depriv-
ing all those persons of pensions who could not prove public
services in return for them ; but Lord Spencer was one of the
first to oppose that proposition. He declared on that occa-
sion that it would be unwise, unjust, and injurious, and he
moreover said that as a gentleman he would never take
part in any such , proceeding. Thus the whole course of
Parliamentary precedent, and the whole course of conduct of
the party with which he (Lord J. Russell) acted, had been
shown to be directly adverse to the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's views. He would now beg to call the attention of

............_-----------...—.........---.pith
the.
the House to some of the circumstances connec eformed
early pensions in the List. The Pension at that
Mr. Burke's Bill on the Civil List. The' pensiotho
owes
period were paid secretly, not at the Excheq:
ter;
this was
of the parties receiving them were not known. that fee°
abolished by Mr. Burke's Bill, which declared . a re_
thenceforward there was no disparagement in rec.eivinhgonour-
ward from the Royal bounty, but, on the contrary 'had Lee,
_List wa.siris
These were the principles on which the Pension List !!, ;ell
-P°l lan's.
reformed, which it would at once be
could not be tested by the Hon. and Learned Gentleeo ,_
comparison in regard to the Poor Laws—that labour
altogetherrei
should be rewarmed. That comparison was Laura
misplaced. The question with respect to the poor
.e_
was, whether money should be allowed topersons able
atti._
work, but unwilling to do so. But was that principle y_t.
plicable to the Pnsion List granted by 'led;
services done to the monarchy by persons of a liber
as ,e
cation to whom no test of ability to labour such,
...„I_,,e.
.Hon. and Learned Gentleman suggested could be pt La'
Gent.
ing two of the names quoted by the Hon. and Learned
t would
—those of Sir Sidney Smith a od Professor Airy--
w aGentle-
, be said if Parliament, acting on the test of the Hon.
denten,
when these
the Croawl
genand we.
man's comparison, should observe,
were proposed for pensions, "They may deserve its • ie or
within the princioparod
admit the Law but they do not come
the Poor Amendment Act." 'Zile fi°°•o,B4.,nd Le of
Gentleman had instituted the compariso n for '"- pure:so .
exciting odium against those individuals who held pen Inap:
hut such an imperfect one as it was, and eo Perfectly
neveri
h
plicable to the case at issue, he (Lord J. Ressell) id that
heard. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said who
the Pension List contained the names of tivese ,°. Y y or
had been recommended for their political Pre'
(Lordian .1*
their private vices to the Crown. It was not i.-a acter of
Russell's) business to stand up in defence of the c hal
; 'directly
these individuals : he was not concerned directly or el sir W.
in more than two of them—one to the daughter ot his fa-
Scott, and the other to Mr. Thomas Moore, or one of - ,i. that
mil y : but when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman sal' .y.or
ail of them were recommended for their public protliga‘,..„oo
private vice, he could not refrain from expressing* hi!deePr'eu. i
that it was a character tbey did not merit, and he consi and
his duty to say he disbelieved it. But supposing the I"'what
Learned Gentleman got the Committee he moved fo re 0 _ to
were they to do ? There were 1,000 individuals, accortb
cg
0..
the statement, on the Pension List who were liable to the out
mittee. Was the committee to sA day after day, bentatlgous--
these individuals ? Would anything be more "vex ows or
more advantageous to private malignity—more and sHe
less conducive to the public interest ?—ojeae, hear•ii PH,
(Lord John Russell) much questioned whether if al ;gild
cedent could be set aside—an Act of Parliament id
sho-
be broken with impunity—and engagements hick bile to
be sacred might be violated—it would be worth : flop-
obtain such retrenchment as the proposition cif- th. e /0
and Learned Gentleman would establish at such a•Pnec . the
November, 1830, the whole of the pensions charge' to&
Consolidated Fund amounted to 80,962/. ; on Januar'', li
.ears.
they amounted to 62,319/., making -a
difference in infee.Yeable
of 17,943/. in favour of reduction. The pensicnes ee'"b'lB3o,
on the Four and a Half per Cents. in Noeeenbeney Were
amounted to 15,690/. ; on the lsteof January, 1836, th
oestiow
11,6341., making a reduction of 3,656/. Taking the' qen the
the other way, there were in the accounts of pension 3 the
Consolidated Fund the amount of 45,0001., in thoser D ; so
100/. ; of that sum 20,000/. were grantd prior to 1„8 hind
that if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were to conutte•iiehed
self to pensions over 1001., 25,000/. was the whole sue' Friend
to deal with. It had been stated by his Right 11°13. a the
(Mr. S. Rice) last year that the whole expenditureoo,B36l.
