HC Deb 19 April 1836 vol 32 cc1198-240
Mr. Harvey

said, that he would begin the observations which he was about to address to the House by reading the resolution of which he had given notice,—"That a Select Committee be appointed to revise each pension specified in a return ordered to be printed on the 28th of June, 1835, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon to the House." It was impossible, when he called to mind the fact that the names of all the Members of the House had just been called over expressly, not only to divide upon, but to hear the grounds on which they were to divide upon his motion, which related to a subject on which the people of this country took great interest, not to be surprised at the present appearance of the House. It was neither favourable to the principles of reform nor the practice of it. And when he uttered the word "Reform," he did not mean to restrict the remark to those hon. Gentlemen who were the avowed advocates of reform in its enlarged sense, for in the present day there were none but Reformers in that House. They differed indeed in degree, and were various in their shades of character, but they were all contending for reform. There was Conservative reform, Ministerial or Whig reform, and Radical reform,—but all were Reformers. He therefore did not mean to limit the remark to those who sat on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House, in whose favour an exception might however be taken, for there they appeared at least in decent numbers. But when he called to mind that next Thursday there would be another call of the House, for a purpose, let it be remembered, of great importance to the country, and not unconnected with the economy of the public money, he was still more surprised at the thin attendance of Members. It might be said—indeed, it had been whispered to him, "You have done wrong in having the House called over; there was a considerable muster at six o'clock, and some little but no unfriendly curiosity to hear you; but consider that every man who knows the value of a good meal will not prefer a debate to his dinner." They were all gone away with the understanding, that when everything was said that could be said in favour of the motion in their absence, they would come down with a ripened judgment to vote on the division. If he were to follow his own inclination, he should sit down and leave it to the Government, the Reform Government, to state the grounds upon which they were prepared to oppose this motion, and let the House and the country judge of the validity of their arguments and the sincerity of their motives. For he was aware that it was often said, that debates were carried on in that House, not for the purpose of producing conviction in their minds, or making converts from one party to another—no, they were too stubborn, they were too firmly settled in their opinions. But it was desirable, it was said, to inform the public mind, which it was alleged was in a rude state; and therefore only by reiterated discussion and repeated information could the rust of prejudice be rubbed away; only after years of debate could they expect to bring the public mind to a sound state of opinion. But it was not so. The public on this, and on all such subjects, was in advance of the House, and wanted no argument to enforce the necessity of a change. The public mind was made up on this subject, as many Members—and perhaps that was the reason why they were absent—could testify if they called to mind the lectures they had received upon the hustings in respect to their conduct when this question was discussed before; or if they remembered the pledges and promises which they made, and which perhaps they would be induced to recall before they came to a decision upon it again; at all events, he would give them an opportunity to do so. He wished first of all to direct his attention to the Government, who were opposed to the motion. About ten o'clock, the House would be filled with Members, and it was well known the noble Lord opposite was panting for an opportunity to state the reasons upon which the Government was opposed to this motion, and to appear as a new actor on this subject at least; and the noble Lord was no doubt well prepared to point his sarcasm at him. He could recollect how indignant the noble Lord was when he entered the House on a former occasion, just after his too-liberal friend, Lord Althorp, had conceded the principle of his motion. The noble Lord then got up and stated, that as his noble Friend, with his usual and distinguished courtesy, had done, it was not for him to divide the Cabinet, and therefore he reluctantly consented to pursue the same course; but if ever the question should again come before the House—if ever the hon. Member (Mr. D. W. Harvey) should have the rashness to bring it forward, if he survived the discussion it would be more than he might expect. There were some new Members in the House, though he confessed he did not see many of them present; but since new Members were generally returned on account of their superior intelligence, they did not want instruction. However, for the sake of some individuals who might not have condescended to give their time and attention to this subject, he must for a few minutes press the object of his motion upon the particular attention of the House. That object he had already stated was to obtain a revision of a list of pensions which appeared in a certain return upon the records of the House. The pensioners were 1,303 in number. As he knew that sometimes expressions were consecrated and rendered lasting by being used by persons of high station, while they would be considered as almost vulgar in the mouths of plebeians, he might perhaps be allowed to use the appropriate language of a noble Lord whom he did not see in his place, and who in describing these pensioners said, "I have not risen to defend these he-pensioners, and she-pensioners, whom I find in this list." There were 1,303 persons whom the noble Lord had characterized as he and she pensioners. Of these 1,303 pensioners, 281 were persons of title, that was, he and she persons of title. They were in the receipt of something like 150,000l. a-year, which sum was divided amongst them. Now, he was quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "What is 150,000l. a-year? I shall in a few days open my budget, which will present you with an account of receipts and disbursements to the amount of 50,000,000l. a-year. Now how absurd it is to talk of saving such a trifle as that is, contrasted with the magnitude of the annual revenue!" Yet he had often heard the right hon. Gentleman, when battling with the adversaries of the Government, bring forward a long catalogue of savings which had been made by that rigid economy which ever and anon he had exercised. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite were constantly declaring, that the Government was founded upon the principles of reform and retrenchment, to the exclusion of all corruption and extravagance; and that it stood upon public principle, and public principle alone. But let it be examined whether, in point of fact, even according to their own showing this 150,000l. was so contemptible a sum as scarcely to be worth saving. At no very distant period, when pressing on the House the claims of the Government to public gratitude for the extreme economy which they had pursued, the right hon. Gentleman recounted the reductions which had been made. "See what we have done!" said he. "We have taken off 14,682l. from madder; 4,641l. from wax; 6,328l. from skins; but, not stopping there, we took 827l. from prunes, and 376l. from grapes; and then pushing our economy to the utmost stretch, we made a further reduction of 361l. on dried apples." He did not find fault with their economy, but since they had shown so much disposition to economize upon this small scale, this 150,000l. should be esteemed by them as a perfect Godsend. There were a great many and very different kinds of opponents arrayed against the present motion. First, there were the prerogative politicians, not very numerous just now he believed, who up to the year 1828 had successfully maintained the uncontrollable and irresponsible right of the King to do what he pleased with the Civil List, and that it was highly contumacious in the people to dispute his prerogative to dispose of the public money in any way he thought fit; that his Majesty had a sort of intuitive or inspired knowledge of all fit and proper objects of charity, and that it was little short of treason to dispute his high authority in all such matters. Now, so long as the Crown had been in possession of great territorial revenues out of which to bestow these charitable pensions, both parties, Whig and Tory, had allowed this system of plunder, in the profits of which they participated, to be carried on, until at last the Crown came to dispose of an amount of revenue in pensions which would be sufficient to maintain all the institutions of the country in times of the greatest munificence, or even extravagance. And it was not until the Crown seemed likely to advance the same right to all the money in the country as it had to the lands, that a new course was adopted, when Mr. Burke, in his strenuous and laudable efforts to enforce economy, made a great and successful attempt to place a limit to Royal extravagance. It was then that the Crown was restricted in charging pensions on the public resources to a sum of 195,000l. for England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, it must be remembered, that as the Crown had possessed a right to grant a larger sum in pensions, a Bill was passed at the period to which he referred, for the purpose of preventing the Crown from granting any other annuities until the amount of pensions for England, Scotland, and Ireland was brought within the limits prescribed by this Bill. Without entering into any account of the occurrences which took place with respect to these pensions (not only because he had not an inclination, but because his strength would not allow him to do so) during the interesting-interval from the passing of the measure to which I have referred, to the year 1830, when King William 4th came to. the throne of these realms. To that memorable period, and to the circumstances which occurred then and since, he invited the attention of the House, as affording a ground for acceding to his motion. At that period, then, the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and as such it became his duty to submit what was called the Civil List to that House. He did so, being represented by the right hon. Gentleman who sat near him (Mr. Goulburn) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should confine himself to that part of the proposal which related to pensions. It was proposed by the then Government, that pensions should remain at the sum to which they amounted at the time of the accession, being, as he believed, 143,000l. The present Government, then in opposition, were up in arms against the extravagance of the proposed Civil List. They analyzed it—they pulverized it—they proscribed them for their extravagance, and held themselves out as the friends of economy. What did the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir H. Parnell) then propose? He moved for a Committee to inquire into the component parts of the Civil List. That motion was, he believed, supported by every Member of his Majesty's present Government, and most strenuously by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Earl Spencer. The result was, that the Government of that day was overthrown in a House much fuller than the present, there being a majority against them of twenty-nine. There certainly was not in that Government that feline tenacity to political existence, which so eminently characterized the present Government. The moment there was a majority of twenty-nine against them, like some sagacious animal, they appeared to discern the visitation which was in store for them, and out they walked. The present Government appeared to him to be in their nature something very like a tough beefsteak, they required an uncommon deal of beating, and even, then, he doubted whether they would be found to be very tender. However, the motion for a Committee was carried, and a Report came from that Committee. Without going into