The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-24 00:00:00

and, so far as Mr. Burke's bill went to attain that limit and
that control, he agreed with the hon. member in approving of
it. The house was aware that till the passing of Mr. Burke's
bill there was no limit t> the power of the Crown to grant pen-
sions on the civil list, and that that bill limited the power to
£140,000, not £150,000, as the hon. member had stated. It
was not necessary for him to trace the history of the pension
and civil lists from the time Of' Mr. Burke to his accession tar
office • all that he had to answer for was the conduct of the pre-
sent administration.i When the subject was on a former occa-
sion before the house, he had contended that he conceived the
Crown had' a right to the- power of granting pensions on the
civil list, under certain circumstances, the question being what
should be the limit to that exercise. On the inaturest conside-
, ration he had made up his mind that the sum to be thus placed
1 at the disposal of the Crown should be reduced one-half of that
fixed_ by Mr. Burke's bill, and accordingly lie reduced it to
£75,000, the present amount; and that £70,000 included Scot-
' land and Ireland. He suspected that if the motion was limited
to the pensions on the consolidated fund, he should not object
to it; but as the civil list was a bargain between the Sovereign
and the Parliament for his reign, he could not permit the same
inquisition being made into it. As to the charges brought by
the hon. gentleman against ministers, he would then attempt
no reply, further than to observe, that he was confident that
ere a few weeks were over, and that all the measures of ministers,
for this session, were before the house, the country would be of a
very different opinion.
Sir. HARVEY had no objection to separate the civil list pen-
sions from those on the consolidated fund, and therefore would
confine his motion to the latter. The principle of which he
complained was the monstrous injustice of taxing tl)e industri-
ous poor of England for the support_ of the idle- hangers-on of
a court or a minister. (Hear.) But this would not last long.
The 19th century was not the time, and England was not the
place, for taxing the people for the luxurious and lascivious la-
ziness of an insolent aristocracy. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord and his colleagues had therefore better apply themselves
in time to put their house in order.
Lord ALTHORP, in declaring his readiness to consent to this
motion as amended, observed that many of these pensions had
seen granted many years ago, and that it would be difficult to
ascertain at present the grounds on which they were granted.
Mr. HUME wished to have the pensions granted on the 4%
per Cent. Batbadoes duties also included in this return.
Lord ALTHORP stated that he had no objection to this addi-

tion to the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in acceding to the motion, wished it to be
understood that he did not accede either to the assertions or to
the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman, which be
believed to be utterly unfounded, and which, on any future oc-
casion that the hon. and learned gentleman chose to selgct, he
would prove to be so.
The motion as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. BAILLIE presented several petitions from Bristol, against
the house and window tax.