country for the past eight years had been redneed tut
btaitied
He would ask the House to compare that might,/ selebealtrl sal°
in a straightforward and legitimate way, with the espied Ge,rii
proposed to be obtained through the Hon. and L'eare;erracete'
tleman's motion, by prying and spying and other ":07, pains
proceedings, and say whether it was worth while to * word te.
about the one, while the other was so ample. One. of
stab
toH the course of unlimited inquiry which the tnotie Ina. litai
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had suggested. The ' -trotre,,,s.
Learned Gentleman had twice sought distinction in,_a„.;,' eon,
sion in this country, and twice had he been refused ane7ii ill
it by. those who had the power to do so. They maereireej-
against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and he "eiliren
himself ; but in every portion of his defence be ele. tb °'
g i 0
against the injustice of instituting inquiry at such a le:, to
time after the alleged transactions had taken place'
grounds that witnesses were dead or departed from the OA'
sea
try, and many others of a similar nature. The °°hac.h b°
Learned Gentleman had claimed for himself that wevi ,asioll
would fain deny those individuals who were on the
'he tles
List. They were liable in even a greater degree that .otnr
to the death of witnesses, and their departure from tueif itbe
try, Was it just ? Was it fair ?—(Hear.) Feeling t"evrhich
Hon. and Learned Gentleman bad made out sso casco., not
called for inquiry—feeling that the course he proyoseiation''
senctioned by Parliamentary precedent since the revo...eil eie
and feeling that no great party in the State eneerta; with
doctrines—as selso seeing that a bargain had been Oa ef the
the Crown, which it was the duty in faith and hono er,,,, 0"
Crown to abide by, whatever its conditions—and se,ll';tliateu
of all, that a protracted inquiry was proposed to be t.aeleiserf
into a great number of cases—that great individual gld he
would ensue, with no public good, and the House vile-is 11
plunged into a course at one unjust and Wel' clde"
( Lord J. Russell) should give the motion his Pus' 6
opposition.—( Hear.) ea 3 was
An Hon. MEMBER asked the Noble Lord wbete-01 ins-
not the principle of the Poor Law Bill that the ._°°,l-1-01 be
should be supported by his relatives, and that if be be- a
was not entitled to relief ?
No answer was returned to this question etrong er
Mr. lIUME said that no circumstances. could bte-, argu'
in support of the motion of his Hon. Friend that: ;itnessese
ments of the Noble Lord, respecting the death ,01e his 1-1°11„.
and their departure from the country. He motiondefenue" r-
and
Friend in the course he had adopted in his former assured t%
,posting unmerited pensions and sinecures, iettel i.nefer"
iatte
the
ape
Noble Lord he had not forgot to follow up the
the committee. The Noble Lord laid great stress °were se
sense of petitions on this subject; but 'the peoille t trouble
satisfied that justice must be done, that they did pot the
themselves about it.---( A laugh.) The precedents wmootion'
Noble
,Lord appealed to, as arguments against tb ein thel
were made in bad times ; and it became the Ihnis2Viearj.,
reformed times to make precedents for themselves. 4, Pa,
One of the chief reasons they had sought a Befortnoecurc'
liament for was to enable them to get rd O useless ,1 by ''''
and unmerited pensions. A
question had bee° °- 0 re'
had bee , to
Hon. Member for Southwark, to which no ansWer ..erea. f
turned. Were the commissioners of poor laws entrhi".•ai rehe
withhold assistance from individuals claiming Par
Wtearcal
whose relatives were in a situation to afford it , eeeetilio
the Noble paupers on the State Pension List tO /Wheal%) ci
from the operation of the same principle 2—(l-103Peh t er'„f
ad heard no answer to this, and liPe contended —l6,ss ius-,.;
meat was, therefore, treating the poor with heart-- The-
tice, and the rich with shameful lenity and indulgentete;st ell trhe;
was no sympathy in that House for the poor. It •a to , r
served for Peers with pensions. He called attenti9 t 00,e
case of the Duchess of Newcastle, and wished tha
or three'
titled dames and Noble Peers, to I,:umber Of teinore all
hundred, whose names he saw on the Pens::" List, Ilitint%
obliged to yield up their undeserved annuities. , badi‘atfareue-il
out the examples of Lord Sidmouth and Captato I,ord a•
highly worthy of praise and imitation. The Nob ; buto-0
spoken of a saving of only from ‘)0,000/. to 40,0° assert:looe
of the
only of 5,000/., it ought to be made, a:sfellereel fhie
f right of that House to prevent the ar'sleet 0` bad
aplundering the people. He did not deny the, ri;enonsa it
l"esty to dispose of the 75,0001.: but the i-',°
env A 130100.,
also a right to know to whom this money Was grf i P te.