the features of that Report, as regarded various other considerations, he would observe that one fact ascertained by it was, that the sum total exceeded that required by the predecessors of the then Government by a sum of 12,000l.; and in order to show that they were fully entitled to the designation of a "liberal" Government, they made a present of this sum to the King, to meet what were termed "little contingencies.'' He remembered that his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, proposed an amendment to that proposition; but in that good-humoured spirit of concession for which he was remarkable, and from his anxiety to serve the Government to which he gave his powerful support, he consented to withdraw it. He should not, as he had said, allude to the other portions of the Report of the Committee, but content himself with dwelling on that part of it which related to pensions, as useful, amongst other purposes, for showing those who delighted in metaphysical investigations, how it was, that the human mind adapted itself with the most marvellous velocity to instantaneous changes, and how it was able, without any appearance of restlessness or uneasiness, to adopt the most direct contrarieties in opinion. Now, he considered it not unnecessary to state, that in the King's Speech which was delivered to the House at the period when the Duke of Wellington was in office, his Majesty was made say, in his Speech from the Throne, that he was ready to give up entirely the hereditary revenues to which he was entitled, meaning by that statement the droits of the Admiralty, and the four and a-half per cents. It was at that time that an individual Member of that House, who was then not so obscure as he was now (he meant the late Lord Chancellor) got up in his place, and asserted that the concession made by the Crown should be understood as not merely referring to the droits of Admiralty and the four and a-half per cents, but that it should be taken as also including the revenues derived from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster; and when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, repudiated that interpretation, the noble Lord to whom he referred, insisted that he was perfectly right, and in that declaration of opinion he was supported by many of his subsequent colleagues. This, be it remembered, took place whilst they were in opposition, but as soon as they came into power they unhesitatingly declared that it was the intention of his Majesty to give up only two or three things which were worth little or nothing. However, out came the Report, and as it was not his intention to take a general review of the Civil List, let the House look to what the Report contained with respect to pensions. The hon. Member read an extract from the Report, to the effect, that the Committee could not conceal from themselves that the subject of pensions was one of great difficulty and importance, and that an interference with these pensions would disturb family settlements into which parties had entered, relying on the permanency of these giants—cause severe distress, and, in many cases, gross injustice. Now, with all these topics they must have been acquainted, so far as they regarded a matter of principle, when they were in opposition. To say that, if pensions were alienated or taken away, it would create distress—that to make such a change would be to act with harshness, or even, perhaps, injustice: all these were general inferences from acknowledged premises, which it required no Select Committee to report upon. But they said they must set their faces against a proposition for disturbing pensions which were granted by the predecessor of his present Majesty. Why, if that were so, this recommendation of the Committee came too late, because the same case would be constantly occurring, and if a succession took place to-morrow, the same argument could be renewed, namely, that any change in the distribution of pensions would disturb family arrangements and inflict inconvenience. In point of fact this assertion went to establish a perpetuity of all existing pensions. His Majesty's Ministers should recollect that it was the struggle which then took place on this question which secured to them the popular approbation, and placed them in the situation of the Government which they succeeded. It was well known that when the Civil List was brought before the House, several attempts were made to call the attention of the House to the subject of pensions, but the then Chancellor of the Exchequer contended (and very properly) that the House ought to consent to grant some small amount of arrears which had accrued from the period of the demise of the former Crown to that of the accession of his present Majesty, leaving the question of the propriety or injustice of continuing those pensions to be subsequently considered. It was quite understood that Lord Althorp thought that no person's opinion on the subject of pensions was compromised by acceding to that grant. On the contrary, he remembered that his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, on more occasions than one, pointed out, with great facility of argument and felicity of illustration, that this interpretation of Lord Althorp's sentiments was correct, and that there were pensions on the list which Lord Allhorp was ashamed of, and was persuaded ought not to continue. Well, then, what were they called on to do then and now? To continue persons on the list whose names ought never to have been inserted on it, and which got there (as declared by Lord Grey) "God knows how." And yet this was the Government which was said to be based on principles of economy, and which strenuously and unconditionally condemned every thing like corruption. Well, then, so stood the state of things at the present moment. He should now endeavour, so far as he could, to notice two or three points which were mainly relied upon by those opposed to this motion on former occasions. And here he might be allowed to remark, that though this was the third time that he submitted a motion of this description to Parliament he never before had made his appearance under such favorable auspices. It would be remembered that at the present moment the country was in a state of profound tranquillity; there was no fearful agitation of any question either here or elsewhere, and no great measure of reform was dependent upon the continuance of the present Ministers in office. On the first occasion that he brought this question forward he was met by a remonstrance to this effect: "It is very true you have got justice on your side; there is scarcely one of these pensioners that ought not at once to be struck off the list; to resist your motion on principle is impossible; but you must concede in all human affairs something. Something must be allowed in favour of those who succeeded in turning out of office the great champions and abettors of the system. And now that a day is to be opened on you which promises almost boundless benefits, through the instrumentality of these Ministers, you ought not to screw them too tight; the truth is, they have entered into certain engagements, which though not defensible in themselves, are not of sufficient moment to hazard the continuance of such blessings, either by distracting the public- mind, or dividing the friends of reform on questions of this kind." Well, notwithstanding these suggestions and remonstrances, and the cogency of the reasoning on which they were grounded, he proposed the motion, and it was rejected only by a majority of six. He should be well pleased if, on this occasion, he could convert that majority into one in his favour. He was not deterred by his first failure. No one who knew anything of Parliamentary tactics (and none were better acquainted with the science than his Majesty's Ministers) could expect that he should be. Again the contest came to be fought, and to the charge he again came. But then he found that the terrors were augmented; the prospects of improvement and reform were still wider than before; and the friends of the Government gave out that any proposition, for peculiar reasons, which could not then be stated, could not receive their support, but said some of them, "I tell you candidly, that if the Ministers be left in a minority, you will be considered as enabling the Tories to return to power." Well, this was enough to frighten any body, and nothing but the rigid nerve of independence could have withstood it. However, he faced the danger, and had a very respectable minority; but the many succeeded in prolonging the existence of these pensions. Now he stated before, that he should call the attention of the House to two or three leading grounds taken in opposition to this motion. Perhaps it would be fair to notice one, which was more prominent than the rest, and which had been relied on by many hon. Members, who, he believed, were as much opposed to the preservation of these pensions as Lord Grey, Lord Althorp, or any other noble Lord. It was, that they felt themselves bound to abide by what had been whispered to be an engagement entered into by his Majesty and his Ministers which could not now be violated with justice. Well, be it so. Why, they had often had motions for the production of minutes of Council and orders in Council. Now, was the Government prepared to say that it was irresponsible, and that it could prevent Parliament from demanding further and necessary reforms by the promulgation of a whispered agreement? Why not have the evidence of an agreement which though this House may not in the first instance be prepared to sanction, they might now consider it expedient to observe? But if this House did not insist on knowing the particulars and nature of this agreement, the difficulty which was now set forth, as opposing the settlement of this question, would never cease. Let them see what was the contract into which the Government had entered; and if it be binding on them, he was disposed to think it ought to be binding on Parliament; but before he arrived at that conclusion, it was essential to know what was the nature of this contract, who were the parties to it, who were to benefit by it, and what were its conditions. He did not believe there was such a contract. First of all, see what a libel was pronounced on the Crown by those who stated the existence of this contract. What was its nature? Here was a list of pensioners—some of considerable antiquity—who have been in receipt of the sums paid them for half a century, three hundred with titles and others of an obscurity which prevented anything being known of them; and it was proposed that those should be continued, and made the receivers of the public money, without any inquiry into the propriety of the original grant or the justice of their continuance. Now if that were the case, it was impossible that the contract could be a just one; for those who entered into a contract which was to bind third parties, ought to be disinterested. He cleared the King from being a party to a contract which could only be considered as a corrupt engagement, and which would imply on the part of his Majesty reasoning of this description: "'Tis true there are persons on that list who are closely connected with myself, and who never should have been placed there; but I am determined that these individuals shall continue to live upon the public bounty." Such an imputation was a libel on the royal mind and authority. The next ground was one which was very generally taken—namely, that these persons were in very indigent circumstances, and that to dispossess them of these little payments would lead to great inconvenience, if not positive injustice. Well, be it so. The terms of the motion met these particular cases. He proposed an inquiry into pensions, with a view to what? First, to ascertain whether the original grants were justified by circumstances, and next, whether there would be any injustice in now resolving on their discontinuance. Did they want any other protection but this? Now look at that list. He asked any hon. Gentleman who read it (and no doubt it had been read by many), to run his eye over its pages, and taking the interpretation as the sole ground upon which pensions could be justified, which was set forth in the amendment moved by the Members of the present Government on a former occasion, namely, that