The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

THE PENSION LIST.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged leave to say that he would
now bring on his motion with regard to the pension list on
the 19th March in place of the 21st April, as he understood
that the latter date would be very inconvenient to many Mem-
bers who wished to take part in the debate.
The SPEAKER made some observations which were inau-
dible in our gallery.
Mr. WARBURTON said it was quite competent for a
Member to drop a notice, and appoint it for any other day.
The SPEAKER said he understood the rule to be that an
Hon. Member having once given a notice of motion, which
was for the convenience of the House, might take a step for-
ward, but was prevented going back.
Mr. ROBIN SON suggested that the Hon. Member for South-
wark might withdraw his previous notice, and give a fresh one.
Mr. HARVEY said if he recalled his notice of motion he
apprehended he should stand in the same position as he did
before he gave it, and therefore he would give notice of his
intention of withdrawing the motion.
Sir R. PEEL thought the old rule a good one, and there-
fore hoped it would be adhered to. The notice of the Hon.
Gentleman was but a mere evasion of that rule. He never
recollected any instance of inconvenience arising from adhe-
rence to the old rule. There would much more difficulty
accrue from the postponement of the motion to another day,
as many Honourable Members would not have sufficient notice
of the alteration, and, therefore, would be out of town on the
very night the Hon. Member would wish for their attendance.
Mr. HARVEY said he had only consulted the wishes of (hose
persons, and not his own. He gave notice, that he should move
a Call of the House on the day of his motion ( April 28), and
he also gave notice, that he would move for a return of the
number of writs issued by the Court of King's Bench from the
Ist of January, 1830, to the Ist of December, 1834, and of the
number of persons confined for debt in the gaols of England
and Wales for the same period.
Mr. E. L. BULWER wished to know what the extent of
the Easter vacation would be?
Sir R. PEEL did not at present think it would exceed
three or four days.
EAST INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition fiom certain mari-
me officers of the East India Company excluded from the
compensation granted by the Act 3 and 4 of William IV.,
cap. 85. He entreated the special attention of the
Right Honourable Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) to this subject, which he would endeavour shortly
to explain to the House. The late Act, called the East India
Act, provided for the compensation of the officers of that
tboutbeit
mdiadden.ot
Idnescoriebesettehenmthodseecintiownhiocfh on tic,eomlpnednia-
that no compensation, superannuation, or allowance
sACacotitinrpwawinlial recited the compensation to be given, it was pro-
videdshould be granted until the particulars of it should be laid
before the two Houses of Parliament. He was convinced
that the introduction of these words into the Act was for no
ptoosegTvheetchoisncHeiovuedse ntobeopthoewreor,bjjencet
acsoeualdnybeaeliciaddenint
oveirtehwertPlivanr circumstances might render such a course necessary, to
send back these claims for compensation to the directors for
their consideration and revision. It appears that the East
India Company, in awarding compensation to their meritorious
officers, had drawn a broad line of demarcation between those
who were on shore previous to the 28th of August, 1828, and
not afloat subsequently, and those who were, under any
circumstances, always afloat. To the former class no com-
pensation Whatever was allowed.._.( Hear, hear.) He knew
not what arbitrary right existed to draw the line of distinction.
He did not attach any blame either to the East India Com-
pany or to the Board of Control, for inflicting this, but he
was compelled to say, it was an act of the grossest injustice, on
a class of officers of the most meritorious: description. The
only reason he could assign, as a justification of this partial
and unjust regulation was, that it must have been founded on
the principle that all who were there since August, 1828, were
so voluntarily—that their being ashore was an act of their own,
or that, in fact, they
,had abandoned the trust. In that case, he
thought that the rule was certainly a just one, but where the
contrary was shown, he contended that it should not be used
to the prejudice of persons who had services and merits suffi-
cient to entitle them to the usual compensation. If that were
the case—if it were true that the Officers abandoned the ser-
vice, and quitted their duties ',voluntarily, they had no right
to complain, and deserved to be debarred from compensation.
The presumption is, that they have, by an act of their own,
abandoned the service they lived by ; but it was rather
hard, that from being ashore from circumstances over
which they had no control—from the loss or discontinuance
of the ship in which they were employed—or if they were
ashore in consequence of competition in the service, or of
preference being given to some by the East India Company
it was rather hard, he repeated, that an individual so
situated should be debarred from his regular compensa-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that none in the
House were prepared to defend this rule, and the only
way he could account for the exclusion of all these officers
was, that the rule of the East India Company relative to Mi-
litary officers was applied in this case, by which all who do not
appear at head-quarters in the course of five years after enter-
ing the service, are excluded from all allowances. There was
no analogy whatever, he contended, between the two cases,
and he laid it down as an undeniable proposition, that all so
excluded, ought now to be compensated. He found on look-
ing over the minutes of the Court of Proprietors of the East
India Company, that the superannuation of their officers should
be extended. It was not his duty or inclination to complain of the
East India Company, neither was it his province to call in ques-
tion the propriety of the scale of compensation that had been
granted to their more fortunate officers ; but his province was
to show that those gentlemen who were excluded by this ar-
bitrary rate had as strong claims to compensation—perhaps
much stronger claims--than many of those who were included;
and consequently it was the duty of the House to afford those
petitioners some redress. One course might be adopted, by
referring it back the subject to the East India Directors for re-
consideration i - and another course by referring the matter to a
Committee of the House up stairs, in order to enquire whether
or not full justice had been done to these petitioners.--( Hear.)
He should prefer waiting to elicit the opinion of more expe-
rienced persons upon this subject. His intention was merely to
state the case—to lay the petition on the table, and to reserve
to himself the right of making some future observations upon it,
unless he heard some suggestion from the Right Hon. Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, from the Government, or
from the East India Company ; or unless the latter should
show a disposition to take this matter into their own hands.
( Hear, hear, hear.) Among the excluded officers, there
were about a hundred, most of whom had served fifteen
years, who had been engaged in those battles and other
achievements, which had rendered that service second
only to the naval service of this country, and in many instances
had rendered to the Company such important public and com-
mercial advantages, as gave them a claim upon the Company,
when a period was put to the trading interests of the Company,
and these officers were deprived of the hope of future emolument
without being included in the compensation, which it was the
object of the Parliament to grant. He could state many indivi-
dual cases, to show the cruelty of this rule ; but he would not
occupy further the time of the House—he would state generally,
that if he were not satisfied that the claims of these officers were
such as to entitle them to the consideration of the House,
he would not be a party to bring the case before them. He
could not. persuade himself, when Honourable Members
looked into this matter, that there could be any disin-
clination on their part, to endeavour, as far as possible,
to render justice. If it were contended that Parliament
had nothing to do with the subject, and that the East
India Company having • decided, their decision was final,
he would then ask why Parliament reserved to itself
the power of regulating these claims?—(so we understood)—
He would read two or three points to show what were the
grounds of the claims of those petitioners. They stated that