The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-19 00:00:00

THE PURCHASE OF PENSIONS.

Sir F. BARING said that he wished to ask a question with
regard to an account which had been placed upon the table.
It appeared from that account that amongst the sums issued
there was a sum of 213,00.11. for the redemption of the here-
ditary debt. He should be glad to receive some explanation
on this point.
Mr. WILSON said that the item referred to by his right
hon. friend had relation to two hereditary pensions which
had been purchased for the sum of 213,0001. One was a pen-
sion of the Duke of Grafton, charged upon the excise, of
7,1321. 12s. a-year, which had been purchased for the sum of
193,777/. ; and the other was part of the Schomberg pension,
amounting to 7201., which had been purchased for the sum
of 17,400!. In 1825 a treasury minute was passed, setting
forth the propriety of purchasing all hereditary pensions; and
in pursuance of that minute a pension belonging to Lord Mel-
bourne, chargeable upon the Excise, and paid out of the reve-
nues of that department on their way to the Exchequer, was
purchased in 1826. In 1853 the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer explained to the house, when a bill for removing cer-
tain charges from the Consolidated Fund to the annual esti-
mates was under consideration, that he did not propose so to
remove the charges for hereditary pensions, because it had
lately been deter Wined that they should be redeemed, and, in
point of fact, that' they were in process of being purchased
at that time. In the same year two pensions belonging
is Lord Cowper (as we understood), one chargeable upon
the Excise, and the other upon the Post-office, were
purchased 'and paid for, as in all former cases, out of the
gross revenues of the departments upon which they
were charged. At that time the net revenues of depart.
ments were alone returned to and recognised by Parlia-
ment. A further purchase was made in the following
year, and the two pensions to which he referred at the begin-
ning of his statement were redeemed in the year ending
March last. Those penSions were paid for, according to pFe•
cedent, out of the gross revenues of the departments upon
which they were charged ; but it was thought, seeing that
Parliament now dealt with gross revenues, that it would be
better to give the gross incomes of the departments, and
charge the purchase-money of the pensions as a separate item
in the accounts. The only difference, therefore, was, that
whereas in former cases Parliament had no cognizance of the
redemption of pensions, the net revenues alone being returned,
in the present instance the gross revenues of he departments
were laid before the house, and the purchase-money debited
in the accounts. The transaction was strictly in keeping
with all the precedents, and the house would agree with him
that it was extremely desirable to get rid of hereditary pen.
sions, by redeeming them whenever opportunities occurred
for doing so on favourable terms.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he must reprehend the course which
the Government had taken, for the transaction had in no way
been brought -under the cognisance of the house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
course of the-Government in this respect had only been in ac-
cordance with that which bad been adopted, in reference to
other pensions similarly situated, at former times.
Mr. DISRAELI said that he was unable to understand the
reasons which rendered it expedient for the public that these
hereditary pensions should he purchased in this manner. It
might, no doubt, be for the advantage of the persons who
held the pensions, but he could not see how it would benefit
the public. The holders of these pensions might relinquish
them—indeed there had been instances of that kind—and
they might become so rich or so patriotic as voluntarily to
give them up ; but if the house established the principle of
giving full value, he thought that it would be taking a course
most advantageous to the holders, but by no means advanta-
geous to the public. (Hear, hear )
MONUMENT TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON AT
ST. PAUL'S.

Lord CHELSE k said that he wished to ask the Chief Com •
missioner of Works whether any steps had been taken with a
view to the erection of a public monument to the memory of
the late Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral, and if
not, what were the inte:itions of her Majesty's Government
on the subject. Notwithstanding the stirring events which
had recently occurred, the people of this country would be
justly charged with fickleness if all the heart-felt grief of
millions had been expended on the gorgeous co, emony of that
day on which the remains of that mighty man had been con-
veyed to the tomb. He did not desire to dictate to the house,
but his object would be gained if the right lion. gentleman
would admit that it was fitting to raise some lasting monu-
ment to the memory of one of the best public servants this
country ever bad, and the most illustrious of her heroes, who
benefitted his country by leading her armies-in war, and con-
ducting her councils in peace. He, concluded by asking Sir
B. Hall whether any steps had been taken with the view to
the erection of a public monument to the memory of the late
Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral ; and, if not,
what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government on
this subject?

Sir B; HALL, in reply to these two questions, said, in No-
vember, 1854, his predecessor, Sir W. Molesworth, acting
under the advice of the President of the Royal Academy, in-
vited four gentlemen to send in desigiis for a monumentto be
erected in St. Paul's Cathedral. These four gentlemen were
Baron Marochetti, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Foley.
Baron Marochetti and Mr. Gibson declined to compete. Mr.
Bailey and Mr. Foley sent in designs, of which his predeces-
sor could not approve. He (Sir B Hall) succeeded to the office
he now held immediately after that. Ho asked to see the
models of these gentlemen, and ho entirely concurred in the
view of Sir W. Molcsworth. From that time to this no steps
had been taken, for the simple reason that no money had
nOotohte. , year
was votedlBs 2
been voted by Parliamentfor t
the purpose.
buarpoouste.Bol,
taoladie.gfie
asyumthe xpofonioennesye amountings
cf the funeral oft e late Duke of Wel-
lington. Of that sum, about 24,886/. remained in hand, after
defraying all the expenses of that funeral. Taere. might be a
trifle still unpaid of some 5001. in elation to the tomb in the
crypt of St. Paul's, but altoget'ier there was nearly 25,0001.
remaining over. He understood that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer intended to .move the house for a vote of money
for the erection of a monument to the late Duke of Welling
ton. If the conducting of that business should be placed under
his control, he should think it his duty to call upon, not four
gentlemen, but on the highest artists in this country, to send
in designs, that we might have a monument worthy of the
memory of that great man whom we all desired to honour.
Col. BOLDER() said he should never raise his voice
against all, vote for such a purpose; but what the house
must have was the designs, before they were decided upon
for execution. He understood that Sir W. Molesworth had
ved
invited the four gentlemen to compete for a monument to
be erected at an expense of 5,0001. When he disapp
of the designs, because they did not embrace his views, the
two gentlemen asked to be allowed to compete again, disapproves
and
to be told his views. However, he refused to allow that, and
paid them 1501. each, which they accepted under protest.
He hoped, now, that the fleld would be thrown open, not
only to this country, but to Europe ; and he had no doubt
that would please Mr. Bailey and Mr Foley all the more
for their works *ere the admiration not only of this country,
but of Europe.