no pension could be defended unless on the ground of merit or service to the community, to say, whether even by any over-strained construction, these pensions would stand that test? He defied his Majesty's Ministers to point out ten men on that list, of whom it could be said, "Here are men who have distinguished themselves in the field, who have braved the dangers of the siege, or who devoted their whole time to what the vulgar would call a profitable employment, but what must be regarded by every reflecting mind as scientific investigation, which would be the means of conferring benefit on their country, and making its power felt in the remotest part of the earth." [Hear, hear.] He was very glad of that cheer from the right honourable Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for he took it as an intimation that ten such individuals could be found. He should be glad to find, that there were so many deserving pensioners, for, by getting rid of the others, who were not deserving, we could afford to be more liberal to those who were. If the right hon. Gentleman would point out those who had merited pensions, he would redeem the credit of the Government, by getting rid of those who had no other security for the virtue they had lost fifty years ago—many of them having obtained their pensions by great political profligacy or gross personal viciousness. He called on those who had friends on the list to rescue them from the disgrace of being placed in juxta position with some whose acts it would be impossible to scan without disgust. He would not go into any detail as to the names of many of those, as he had done, before experience had taught him the impolicy of that course, for he saw that it had lost him some votes on former occasions. One hon. Member, on whose support he had calculated, because he had promised to vote with him, met him in the House and said, "I am sorry, Mr. Harvey, that I cannot vote for you, as I had intended; I came down here for the purpose, and left my dinner; I heard your argument, which appeared to me quite convincing as to the question of the Pension List generally; but, then, in the course of your speech you mentioned the name of an old friend of mine as being on the list, as fine hearted a fellow as ever lived, one whom I constantly meet at the clubs, and who I believe has nothing to live on but his pension. On this account I cannot vote for you." He (Mr. Harvey) had, he believed, also lost considerably by mentioning the names of several old ladies. One Member objected to the name of one lady being mentioned, as she was an acquaintance, or the relation of an acquaintance of his; and another objected to his mentioning the name of another; and though he was not aware of it at the time, he now believed, that he had swelled the majority against his motion considerably, by throwing in the old women. He would avoid a similar error on this occasion, by leaving out the old ladies, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he would not touch one of them. But though he would not mention any by name, he would allude to a few who, perhaps, might be guessed at inferentially. He might here mention, that since he had brought forward this subject first, he had received upwards of 600 letters from every part of the country, giving him information as to the history of numbers of those whose names stood on the Pension List, detailing such instances of gross profligacy and personal vice, that he was sure, if hon. Gentlemen opposite knew but a small portion of it, they would sooner leave the seats they now occupied than support them on the list. But again he would ask, suppose there was a contract, direct or implied, to continue this Pension List on the accession" of the present King—who made it? It could not have been made by the present Government. The present Government, as all the world knew, was one of sublimated purity—all the rotten parts had been completely removed from it. It was altogether the Government of the people. It was the object of their choice. It was that Government, which, when from some cause, to which he need not advert, it was removed for a short time from the scat of power, was rolled back again by the tide of popular favour, till the House itself was nearly deluged by it. The present was the Government of the popular will, and he believed they had no other will in their favour. Surely such a Government could not be parties to such a contract, who, when their leader came with his discharge in his pocket, said that they would be glad to return to office at the same wages that he had; that they were all smaller than their leader, and would be glad to put on the same livery. I say, then, (continued the hon. Member) the contract, if it does exist, cannot be yours (the present Ministers). You are that party in the country, supported by the popular feeling, before which even monarchs might quail. You may be kept in office as long as you will, but if you desire to remain—if you wish the continuance of popular favour, you cannot support such a list as this. There is no danger of the Government being turned out by the people, though I admit, that I have heard of danger from other quarters. If, however, the contract was made by the present Ministers, that the Pension List should be continued, it must have been on the condition, that they were to be continued in office; but they might turn round and say, "that having been dismissed from office, the condition of the contract was broken, and the whole fell to the ground." Whether that were the case or not, he would not then stop to inquire. He would now call the attention of the House to some of the names on the list. Amongst others be found that of a Baronet, a very active Magistrate, residing in a populous town, before whom cases of every kind were brought, and, amongst others, cases under the Poor Law Amendment Act. Some time ago the case of a poor woman was brought under the notice of this Gentleman. The crime of which she was accused, and for which she was about to be committed to gaol, was, that she was unable to support her own children. Now, if that poor woman could know the circumstances in which her judge stood, as a pensioner on the public bounty, might she not naturally say to him, "It is you, and such as you, who are supported by the plunder of the public, who prevent me from being enabled to support my children!" The fact of a committal of this kind being known, and being ordered by the warrant of one who, but for the misplaced application of the public money, would be himself in a somewhat similar situation, must tend greatly to render the administration of the law very questionable in the eyes of the people. But they were told that the public ought not to object to the payment of such pensions as were found on this list, as they had been granted by the Sovereign, because, with a liberality and condescension unexampled in any of his predecessors, his Majesty had given up to the public his hereditary revenues. Now these, as he had before observed, consisted of the four and a-half per cent duties and the droits of the Admiralty. He would speak first of the droits. He believed it would not be disputed, that, by the Royal prerogative, the King claimed and received certain droits, which produced a very considerable income in time of war. We were now, it was true, at peace, which greatly diminished the produce of the Admiralty droits; but we might be again at war. However, with such an able Foreign Secretary as we had now the good fortune to possess, the chances of having our peace disturbed were very remote indeed; with his great abilities directing our foreign relations, we might reasonably hope for a long duration of peace—unless, indeed, the motion of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Maclean) should elicit something from the noble Lord calculated to disturb our present tranquillity. But if we should remain at peace, the amounts of the droits of Admiralty would be very inconsiderable. He found in a Return which had been laid before the House, of the receipts and disbursements of those droits; they did not exceed, of late years, 2,000l. a-year— for the receipt and care of which the receiver, Sir George Frederick Hampson, received 400l. a-year, for self and clerk. It appeared, that in the November of 1830, this gentleman had a balance in hand of 8,000l. Now, after the speech of his Majesty in 1830, in which he declared his gracious intention of making over those droits to the public, it might have been expected that the whole of that balance would have been at once paid in to the public Exchequer. This, however, it would be found was not the case. By the return which he held in his hand, and which was up to September, 1831, this balance was stated to amount to 8,000l. But what was done with it? 6,000l. of it was paid under a warrant, signed by his Majesty, to Sir Henry Wheatley, the keeper of his Privy Purse, and only the difference between that sum and the 8,000l. was paid over to the Exchequer. Was ever such a monstrous imposition practised upon Parliament as thus, on the one hand, to say, that his Majesty, out of his most gracious condescension — his fathomless liberality—had given up the droits of the Admiralty, when the sum which, by that Return, appeared to have been relinquished did not exceed 2,000l.? Looking at it with the eyes of common sense, and regarding it as one of the people, he should say, that all the benefit the people derived from the proceeding was the pleasure of being amused with magnificent promises, and of seeing fifteen shillings in the pound of what had been promised to them, applied to the private purposes of the Crown. It was nugatory to talk of liberality in such a case as that; wherein did it consist? It was well known that these droits of the Admiralty amounted to exceedingly little in time of peace, and to those who paid the least attention to public affairs in this country, it must be equally well known that there would have been very little chance of their being placed at the disposal of Parliament in time of war. Had the amount been large, a syllable respecting the droits of the Admiralty would never have been mentioned. That they were exceedingly profitable in time of war might be collected from what was said of a gentleman against whom he had stood a contest, that to him (Mr. Harvey) might have been regarded as a destructive contest—that gentleman, Mr. Thornton, held a situation connected with the said droits, which, though it might not produce him much during the peace, had been worth 14,000l. or 15,000l. a-year in the war. But in those delightful times there was nothing of the sort ever mentioned— not a word of the sort ever breathed; it was not till the matter became a nonentity that the idea of handing it over to the people was ever entertained; and for this they were called on to be deeply thankful—they were called on to testify their profound gratitude for the sum of 1,000l. a-year! He wondered that no day of thanksgiving was appointed for the occasion. He now came to another subject — the four-and-a-half per cents; that was another Godsend to the untaxed people of this country. He found by a Return dated in 1831, that the four-and-a-half per cent duties produced a sum of 20,890l. He would presently call attention to the appropriation of these duties; but he would previously observe, that they were a species of revenue, the nature of which was not generally understood. He doubted if the House were acquainted with their nature—he felt assured that the country did not know what they were. In consequence, then, of the want of accurate definition, an air of magnificence was cast around them, particularly calculated to lead to misapprehension. Now, what were they? When the present Administration formed his Majesty's Opposition, they very well understood what was meant by the four-and-a half per cents. A Gentleman who had long been connected with them as a Member of their party, Mr. Creevy, had, with all the power which belonged to his bitter and peculiar style, made those four-and-a half per cents, exceedingly familiar to the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen now on the other side of the House. The charge called the four-and-a-half per cents, was laid originally on the Leeward Islands for the purpose of enabling their Governments to maintain in a state of good