was deserved. Let the King by all means retain well See"ee
gative. He held that his Mai ty's conduct in s° t"fes cry'
porting Lord Gre 'A • ses - • the evenereiog 'Zits
y s Administration at
of the Reform Bill had rendered him fully desh-olding yes
loyal support of the Commons in return, lii °Phe doirtole
privileges on this subject: but they would onli iriawi-haa
act of justice to his Majesty by pointing out fir Dada a
most worthy of his b Bth lslehie a 'jails
ounty. ut c tame was,
spoken of an absolute compact between that Re'," case his
and his Majesty on the subject of the Civil List. l'il. yeeee4 e
however, riot so. The 'con act alluded to was evetinsu'ile
Majesty and his then Ministers :he had afterwarus treat f
them ; and the present Parliament was now free °
t C
5010
_el
subject as they thought fit. He wished he could se
__ soar th°,.
those Noble paupers in blue coats and yellow ockibiahterh!
oHtheer paupers were in some places. —(. Oh, stand
...„.(Isaeg ee
had certainly seen them so dressed somewhere joestig
ter.) It was the right of the people to demand this
atteroptlne!,
lion, and of the House to enforce it, not, however,reared thti,
to interfere (as the Noble Lord so groundlessW ', ea Merl,:
were about to do) with public services or acknowle,urgedweion
these •
being expressly excluded from the p rOpOSea foil
—(Cries of " Que'stion.") with a et
Mr. H. G. WARD had entered that House pserliaresee sf,
conviction that it was the duty of that Refornic" elisions 0,
to put an end to the payment of all unmerited cf 001 Print
sinecures as soon as possible. He had professed, seat eft of
ciples at the hustings, and it was not till he bad iderate)-•00,
House some time, and had gone through the cons 00101 A
e e te,'
the subject step by step, that he arrived at tb tee• lm
iepac . cip.
that, as an honest man, he was bound by the co be grin r.
into in 1831. There was no analogy between the
hod to the :ect
of the new Poor Law Bill and that which a pensions be's:olle-
istins pensions. The custom of granting P,,,, Berk's, the
of right to the King, and till the period of '"r" Jo 183. ar-
form there were no bounds set to its exercise. before Pp.,
subject was fully, fairly, and repeatedly brought
~ the Iliese
liament, and a compact was entered into betwee'
eellor ° ioa
meat and the Crown, at the instance of the Chet° the poll! ail
Exchequer, by which it was finally arranged ath „tiro, thn.or,
Liot should be reduced to 75,0001., on the con' eeidett,',e,
existing persons on the Pension List should be la.. „he voice
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said distinctly meat tbiat.
that the Crown felt itself ledged to the PaYe!til-e for tbeetie
existing pensions if the HouseP would not perovott.
Idestni a
J,a ali
The Civil List was then in the usual cours gonercP'! by
that takes place once in the reign of our ; hargalll the
the House thought that it was making a g°.,eoent, 811 die
reducing the pensions one-half their former i
.tiet to o'oool
question thus once fairly set at rest it oug!",._ an bist t the
turbed.—[The Hon. Member here entered intu_..toe, bu
,eoe,
review of the subsequent discussions of this,o,stinet tu ef
d the' nc" oat e
continuous interruptions that prevailed, an,the pu tot
subjec• late
in which the Hon. Member spoke, proven
t 0
to the tete'
his observations being fully heard.] As sto on tbst
vested interests, he should wish above all thibrige
ri foeliuga, be
that investigation ; and as to the strong Pas threaten
existed on that point, and with which he
.ve .
efere the
o_9ti,
should have no fear of going fully into it n "' his e "
body vi
body of the public instead of the
small b
.9 of the
tuents merely.--(Cries of " Question, questi
°Woven.
~,,,bt
ar
h se n
Sir R. INGLIS contended that since t ebe A 0111
oro
ilb
liament
Civil List as it at present stood,