The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-01 00:00:00

and corruption. According to which decision of
the Norwich Election Committee both Lord
BURY and Mr. SCHNEIDER would be, as a
matter of course, alike unseated. But —since
that informal or rather invalid return at the
period. of the general election—the e has been
another election down at Norwich consequent upon
the late change of Governments. Lord BURY still
sits for Norwich under that later return in spite of
the adverse decision in regard to its predecessor ar-
rived at by the Parliamentary Committee of In-
quiry. The inference is obviously this—that
Government influence with a candidate is equiva-
lent to the grossest bribery and corruption !
Compare with these aforementioned facts the de-
cision of the committee appointed to inquire into
the return of the three Conservatives—Mr. ASTELL,
the one member for Ashburton, and Messrs. SMITH
and BERNARD, the two members for Aylesbury.
All these returns are confirmed—or declared to be
valid—the charge of bribery and corruption falling
o the ground. A rather startling anti-climax all

this to the sinister insinuations and flagrant impu-
tations directed by the immaculate Whigs against
those vicious and perniciousDerbyites! Why, out
of the seven first revised returns before the five
earliest election committees, five Liberals were
promptly unseated because of their having been
guilty, through their agents, of gross bribery and
corruption—and three Conservatives were pro-
nounced duly elected, the charges of bribery hav-
ing utterly faded out and vanished under the light
of a Parliamentary scrutiny.
Previously eight petitions were withdrawn. Forty
seats yet continue -to be dubiously occupied—forty
seats still are being contested, or remain to be con-
tested, before committees. Twenty-one of these
seats are held by Liberals—nineteen by Conserva-
tives. The prestige as yet is decidedly in favour
of the Conservatives—not one Derbyite having been
as yet unseated upon a charge of corruption ! and
every Liberal whose case has yet been inquired into
having been found guilty of bribery of the grossest
description !!

Another illustration has just been afforded of the
extraordinary injustice of the system hitherto in
vogue in the distiibution of the Civil List Pensions.
According to Act 1 Vict., c. 2, the sum of £1,200
is annually placed (under this head) at the disposal
of the First Lord of the Treasury. Recollect the
very title is that of the Civil List Pensions. Yet
year after year we find conspicuously enumerated
on this civil list the mothers, or the relicts, or the
children of men who have died in the service of
their country, either in the military or the marti-
time department. The twelvemonths recently
completed yields no exception to the rule. For
they; at the very head of the catalogue of all the
pensions granted between the 20th of June, 1858,
and the 20th of June, 1859, we find " Mrs. HAR-
RIET LUCAS WILLOUGHBY, in consideration of the
gallant conduct of her son, the late Lieutenant
WILLOUGHBY. in blowing up the magazine at

Delhi (in trust to Mr. THOMAS WILLOUGHBY and
Mr. HENRY WILLOUGHBY), £150." Not but what
the mother of that heroic soldier had an undeniable
claim upon the grateful consideration of the
country. We maintain this pension of £l5O a year
ought to have come out of some other fund than
that set apart for the Civil List pen-
sions. This, moreover, is not the only exception
The very next pension mentioned upon the list is
that of Mrs. SKINNER, "in consideration of her
having lost three sons in the service of their coun-
try (in trust to Sir JOHN D. HARDING and ALLAN
MACLEAN SKINNER, Esq.), £50." Subsequently
there is mentioned the following pension, to
" MARY STEPHENs, LAURETTA, RACHEL, SARAH,
and AMY TUCKER, daughters of the late JOSEPH
TUCKER, many years Surveyor to the Navy, £25
additional." Together with these there are pensions
for scientific attainments, one for eminence in photo-
graphy, another (it is a pension of £lOO per annum
to his widow), in consideration of the merits of JOHN
HOGAN, the sculptor, and five for labours (hardly
one of these for fame) in literature The fifteenth

pension upon the list, bringing up the differen
amounts to the prescribed maximum total of £1,200
is a pension of £75 a year awarded very faintly,
dimly, casually for literary merits, but in reality
almost entirely out of military considerations. The
award is thus expressed—to " Mrs. FRANCES
MARTHA AGNES SIMMONs, in consideration of the
military and literary services of her husband, the
late Captain SIMMONS, and also of the eminent
military services of her sons, two of whom lost their
lives in action, and two of whom died from illness
contracted in the execution of their duties (in trust
to THOMAS FREDERICK SIMMoNS, clerk, and
HENRY PARSEY, Esq.), £75." So that the
last as well as the one intermediate and
the two first awards on the Civil List
Pensions—we have found avowedly made
for military services. One pension of £l5O,
this latest distribution of the £1,200 set apart for
another pension of £5O, a third of £75, and a
fourth for £2s—the four together making a total
of £3OO to be deducted from the paltry maxi-
mum set apart for the encouragement of art,
science, and literature. Subtracting that sum
of £3OO given in reward for military or naval
services from that already sufficiently restricted
amount of £1,200 —we find, of course, no
more than £9OO, instead of the £1,200 promised by
Act 1. VICT. ch. 2, for the yearly encouragement
of art, science, and literature. Of those £9OO the
proportions are as follows—£lso to art, £275 to
science, and £475 to literature. Under the first
section, HOGAN'S widow, as already shown, has a
pension of £loo the other £5O being set apart for
" ALICE, CoNSTANCE, and JANET ARCHER, in con-
sideration of the valuable contributions of their
late father to the science of photography."
For scientific attainments there is one pension
of £75 given to " ANN MARIA and CATHERINE
COPPARD, in consideration of the services rendered
to nautical science by their grandfather, Mr. T.
ROBERTSON ;" and two for £lOO each—one of them
in general terms, to "JAMES Bow MAN LINDSAY,
in consideration of his scientific attainments"—the
other to " Mrs. AMELIA GRESLEY BALL, in con-
sideration of the services of her husband, the late
Dr. BALL, the naturalist." As to the five pen-
sions—amounting, in aggregate value, to £475—
awarded for literary attainments, one is for £5O
(to " JOHN BOLTON ROGERSON, in consideratio-
his literary merits and destitute condition",
—three are for £75, and two for £lOO. The
last-mentioned two are the Rev. JOHN
HIND, £lOO, in consideration of his literary
services, and W. I)Es Hotto I OH COOLEY £lOO, for his
literary services and discoveries in Central Africa.
The three literary pensions, for the £75 each, being
really and truly the only three of any sort of in-
terest to the general public. Mrs. SCSANNA BART-
. E a
n'tthe
obtains
late
WM.
£75 for the literary merits of her hus-
YONGE obtains HENRY BARTLETT. CHARLES
i 75 for his literary services, we
believe chiefly,if not entirelythose of a lexicographer.
And the third £75 (we shouldhave been better pleased
had the amount, in this instance, been at least
trebled) is awarded, in consideration of his literary
merits, to the gifted, but only partially popular
poet, EDWIN ATHERSTANE. The analysis we
have here given of this latest distribution of the