repair and condition the batteries and public edifices on those islands. This expense having been, for a time, defrayed out of those funds, the Crown at length appropriated, first a part, and then the whole, to its own use. But he returned and asked what those duties were? They were not payments in money, but in the case of their being sugar, for example, there was a deduction of four hogsheads and-a-half from every hundred hogsheads imported, and a similar deduction from the quantity of rum or other dead goods. When they arrived here, they reached their money value, and were converted into cash immediately. The establishment of this charge was made at a remote period, so far back as in the year 1663, and for a- long time past they had been conferred on objects of the royal bounty, the sugar being given to the old gentlemen, and the rum, more appropriately, to the old ladies. Indeed, so popular became the rum among ladies, and so frequently did the royal munificence anticipate the hogsheads of sugar and rum, that when sold they did not make up the amount of the duties charged upon them, and to supply the deficiency, the Government was obliged to suffer their importation duty free, urging with all that plausibility which a seat upon a Treasury Bench so invariably imparted to its occupant, that as the hogsheads were sent to the City for the royal convenience, they ought to be passed free through the Custom-house. But even this did not suffice. Every penny of the sum gained was swallowed up; nothing was left. The old ladies sucked at the bunghole until not a drop of the rum was left, and the consequence was, that at the time his Majesty assigned over his interest in these duties to the people, every fraction of them was mortgaged in pensions. The first name in the list was that of a Whig; indeed, he would do that party the justice to say, that they were ever the first to take care of themselves. Lord Auckland got the first hogshead, then came Mrs. Bass, Lady Dawson, Mrs. Despard, the five Misses Clarence, Lord Farnborough, the Countess of Mansfield, &c, and the list went through forty names, of which thirty-eight were those of titled individuals. Among other hogshead receivers were the five Miss Fitzclarences and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester. Do not let it be said, that this money had been appropriated to meet the claims of persons who had earned the gratitude of their country by their services, and whose necessities had obliged them to resort to whatever funds might be applicable to the rewarding of deserving objects. All these pensions still existed, except two—those two parties being no longer able to hold them, because death had taken hold of them. He was told that Lord Farnborough had given up his pension, that was a rare occurrence. In addition to these pensions, there were salaries amounting to 13,836l.; so that, what with salaries and what with pensions, the charges on the four-and-a-half per cent duties considerably exceeded 30,000l. a-year; whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion, estimated the receipts arising from these duties at 25,000l. a-year. How the matter stood he knew not—probably, from the improved state of these islands, they might have become a fruitful source of revenue. But he was speaking of the amount at the time of the surrender of the four-and-a-half per cents by the Crown, in 1830; and he did say, that it was a perfect delusion to hold out to the country, that more than an equivalent had been granted by the Crown to the people for the continuance of these pensions. He was aware it had been said, that two or three other concessions were made at that time; but they amounted to a very few hundred pounds, and were not worthy of being mentioned. There was one other subject to which he now wished to call the attention of the House. He was in several quarters ridiculed for bringing forward this subject again, and was repeatedly asked why, unless he had anything new to say upon it, he intruded it upon the House. Well, he had something new to say upon it. He contended that all the arguments used by the opponents of his motion in the last Session of Parliament, fell to the ground when the position in which the country was now placed was looked to. Upon the discussion of the Irish Municipal Bill, or rather of the amendment moved before going into Committee upon it, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whom he was happy then to see in his place, observed, that the object of that amendment was to do justice to Ireland; that it was necessary both countries should have equal laws, and that no distinction of any kind should be suffered to exist; and the right hon. Baronet wound up a lengthy speech by saying, "Let us convince the people of that misgoverned country that we are to be one community, citizens of the same monarchy, and let them feel that there is but one law, and that a good one, for the rich and poor." Let the House adopt this argument in the case of the Pension List. He called upon hon. Members to consider themselves not merely Members of the House of Commons but Poor-law Commissioners. He would say of the Pension List, let a Commission be appointed to look into this disgusting State work-house. [Cheers, with expressions of dissent.] He found, as he expected, that his argument was not very palatable to some hon. Members, for, in fact, he had previously been told that certain parties who usually supported Ministers would be sure to crush him, with the aid of the Tories. This, however, he utterly disregarded, and he should fearlessly go on to discharge his duty. The Poor-law Bill was one of the greatest changes ever attempted by any Legislature, and its good working mainly depended upon its being considered by the class to whom it related as a measure of justice. The principle of the Bill was, that every man was bound to use his personal efforts and exertions for his own support. If that were not the case, would it not have been quite absurd to send Commissioners from one place to another to see if any poor aged matron could be found who obtained relief, and who might be deprived of it? But the peasantry of England would never suffer their mothers or wives to be deprived of those little comforts to which they had always been accustomed. Would it not be monstrous were they to do so, while they beheld upon this list not less than 1,100 paupers, 300 of whom were connected with titled personages? What, he asked, would be more rational than for the poorer classes of the country to stand out, and say—until this abominable Pension List is destroyed, we will not submit to your law, because it is against the law of nature! Was the poor-law relief and the pension-list relief guided by the same principle? No. There were Commissioners to inquire into the character and claims of any person applying for relief under the Poor-law Bill, while interest alone was the test of fitness for the Pension List. He did not wish to be either invidious or personal; but he saw around him in that House many whose relations figured upon that list, although they themselves wanted alone the disposition to support them. Was it not, he asked, disgraceful to the character of a British noble to have his relations living on the hardly-procured earnings of the working classes, while he was himself rolling in wealth. The hon. Member next read an extract from the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, which stated that the principle they acted upon was, to inquire into the circumstances of all persons who applied for relief. He would ask, was this done with regard to the parties on the Pension List? Was it not a well-known fact that, under the Poor Law Act, many persons were refused parochial relief solely in consequence of the ability of their relations to support them? What was meant when they heard persons talk of the chivalry of the British nobleman—of the elegance and splendour in his dwelling—of all the arts and refinements connected with his establishment? What was meant by everything they heard about moral dignity when they found that he left the members of his closest kindred to exist as beggars upon the public bounty. Grant him but a Committee, and he would prove, that there were more than 500 persons upon the Pension List whose relations were in every way competent to support them. Why should not the law apply equally to the strong bodied Peer and the strong bodied labourer. He saw upon the list before him the names of three or four Peers, ten times stronger in body than he was, and who never had, and never could do, half the good he had done. Why was it that he, whom the associates of those Peers had sought to deprive of bread, by suffering an oligarchical tribunal to keep him from his profession? why was it, he asked, that he should be made to support those pauper beggars? It drove one almost mad to ask the question. Such, indeed, was the effect of this injustice upon his mind, that if 100,000 men were to assemble on Blackheath to resist this disgraceful imposition he would join them. Before sitting down he would venture to call upon all classes of men, representing the various orders of society, to give their support to his motion. To the military men by whom he was surrounded, and who, perhaps, seeing in the list the name of the widow or orphan of some beloved brother in arms, felt indisposed to touch it, he would say, "join with me and rescue those for whom you are interested from the degradation of being associated with those who possess no claim whatever upon the public bounty." To those who represented the literary order of society he said the same. No one was more willing than he that those who deserved well of their country, in whatever position in life they had been placed, should be rewarded; but while the Pension List was in its present state, he felt surprised that any individual of character, however pressing his necessity, could consent to be placed upon it. To persons eminently distinguished in literature, and who might happen to be upon the list, such as Professor Airy for instance, he would say, "quit, instantly quit, the foul association." It was as if a piece of fine silk were joined to a filthy coat. The Pension List was of a two-fold character. A sum of 75,000l. was placed upon the Civil List, and the remainder was charged upon the Consolidated Fund. That portion which was upon the Civil List, might be regarded as a perpetuity. Now, he maintained, that if a great part of the whole amount were taken away, it would not be to deprive the Monarch of anything which he ought to possess; but, on the contrary, he would be enabled by it to do good to those who were really deserving of his bounty. He did not know if there was any peculiar tenacity of life among those who were on the Pension List, but it was certain that they fell off very slowly. He protested against the principle of having upon that list five children of the King of England, who had at his command so much wealth and all the luxuries of life. This was a monstrous insult to the people of England. The highest law officer of the Crown had stated on a former occasion, that the King had given up the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, upon condition of the Pension List being left untouched during his reign. But his Majesty, though not in possession of the revenues, still enjoyed the patronage derived from his Crown property. It was only very recently that an individual had to pay a sum of 70,000l. for the renewal of a lease. Now, he should like to know to whom did that money go? Did it go to the Crown? It was such things as that which sickened the heart of the poor, and excited within them feelings of discontent. There was a deep sentiment of hostility pervading the bosoms of the poor, caused by such injustice. He called upon the House by its line of justice to accede to his motion. He had now only to say in conclusion, that in offering the present motion to the House, he left it to hon. Members to deal with it entirely as they thought fit, while he trusted, that they would not fail to do justice to its merits. The hon. Member concluded by moving for "a Select Committee to revise each pension specified in a return ordered to be printed on the 28th of June, 1835; with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties receiving the same, and to report thereon to the House."

