The Sun.
London, England, 1817-03-01 00:00:00

PENSIONS.

Their Lordships resolved into a Committee on
the Malt and Pensions Duty Bill. The Earl of
SAIAFTRiBURY in the Chair.
Lord REDEsnAte rose, pursuant to the notice
he had give,}, for the purpose of objecting to a
clause of a very particular and unusual descriptioni
which had been introduced into the present Bill.
The clause referred to by hint was tl►;it which
went to authorize the payment, es voluntary con-
tributions, of certain sums out of the income de--
rived by certain individuals, from public offices,
pensions, and other situationttL. of-public emolu-
ment, 'in proportion to the . proceeds of thoye`
sources of emolument respectively, and authoriz-
ing the Lords of his Majesty Treasury to receive
the s►►nte. To a clause of such a nature he evi-

tenanted strong. and various objections ; it pur-
ported to authorize the receipt of certain propor-
tions of the income of individuals deriveable from
suet) sources, as voluntary contributions. The
difficulty of a precise interpretation of such, an
enacting clause was not the least objection ;
whatever may be the intention, it may be dif-
ficult to .Say, • how far an Exchequer process
should issue under some construction of it, as
law, and yet it was styled voluntaiy contribution.
But of what nature may such a voluntary contri-
bution be considered ? Much in the saute way,
he believed, as what used sometimes to take place
formerly among their Lordships' servants. A new
servant was called on to contribute what . was
termed beer'inoney, which contribution if he de-
clined paying, lie was hooted by the others. lie
must disapprove of every thing like art attempt to
levy a partial tax upon certain individuals, which
alone would constitute a serious objection 'to it ;
but this he would not entertain were it proposed
to lay it on generally. Certain descriptions of
individuals were called upon-by the clause to con-
tribute to the necessities of the public,- under
such circumstances, . and lie must think, under
such a compulsion es he had alluded to. For his
oWn part, were it proposed to continue a propeety
tax to such an amount, which would be a clear
and equitable 'principle, he would concur in its
adoption, as he bad before declared his willing-
ness so to do; but lie never could submit to an
attempt to be taxed individually by a clause,
upon a part of his property, along with certain
other individuals. He was not to he hooted out.
of his money. He would stand firm on -that
ground, slid he trusted wily others would do the
same, and not submit to have part of their emolu-
ments taken away from them, under pretedce
of a voluntary contribution. The persons de•
scribed as the objects of the clause, were those
holding offices and places in his Majesty's service,
or those possessing emoluments derived from the
iniblicleventte. Was it meant to extend the ope-
ration of the clause to the emoluments of his Grace
the Duke of Marlborough, which were conferred
on his ancestor, for his great and signal services;
to those of Lord Nelson, for his great services ;
to Lord .Sr. Vincent, and a variety of other emi-
nent persons?. Were all those to be considered as
lishte to contribute ? Mr. Palmer too, may be
called upon to, contribute front the annuity which
he received for his public services'. As the clause
was worded, it might extend to almost every de-
scription of persons in the country, if the words
coupled with emoluments were taken in their full
sense, for whene was the person who, in some
way or other, Oght not be said to derive his emo-
luments . from the public ? Holders in the ptth•
lie fuilds, loan- jobbers, contractors, Wild all
others of that - description, derive their emo-
luments from the public. Wire all these to be
celled upon ? AU such persons were expected to