Lord John Russell

The hon. and learned Gentleman had commenced his speech by lamenting the thinness of the House at the moment of his rising, as compared with what it had been a short time previous; and from that circumstance had seemed to infer a culpable remissness on the part of Members, in not being present to attend to his arguments for the setting aside the verdict which the former Parliament recorded upon the same subject. He did not think the hon. and learned Member was at all justified in casting such an imputation. The House of Commons had more than once heard the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman had to make in support of his proposition, and had already come to a decision that it would not enter on the dangerous course which that proposition recommended. He might ask, too, whether, upon this question, the country, generally, had not altered their opinion? It was a question upon which formerly great popular excitement prevailed; but he did not hesitate to say, that the feeling of the public had undergone on this point, a very great change. If he were called upon for proof of such being the fact, he thought he might, with confidence, refer to the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions. When he came to examine the Table of the House, he could find only two petitions for the revision of the Pension-list; one from the parish of St. Mary, Newington, the other from a parish in Ipswich. Nor were those petitions signed by 30,000 or 40,000 names, as was usual with reference to subjects on which a great popular interest was felt; on the contrary, they were remarkable for the paucity of their signatures. Nor was that all. One of them in its prayer did not exactly support the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's present motion. That motion, let it be observed, was not couched in the terms of the notice given by the hon. and learned Member on the 17th of March. The notice given by the hon. and learned Member on the 17th of March, was for the appointment of a Select Committee "to revise all Pensions and Sinecures charged upon any fund under the control of Parliament, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof was justified by the circumstances of the original giants, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same." Following the lead which had been thus given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the petition from St. Mary, Newington, spoke of "the disgust with which the petitioners viewed the existence of sinecures," &c. In his present proposition, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman omitted all mention of sinecures, confining the terms of his motion to pensions. Why had the hon. and learned gentleman made this change? Had he discovered since the period at which he gave his original notice, that there were persons in that House whose support he was desirous of securing—who thought that sinecures were entitled to greater tenderness of treatment than pensions? Was that the reason which had induced the hon. and learned Gentleman to leave out of his motion all allusion to sinecures? The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the manner in which the provisions of the Poor-law Bill might be brought to bear upon those persons that came within the scope of his motion; but would not the Poor-law Bill have told equally against sinecurists as against pensioners? Why, then, had the hon. Gentleman abandoned his motion as it concerned the one, and retained it only with reference to the other? There were many gentlemen who made the Pension-list an object of their political watchfulness, but who did not think it right to disturb the present owners of sinecure offices in their possession of them, and who would not support a motion, if brought forward, containing retrospective provisions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had framed his motion, to obtain the support, while he charged others with not bringing forward the real motives of their actions, he was himself concealing something from the cognizance of the House, and was not acting with that boldness with which he was accustomed to agitate this subject. But what had been the course which Parliament had invariably pursued with reference to the particular subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had now brought under the consideration of the House? And what had been the course pursued with reference to it by the political party with which he was especially connected? It was the more necessary to advert to the latter point, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, among many other insinuations, implied that that party had greatly altered its opinions and practice on the subject since they had been seated on the Ministerial side of the House. With respect to the course pursued by Parliament on the subject, he would go back to the uniform course taken since the Revolution; and, if he could show that that course was in direct contradiction to the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view, he thought it would require more than mere declamation to induce the House to depart from what had been its settled and long-continued policy, and to begin a new course altogether. He believed, that at the Revolution, the Civil-list granted to King William included the pensions which had been granted by his immediate predecessors. The same was the case with the Civil-list proposed by Sir Robert Walpole, in 1731, and in the subsequent reign. After the Revolution, therefore, when a change was made in the succession to the Throne, and during the reigns of the subsequent monarchs, the Pension-list granted by Charles 2nd was preserved. When Mr. Burke brought forward his celebrated question respecting Financial Reform, a great excitement was created in the public mind—an excitement similar to that which the question of Parliamentary Reform had lately created. Mr. Burke, as the hon. and learned Gentleman truly observed, exhibited on that occasion extensive views and comprehensive purposes. But did Mr. Burke propose that existing sinecures and pensions should be taken from those by whom they were held? Quite the contrary. On that point, Mr. Burke declared that he did not think it would be wise, that he did not think it would be expedient, that he did. not think it would be just, to interfere retrospectively; and that he could not recommend any step inflicting on individuals unmerited hardship and injustice, merely for the purpose of arriving a few years sooner at the object which Parliament had in view. He need not quote the words used by Mr. Burke on that occasion; they had frequently been adduced, and were in the minds of all who heard him. He had a right, also, to conclude from, circumstances, that the view which Mr. Fox took of the question was not different from the view of it taken by Mr. Burke. When Lord John Cavendish brought forward his motion in that House respecting the emoluments of the Tellers of the Exchequer, and proposed that those extravagant emoluments should be reduced in time of war, Mr. Fox objected to make the proposed reform a retrospective one; contending that in all measures of reform as wise, broad, and intelligible a principle as possible should be adopted; but that all existing rights ought to be respected, and the operation of the reform confined to the future occupants of the situations in question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had attempted to throw on noble friends of his the imputation of being favourable, when they were in opposition, to the principle of taking away, under certain circumstances, pensions which had been granted by the Crown. For his part, he did not remember a single expression of Lord Grey's, when that noble Lord was in opposition, which favoured any retrospective view, or which evinced any disposition to abandon the principle which had been maintained by Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox; and which had universally prevailed since the Revolution, of not taking away from the existing holders what had been granted to them, but of confining the operation of retrenchment to future grants. When the hon. Member for Middlesex had argued for the propriety of taking the opportunity of settling the Civil-list to examine into the Pension-list, with a view to deprive many of the holders of the pensions which they enjoyed, Lord Spencer was one of the first to oppose the proposition, and to declare that it was unwise, unjust, and inexpedient, and a proposition in the support of which he would take no part. He (Lord John Russell) was, therefore, entitled to say, not only that the whole course of legislation in Parliament; but that the whole course pursued by the political party with which he was connected, whether acting with a majority or a minority, was to except from interference pensions already granted, to make reform prospective, and not to tread on the dangerous ground of depriving existing holders of that which they were accustomed to consider as a right. If such was the general principle on which Parliament had hitherto proceeded, he begged to call attention to the situation of the particular pension list which the hon. and learned Gentleman was desirous of bringing under consideration. This pension-list was reformed, as respected the future, by Mr. Burke's Bill. It was formerly the custom of the Crown to grant pensions, and to cause them to be paid secretly. They were not paid at the Exchequer, and the names of the persons by whom they were received were not known to the public. It was declared, in Mr. Burke's Bill, that this principle of secrecy was dangerous in its character, and that there could be no scruple in disclosing the names of the persons who received the pensions in question on any ground that there was anything dishonourable in such receipt. That was the principle on which, according to Mr. Burke's Bill, the present Pension-list was established. But, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, neither desert nor distress was a sufficient ground for a pension; for he wished to place the pensions on the footing of the relief afforded by the Poor-law Bill, namely, that if any could work for his livelihood, he should not obtain any such benefit. Now, he must say, that the comparison which had been made between the two cases by the hon. and learned Gentleman, was altogether misplaced. The question with respect to the Poor-law Bill had been, whether any parochial allowance should be made to a person who was able to earn his own living; and the Bill proceeded on the principle that if a man could work, he should be set to work. It was well known that enormous abuses had crept into the administration of the Poor-laws; and the Act which was introduced on the subject was only intended to re-establish the original principle of those laws, and to declare that whoever could work, should not be allowed relief without labour. But was that a principle which could be applied to the Pension-list? Was that a principle which could be applied to such pensions as those granted by the Crown? When a pension was granted by the Crown, to any man of distinguished gallantry, or to any celebrated writer—to such men, for instance, as Sir Sidney Smith and Professor Airey—one to whom the country owed such a debt of gratitude for his gallant naval exploits, the other an individual so well known throughout Europe by the extent of his mathematical and astronomical knowledge, what would be thought if the Commons of Great Britain were to say "No; we declared by the Poor-law Act, that no one who was capable of gaining a livelihood by his own labour should receive assistance; and, therefore, as we do not believe, that the individuals to whom these pensions are granted, are in such desperate circumstances as to be exposed to any danger of starvation, neither the hero nor the philosopher shall receive the benefit intended for him? A more odious comparison, one less founded in the real nature of things was never attempted to be palmed on a public assembly than that drawn by the hon. Gentleman, between the principle of the Poor-law Act and the principle of the Pension-list. It was well known, that the close of every reign was the time to examine the civil list and the Pension-list as forming a part of it. That had been done at the close of the last reign, and on the proposition of his noble Friend, Lord Spencer, the list was limited to a narrower amount than before. The question, therefore, for the House to determine really was, whether any case had been made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman which should induce the House to break the compact which Parliament had made with his present Majesty at the commencement of his reign. Was the House prepared to set aside that contract? Had any case been made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman which should induce the House to enter on a course, with reference to this subject, inconsistent with the course which had been pursued by every preceding Parliament since the Revolution? The hon. and learned Gentleman boldly asserted, that the great majority of the persons comprehended in the Pension-list had been placed there in consequence either of their political profligacy or of their individual vices. Now it was no business of his to defend the reputation of those persons. With respect to by much the greater portion of the persons comprehended in the Pension-list, he had nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with their being placed there. There had been only two cases in which he had ventured to recommend, that pensions should be granted; and in both those cases the pensions had been totally unsolicited by the individuals on whom they had been conferred. On the death of Sir Walter Scott, he had asked Lord Grey to grant a pension to one of Sir Walter's daughters; and he had last year asked Lord Melbourne to grant a pension to Mr. Thomas Moore, or one of his family. Both belonged to a class which Mr. Burke's Act declared might be justly so rewarded. He had therefore no personal reason for standing up in the defence of those who had been so warmly attacked by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman declared that they had all entitled themselves to their pensions either by their political profligacy, or by their personal vices, he must say, that he firmly believed that the character thus given of them was most unjust. Undoubtedly, in his opinion, many of the pensions ought not to have been granted. There were persons on the Pension list, who neither by their professional nor by their personal merits could be fairly said to come within the proper scope of such grants. But as to all, or the great ma- jority of them, having been recommended by their political profligacy, or by their private vices, he felt it to be his duty to say, that he entirely disbelieved the assertion. The question, therefore, was, whether the House, on the bare statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, unsupported by any witness, and unaccompanied by any proof, would be induced to enter into an examination of the Pension-list, and to go through it, name after name, and person after person, n order to hunt out some circumstance which might show that at the time the pension was granted it was not conferred for meritorious services, or that the person on whom it had been conferred was not in circumstances which entitled him to the benefit. Could any proposition be more odious and degrading? Could any proposition be better calculated, by raking up the personal affairs of individuals, to gratify private animosity and malignity? And all was to be done without any object. The hon. and learned Gentleman, at the commencement of his speech, compared the relief which the country would derive from the reduction of the pensions with the relief which would be afforded by an acquiescence in the motion of a noble Lord with reference to agricultural distress. Nothing could be more fallacious. Even if the House could consent to violate the Acts of Parliament on the subject, no retrenchment could be effected that would make it worth while to take such a step. In November, 1830, the whole of the pensions charged on the consolidated fund amounted to 80,262l.; on the 1st of January, 1836, the amount was 62,319l.; being a reduction of 17,943l.; and that reduction had been made without any examination or inquisition into private affairs. In November, 1830, the whole of the pensions charged on the 4½ per cents, amounted to 15,690l.; and on the 1st of January, 1836, the amount was 12,634l.; being a reduction of 3,056l. Such were the large reductions already made; and they had been made, as he had before observed, without private annoyance or injury. Taking the question, in another way—if, of pensions charged on the consolidated fund, they took only those above 100l., the amount of which was 45,000l., and excepted those granted before 1810, only 20,000l. would come within the purview of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion. It had been stated to the House by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that the re- duction of taxation within the last three years, as compared with the amount of taxation in 1817, was 4,736,000l. Now let the House compare the small amount which could by possibility be deducted from the Pension-list, with the great and mighty reduction of nearly 5,000,000l., effected by pursuing the honest and straightforward course of reducing only where they had a right to reduce, and where no expectations had been entertained, and justly entertained, of security from interference. Let that diminution be compared with the small diminution that alone could be hoped for from acquiescing in the hon. and learned Gentleman's petty and unjust proposition. The one had the features of wise, great, and national retrenchment; while the other assumed the appearance of private pique and miserable malice. The honourable and learned Gentleman had adverted to the few words which had fallen from him when the subject had been considered by the House on a former occasion. On that occasion he had stated, that if any inquiry went far back, it would be either nugatory or unjust. He would put the case personally to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It had chanced to the hon. and learned Gentleman when he had sought to obtain a distinction in his profession to be violently opposed. On two occasions the hon. and learned Gentleman had entered into a defence of himself, and had stated why he thought that the accusations which had been preferred against him were most unjust. In both those instances the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that it was an inquiry in which he was unable fully to meet his opponents, because so long a time had elapsed since the occurrence of the circumstances questioned, that some of the parties for whose evidence he should otherwise call were dead, and some document that would have been most serviceable to him could no longer be obtained. At the same time, let it be recollected, that at the time to which he (Lord John Russell) alluded, the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking for a privilege; he wished to be allowed to act as a Barrister. But what the persons on the Pension-list claimed, was merely to be left in possession of what had been granted them by the Crown, and under an Act of Parliament. Suppose some person were enjoying a pension as the descendant of a near relation to whom it had been granted in the year 1782, If the inquiry moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman were instituted, might not that person say, "Mr. Pitt is dead; the persons who were cognizant of the transaction at the time are dead; or I should be able to show that the pension was granted on substantial grounds?" Would it not be most unjust and injurious to enter upon such an inquiry so long after the death of those who alone could bear witness to the merits of the case? "No;" said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "such a claim is a good one for me to make. I am entitled to protest against the injustice of being required to prove my case, when my witnesses are dead and I have no means of establishing it. But I have a right to call upon a thousand persons, many of whom are placed in a similar predicament, to prove their cases; notwithstanding their witnesses are dead, and notwithstanding they have no longer the means of proving those cases. I require justice for myself; but I will not apply to them the maxims that I contend are applicable to myself. Feeling on the hon. and learned Member's own principles, that he had not made out a case which ought to induce the House to enter into any inquiry—feeling that no such inquiry had been sanctioned in the whole course of our national history—feelingthat no great party in the country had ever adopted the doctrines maintained by the hon. and learned Gentleman — feeling that a bargain had been made by Parliament with the Crown, which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to set aside on no adequate ground whatever—feeling that it was proposed to institute an extensive authority into the rights of those who ought in justice to be allowed to enjoy those rights without interference—feeling that the course proposed was unjust in a public point of view, and must be productive of much private mischief and injury, he should decidedly vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion.

Mr. Angerstein

asked if it was not a principle of the Poor-law Act, that no relief should be granted to any person who had relations in a condition to support him?

Mr. Hume

thought, that when the noble Lord referred to the injustice of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Harvey) complained— namely, the delay of inquiry until the principal witnesses were dead—he stated one of the strongest reasons that could possibly be adduced in favour of his hon. Friend's motion on the present occasion. The noble Lord began by stating that his hon. Friend (Mr. Harvey) seemed to have lost some portion of courage, seeing that his original notice stood for an inquiry into pensions and sinecures, whereas, as if frightened at the very name of sinecures, he now limited his motion to an inquiry into pensions alone. When the noble Lord made that statement, he must surely have forgotten, that the House had already directed an inquiry into sinecures, and that it was consequently unnecessary for the hon. Member for Southwark to include that part of the subject in his motion on the present occasion. Of the Committee on sinecures he was a Member, and the hon. Member for London was Chairman, and already their inquiries had been prosecuted to a very considerable extent. What was the result? In the first place the mere appointment of such a Committee satisfied the public mind (which it was idle to deny had been much excited upon the subject), that an attempt at any rate was to be made to do justice, and to draw a line of distinction between the deserving and the undeserving. Already there had been many undeserving persons struck off from the list of sinecures; and if a similar inquiry were instituted with respect to pensions, there could be no doubt but that a like result would follow. Then the noble Lord referred to the little interest that seemed to exist in the public mind upon the subject, and alluded to the circumstance of there having been only two petitions presented to Parliament in favour of an inquiry. The absence of petitions was by no means a sure criterion of the existence of public apathy or indifference. The people felt confidence in the noble Lord, and were satisfied that the Reformed House of Commons would be careful to abolish abuses wherever they were found to exist. This was the reason why so few petitions had been presented upon the subject; but if the public once saw or suspected that the noble Lord was relaxing in his efforts to do justice to all classes—if they once thought that he was disposed to deal out one kind of justice to the poor, and another to the rich—he might depend upon it that the right to petition would not be neglected, as one of the means of making their wishes and feelings known. If the people had not troubled themselves much about the matter of pensions of late, the noble Lord might rest assured that the day of reckoning must still come; and that it would then be well for those who could conscientiously declare that they had done their duty. The noble Lord's objection, therefore, to the motion, on the ground that there had been very few petitions presented in favour of it, appeared to him (Mr. Hume) to be of very trifling importance. The real question was, whether the persons whose names were on the Pension-List had done anything that could give them a claim to receive any portion of the public money. In the year 1834 the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire candidly and manfully avowed that many of these pensions could not be defended; and a similar avowal was at the same time made by the noble Lord who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the present occasion, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seemed to found his objection to the motion principally on two grounds; first, the precedent of former Parliaments, and next the personal pain and inconvenience which might result from the inquiry. Neither of these appeared to him (Mr. Hume) to be sufficient grounds on which to resist the motion. If former Parliaments had been governed by a bad precedent, it was time that a Reformed Parliament should strike out a precedent for itself. And what was the precedent that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark would have them establish? Not to strike off the list of pensioners any one whom merit or desert had placed there, but simply to remove those who, upon inquiry, should seem to have no claim upon the public purse. Was this a very dangerous or a bad precedent? Was it not rather a precedent which justice required them to lose no time in establishing? It was no argument in favour of the practice, to say that it had existed since the Revolution. If, in corrupt Parliaments, a bad practice had been allowed to continue for 150 years, it only afforded a stronger and more urgent reason why a Reformed Parliament should lose no time in correcting it. The House had partially done its duty by appointing the Committee on Sinecures—let it complete the work so well begun of appointing a similar Committee on Pensions. It was much to be regretted that the noble Lord and his colleagues, who, as the hon. Member for Southwark had justly observed, occupied so high a place in the esteem of the people, should oppose themselves to a motion where inquiry was so obviously necessary as in this matter of pensions. It was no argument in favour of a continuance of the system to say that inquiry might have a retrospective effect. When the Poor-Law Amendment Act was carried, declaring that no poor man should receive parochial relief whilst his relations were able to maintain him, he begged to know whether that was not a retrospective law? Would the House then declare that it had no sympathy for the poor, whilst it was so jealously careful of the welfare of certain old people connected with the Peerage? Were there not mothers of Peers enjoying large pensions paid out of the public funds? Nay, were there not the mothers of several Members of that House deriving large incomes from the same source? It was true that there were some honourable exceptions; and the hon. Member for Southwark forgot to mention that the Duchess of Newcastle had refused her pension of 1,000l. a-year. He wished that other titled dames, to the number of some 200 or 300, would follow the same honourable example. He considered it directly at variance with the principle of the new Poor-law Act that they should allow men of large property an annual stipend out of the public funds. Many of those who had not a shilling in the world when their pensions were granted them, had since become wealthy. Why, under these circumstances, did they not come forward and follow the example of Lord Sidmouth and Mr. Marsden, and resign the pensions which had been allotted to them. It was intolerable that persons ranking in the class of society to which most of these pensioners belonged, should be allowed to plunder those who were compelled to work for their daily bread, and who the law declared should receive no relief from a public fund whilst they had a blood relative capable of supporting them. The noble Lord (J. Russell) must have been aware when he alluded to the authority of Mr. Burke, that the course taken by that gentleman upwards of forty years ago, could have no application whatever to the present times. Then the noble Lord said, that there was a compact entered into between his Majesty and the House of Commons, and that it would not become the House to break that compact. There was no pretence for saying that this motion, if agreed to, would lead to any breach of compact. If the inquiry were to proceed, it would not in any way interfere with the King's prerogative. The Civil List would remain, his Majesty would have the same amount of money to dispose of in pensions, and he would be allowed the opportunity (which at present he had not, because the Pension List was filled up by his predecessors) of bestowing his bounty on proper and deserving persons. Thus, in point of fact, the House would only be doing an act of justice to his Majesty. It was the duty of the Commons of England at that moment not to allow a single pound to be appropriated to an unworthy individual. It was time that the Reformed House should begin to repair the faults of former Parliaments. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had not answered one of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, and he held the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Angerstein) opposite to be wholly unanswerable. If that question were not answered — if it were not attempted to be answered, he (Mr. Hume) said there was no man in that House who could conscientiously oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Southwark. If these titled pensioners were to be continued, at least let them be dressed in blue coats and yellow stockings, and decorated with some badge by which they might be known. The unfortunate parish pauper was made to appear in a particular dress in order that he might be recognised as one dependent upon parochial bounty—he knew not why the same practice should not be extended to pauper Peers. At all events inquiry into the subject was what the country had a right to demand, what the people had a right to expect, and that House a right to enforce. He, for one, therefore, should give his decided support to the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark.

Mr. Ward

wished to state, as shortly as possible, the grounds on which his vote would be given. He came into the House with as strong a feeling against the Pension-List—against the abuses, the anomalies, and the misapplications, which took place in the expenditure of the public money—as any one of those hon. Gentlemen who sat around him, and he entertained as full a conviction that, as it was the duty, so it should be one of the first acts of a Reformed House of Commons to put an end to the abuses of pensions by revising the whole List. He believed that he was one of those who must plead guilty to the charge brought forward by the hon. Member for Southwark, of having professed those sentiments upon the hustings. He was certain that these were the princi- ples on which he had intended to act, nor was it until after he had had a seat in that House for some time, that he saw the propriety of acting otherwise. He perceived that many men for whose liberality of judgment, and for whose political opinions he entertained the highest respect, differed from him in his view with respect to this question, and felt that Parliament was bound by the compact to which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had referred. He had not the honour of a seat in the House when the Civil List was discussed; but he had made it his business most carefully to examine the whole of the debates upon that subject. He had gone through the whole of them carefully, step by step, and if at the time he had a prepossession on his mind it was decidedly against the conclusion to which he ultimately arrived. He might be right, or he might be wrong, but he was bound to state in his place in that House that, after a due consideration of the subject, he did feel as an honest man, that he could not interfere with pensions as they stood on the list at the commencement of the present reign, and after the final accommodation of the Civil List. He felt that they were bound by a compact which they had no right to infringe during the reign of his present Majesty. With the permission of the House, he would state, as shortly as possible, the grounds which induced him to arrive at that conclusion. In the first place he must observe, that he looked upon the whole of the argument which had that night been advanced in the assumed analogy between the Civil List and the new Poor-law Act to be a complete fallacy. He conceived that in this country, governed as it was by a popular and responsible form of Government, it had been the practice from time immemorial to concede to the King, for the time being, the right of granting pensions to such an extent as he should think proper, within the limit of the Civil List. He believed that up to the time of Mr. Burke's motion upon the Civil List, there were no legal bounds to these royal grants—they were supposed to be part of the royal prerogative. Mr. Burke placed bounds to this exercise of the royal prerogative, but he left to the King an irresponsible power of granting pensions within certain specified limits. Now he was not a friend to irresponsible power in any shape, and whilst it was continued to so great an extent he was not surprised at the amount of abuse which had accumulated under it. For those abuses there was but one remedy. All pensions expired with the life of the Sovereign who granted them, and consequently before any new Civil List was voted, it was in the power of Parliament to institute an inquiry. The proper time, then, for instituting such an inquiry as was now moved for was in the year 1830, when his present Majesty ascended the Throne, and it must be in the recollection of every one whom he was addressing, that in the year 1831, the matter was fully and fairly brought under the consideration of the House. They had heard much of the compact which took place at that time between the Government and the Crown. To such a compact as that he should be one of the first to say he was not a party; but to a compact between the House of Commons and the Crown, he felt he was irretrievably bound. The subject was repeatedly under the consideration of the House in 1831. In the first place, there was the motion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the 4th of February, when the hon. Member for Middlesex declared, that the proper and most constitutional time had arrived for the institution of an inquiry into the Pension List, seeing that no person whose name was then upon the list had a legal right to the continuance of his pension. That argument was taken up by many gentlemen who then sat on the same side of the House with the hon. Member for Middlesex. Among others, Mr. Maberley said, that the time had arrived when Parliament had the power of determining whether these payments should be continued or not. This showed that the whole question was fully and fairly brought before the House at that time; and how was it met? Not by any denial of the right of the House of Commons to interfere, but by an offer on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being to meet a suspension of the right of inquiry by an immense reduction of the Pension List. Up to the year 1830, the Pension List had amounted to nearly 200,000l. The Duke of Wellington, previous to his retirement, proposed to reduce it to 144,000l.; but Lord Althorp, on coming into office, offered to reduce it to 75,000l.; but on this specific condition, that all existing pensions should be provided for, Parliament accepted this last offer, and thought it was making a good bargain for the people, by reducing the Pension List more than one-half. When this bargain was accomplished, the amount of the Civil List was fixed, and there was not an instance on record of a compact so entered into being afterwards deliberately broken. He trusted that such a precedent would not be established by the first Reformed Parliament. There were many Members of the House who thought that the prerogative of the Crown would be unfairly restricted by the course which was taken in limiting the amount of the Civil List; and that view of the subject was strongly urged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge. The decision upon the question was not a hasty one—it was not a discussion of one day. The discussion of the subject was renewed on the 7th February, and again on the 25th March. On the 29th March the Civil List Bill was brought forward; on the 12th April it was read a first time; and a second time on the 14th, and in every stage, from its introduction to its final passing, it was briefly and fairly discussed. It was a singular circumstance that, during the whole of these discussions, the hon. Member for Southwark never once broached any of those opinions upon the subject of the Pension List which he had since been so frequently urging upon the attention of Parliament. On looking over the reports of the debates which occurred at the time, he found only one remark made by that hon. Gentleman, and that remark showed him to be decidedly hostile to a revision of the Pension List in 1831. He said, there would be no economy in it, and that, in nine cases out of ten, if pensions were submitted to a Parliamentary inquiry, they would be much larger in amount than any that would be granted on the recommendation of Ministers to the King. It was certainly a little singular that, at that time, when Parliament had the power to take any course that it might deem most proper, that the only observations falling from the hon. Member for Southwark should be so decidedly unfavourable to the course he had since adopted. So struck, indeed, was the hon. Member for Bridport at the singularity of the opinion expressed by a gentleman whose liberal opinions were so well known, that he got up and declared, that he looked upon the doctrine of Parliamentary inquiry, leading to greater expenditure, as a libel on the House of Commons. The hon. Member concluded by stating, that he looked upon the compact entered into between the Crown and the House of Commons as inviolable; and, on that account, he should feel bound to resist any motion like the present, till they came to the settlement of another Civil List.

Sir Robert Inglis

was of opinion that, from the moment Parliament took possession of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, upon condition of granting a certain amount for the Civil List, a portion of which was set apart to be appropriated by the Crown in the way of pensions, the Crown by its prerogative had the full disposition of that money, and was as free from the control of Parliament as a private individual in the exercise of its liberality. Considering, therefore, all the suppositions of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, as being so many certain truths, he would still contend, that the country had no right to exercise any control over the discretion of the Crown in the appropriation of that portion of the Civil List set apart for pensions.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

wished to set the hon. and learned Member for Southwark right as to what he had stated respecting the droits of the Admiralty. It was clear from that statement, that an impression existed on his mind, and which he endeavoured to make upon the mind of the House, that after the droits of the Admiralty had been transferred from his Majesty to the public, a sum amounting to 6,000l. had been withdrawn from that fund, and paid into his Majesty's privy purse, for his Majesty's own use. But nothing could be more opposite to the fact than that misconceived statement, for such he was sure it was, that had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was perfectly true, that the sum of 6,000l. was so paid after the transfer of the droits of the Admiralty had been made to the public; but it was a sum that had accrued before the transfer was even contemplated. It had no reference whatever to the Admiralty droits that had accrued since the time that the bargain was made with his Majesty. There had not been one single farthing derived from those casual branches of the King's revenue since that bargain was made that had not been carried to the public account. The hon. and learned Gentleman had challenged him to show him ten names on the Pension List that were distinguished for their public services, or for eminence in literature, in science, or in any other way that could possibly be a recommendation for their being placed on that list. Now, he accepted that challenge; but he begged first to call the attention of the House to the fact, that there had not been in the course of the debate a shadow of an imputation thrown out against any one of his Majesty's present Ministers as to his having recommended any person to be placed on the Pension List who ought not to have been recommended; and with respect to the Government that immediately preceded them, the list he was about to read would not have been so striking as it was if several of the names it contained had not been placed on it by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The list contained the following names; Dr. Dalton, Mr. Ivory, Professor Airey, Mrs. Somerville, Dr. Southey, Mr. Montgomery, Sharon Turner, Sir James South, Mr. Thomas Moore, Mr. Faraday—but if he chose he could go on and double his Jury list, and give the hon. and learned Gentleman twenty-four names of equal merit.

Colonel Parry

observed, that the widows of naval officers were required to make a declaration that they were in circumstances of distress before they were allowed to receive any pension; and he thought a similar declaration should be required of those who received pensions from the Crown.

Colonel Sibthorp

was in favour of inquiry, because he thought it would establish the claims of those who were on the list. If, however, any persons should be found to be on it who were not deserving he, for one, would say, let them be struck off.

Sir Edward Codrington

supported the motion, for the reason which had been stated by the hon. and gallant Officer below him.

Mr. Harvey

replied, it was satisfactory to him, and it would be satisfactory to the country, to know that no one had ventured to stand up and resist this inquiry, who was not, either in his own person, or in those of his immediate connections, a recipient of a portion of the money appropriated to these pensions. The noble Lord had to-night displayed a pettiness of disposition which showed him to be unfit to be the leading Minister of that House. Instead of meeting the question fairly upon its merits, the noble Lord had come down with a pamphlet in his pocket, having personal reference to himself (Mr. Harvey). But he was pleased to find the noble Lord driven to this resource, as it bespoke a consciousness of the feebleness of his cause, when he felt it necessary to indulge in the vulgarity of personality. He (Mr. Harvey) had said that no one had spoken against the motion who was not either, in his own person, or by his connections, a recipient from the Pension List. This observation was perfectly applicable to the noble Lord. And was it honourable to the house of Bedford that they should have a person on that list living upon the funds extorted from the poor? With respect to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he begged to assure that right hon. Gentleman that nothing was more remote from his intention than to misrepresent the appropriation of the revenues arising from the droits of the Admiralty. He had only spoken from the return before the House; and he was glad an explanation had been given as to the payment of the 6,000l Great eulogy had been passed on Lord Sidmouth for having given up his pension of 3,000l. a-year. But Lord Sidmouth was connected with a very rich family, and therefore the pension ought to have been given up long before. But what did his Majesty's Ministers do as soon as it was given up? They had not got possession of it forty-eight hours before they began scrambling among themselves who should get the best part of it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken; he is entirely wrong.

Mr. Harvey

has there been no grant to Lord Glenelg?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer


Mr. Harvey

was it not intended? Perhaps time may show: but if the right hon. Gentleman means to say, that it was never intended. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: hear!] Very well; then he withdrew his observation. But before the House proceeded to a division, he would suggest as a matter of decency—indeed, he could not fancy that any Gentleman who had any relations on the Pension List, (and he was quite satisfied that upwards of 150 Members of that House were in that predicament) would vote against this motion. The noble Lord had said, that his Friend, Lord Spencer, had never conceded to this House the right to look into this Pension List. But he (Mr. Harvey) could give quotation upon quotation from speeches in which that noble Lord had made that concession. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the hon. Member for Middlesex, on the 18th of July, 1831, insisted upon the right of inquiry, pro- tected himself from being committed on that question by saying, that he begged it to be understood, that by their vote on that occasion, no Gentleman would be precluded thereafter from moving that the Pension List be referred to a Select Committee, or that any name be actually struck off. That was said before the passing of the Pension Act. But the majority of the House at that time were borne away by a delusion that it was essential to recognize and acknowledge the bargain made with the Crown, or else something dangerous would happen. In fact, Members were not at that time masters of their own actions. But did his Majesty's Ministers mean to assert that the King of England would say to them, "If you do not recognise and co-operate with me in the propriety of this measure, I will interpose my prerogative to the frustration of an object on which the people insist?" Was that so, or was it not so? If it was, then he would say, that it was an unconstitutional compact, and the Minister ought to have come down, to the House of Commons, and have said, "We are called upon to enter into a compact which, if we submit to, we ought to be impeached;" and the House would have given them its support. But the truth was, that the House was not at that time compos mentis. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had read a list of names of some very eminent men, certainly, who were on the Pension-List. But that was no answer to his challenge; for all those names were placed on the list since the Pension Act passed; whereas his question applied to the practice prior to that period. The noble Lord had said there were only two petitions in favour of this motion. Very well. He would place it on the people. He was content to stand upon that point; and he now declared he would never bring the subject forward again until there were more petitions on the table than the noble Lord could lift. He knew very well, that when the petitions had been presented, and the motion was again brought forward, the noble Lord would say, "Oh, this will never do; there are too many petitions; if we accede to this motion we shall be yielding to clamour; we are not in a sufficiently calm and serene state for the consideration of this question; besides, the petitions are all written in the same hand—the very parchment is alike." The noble Lord's objection had satisfied him of what he had long since known to be a fact—namely that the Reform Bill was merely a name—that there was no Reform in that House unless the people would act upon their representatives; and that if they suffered them to give pledges one way on the hustings and vote another in that House, they must take the consequences.

The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 268:—Majority 122.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Gaskell, Daniel
Ainsworth, P. Gillon, W. D.
Alsager, Richard Grote, George
Angerstein, J. Gully, John
Attwood, Thomas Hall, B.
Bailey, J. Handley, H.
Bainbridge, E. T. Hastie, A.
Baines, E. Heathcote, G. J.
Baldwin, Dr. Hector, C. J.
Barnard, E. G. Hindley, Charles
Barry, G. S. Hodges, T. L.
Beauclerk, Major Hodges, T.
Benett, J. Horsman, E.
Bewes, T. Hughes, Hughes
Bish, T. Hume, J.
Blackburne, John Humphery, John
Blunt, Sir C. Hurst, R. H.
Bowes, John Hutt, W.
Bowring, Dr. Jervis, John
Brabazon, Sir W. Johnston, Andrew
Brocklehurst, J. Kemp, T. R.
Brodie, William B. King, Edward B.
Brotherton, J. Langton, Wm. Gore
Brownrigg, J. S. Lawson, Andrew
Buckingham, J. S. Leader, J. T.
Burdon, W. Lees, J. F.
Butler, Hon. Pierce Lennox, Lord G.
Cayley, E. S. Lister, E. C.
Chapman, M. L. Lushington, Charles
Charlton, E. L. Macnamara, Major
Chichester, J. P. B. M'Taggart, J.
Clay, William Mangles, J.
Codrington, Sir E. Marsland, H.
Collier, John Mathew, Captain
Crawford, W. S. Molesworth, Sir W.
Curteis, Herbert B. Morrison, J.
Curteis, E. B. Nagle, Sir R.
Denison, W. J O'Brien, Cornelius
Dick, Q. O'Connell, Daniel
Divett, E. O'Connell, John
Duncombe, T. S. O'Connell, M.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Oliphant, Lawrence
Dunlop, J. Oswald, James
Edwards, Colonel Palmer, Gen.
Elphinstone, H. Parrott, J.
Etwall, R. Parry, Colonel
Evans, George Pattison, James
Ewart, W. Pease, J.
Fancourt, C. St. John Philips, Mark
Fector, John Minet Plumptre, J. P.
Fellowes, N. Potter, Richard
Fleetwood, Peter H. Power, J.
Fort, J. Ramsbottom, John
French, F. Richards, J.
Rickford, W. Trelawney, Sir W.
Rippon, Cuthbert Tulk, C. A.
Robinson, G. Turner, W.
Roche, W. Tynte, Charles K.K.
Roebuck, John A. Villiers, C. P.
Rundle, J. Wakley, T
Sanford, E. A. Wallace, Robert
Scholefield, J. Walter, John
Sheldon, E. Warburton, H.
Simeon, Sir R. Wason, R.
Sinclair, Sir George Whalley, Sir S.
Stewart, Sir M. S., Bt. Wigney, Isaac N.
Talfourd, Sergeant Wilbraham, G.
Tancred, H. W. Williams, W.
Tennent, J. E. Williams, Sir J.
Thompson, Wm. Wilmot, Sir J. E., Bt.
Thompson, Col. Young, G. F.
Thorneley, T. TELLERS.
Tollemache, Hon. A. Harvey, D. W.
Tooke, W. Sibthorpe, Col.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral Chaplin, Thos.
Agnew, Sir A., Bart. Chapman, Aaron
Anson, G. Chetwynd, W. F.
Archdall, M. Chichester, A.
Ashley, Lord Childers, J. W
Bagshaw, John Clayton, Sir W.
Baillie, Col. H. Clements, Viscount
Balfour, T. Clerk, Sir G., Bart
Bannerman, Alex. Clive, Hon. K. H.
Barclay, David Codrington, C. W.
Barclay, Charles Colborne, N. W. R.
Baring, Francis T. Cole, Hon. A. H.
Baring, F. Cole, Viscount
Baring, H. Bingham Compton, H. C
Baring, W. Corbett, T.
Baring, Thomas Corry, Hon. H. T. L.
Beckett, Sir J. Cowper, Hon. W. F.
Bell, Matthew Crawford, W.
Bentinck, Lord G. Cripps, Joseph
Bentinck, Lord W. Dalbiac, Sir C.
Berkeley, Hon. F. Dalmeney, Lord
Bernal, Ralph Damer, D.
Biddulph, Robert Darlington, Earl of
Blackburne, J. I. Denison, John E.
Blackstone, W. S. Donkin, Sir R. S.
Boiling, Wm. Dottin, Abel Rous
Bonham, Francis R. Dowdeswell, W m.
Bradshaw, J. Duffield, Thomas
Bramston, T. W. Dugdale, W. S.
Bruce, C. L. C. Duncombe, Hon. A.
Brudenell, Lord Dundas, Hon. T
Bruen, F. East, James Buller
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Eastnor, Viscount
Buller, E. Ebrington, Lord
Buller, Sir J. Egerton, Wm. Tatton
Bulwer, H. L. Egerton, Sir P.
Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt. Egerton, Lord Fran.
Burton, Henry Elley, Sir J.
Byng, G. Elwes, J.
Byng G. S. Estcourt, Thos. G. B.
Calcraft, J. H. Estcourt, Thos. S. B.
Campbell, Sir J. Fergus, John
Campbell, W. F. Ferguson, Sir R.
Canning, Sir S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Castlereagh, Visc. Ferguson, Robert
Cavendish, Hon. H. G. Ferguson, G.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. C. Marshall, William
Finch, George Marsland, Thomas
Fitzgibbon, on. B. Martin, J.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Maule, Hon. F
Fleming, John Maunsell, T. P.
Folkes, Sir W. Miles, William
Follett, Sir W. Webb Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.
Forester, Hon. G. C. W. Morgan, Chas. M. R.
Forster, Charles S. Morpeth, Lord
Fremantle, Sir T. W. Mosley, Sir O., Bart.
Freshfield, J. Mostyn, Hon. E L.
Geary, Sir W. R. P. Murray, Rt. Hon. J.
Gisborne, T. Nicholl, J.
Gladstone, Thomas Norreys, Lord
Gladstone, Wm. E. O'Brien, W. S.
Gordon, Robert O'Ferrall, R. M.
Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. O'Loghlen, Sergeant
Goulburn, Sergeant Ossulston, Lord
Graham, Sir J. Owen, Hugh
Grattan, J. Packe C. W.
Greisley, Sir R. Palmer, Robert
Grey, Sir G. Parker, M. E.
Grimston, Viscount Parker, J.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Patten, John Wilson
Hale, Robert B. Pechell, Captain
Halford, H. Peel, Sir R., Bart.
Hamilton, Lord C. Pelhara, Hon. C.
Hanmer, Sir J., Bart. Pendarves, E. W.
Harcourt, G. Perceval, Colonel
Hardinge, Sir H. Philips, G. R.
Harland, W. Charles Pigott, Robert
Hawes, Benjamin Pinney, W.
Hawkins, J. H. Plunket, Hon. R.
Hay, Sir A. L. Powell, Colonel
Heneage, Edward Poyntz, Wm. Stephen
Henniker, Lord Praed, Winthrop M.
Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C. Price, S. G.
Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Pringle, A.
Hogg, James Weir Pryme, George
Holland, Edward Reid, Sir J. Rae
Hope, Hon. James Rice, Right Hon. T. S.
Hotham, Lord Ridley, SIR M. W.
Howard, R. Robarts, Abraham W.
Howard, P. H. Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Howick, Lord Ross, Charles
Jermyn, Earl of Rushbrooke, R.
Ingham, R. Russell, C.
Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt. Russell, Lord John
Johnstone, Sir J. Russell, Lord
Jones W. Russell, Lord Charles
Jones, Theobald Ryle, John
Knightley, Sir C. Sanderson, R.
Labouchere, H. Sandon, Lord
Law, Hon. C. Scarlett, Hon. R.
Lefevre, Charles S. Scott, Sir E. D.
Lemon, Sir C. Scott, James W.
Lennard, T. B. Scourfield, W. H.
Lewis, David Seymour, Lord
Lincoln, Earl of Sheppard, Thomas
Loch, James Smith, J. A.
Long, Walter Smith, A.
Lopez, Sir R. Smith, Hon. R.
Lowther, Col. H. C. Somerset, Lord G.
Lygon, Hn. Col. H. B. Stanley, E. J.
Mackenzie, J. A. S. Stanley, Lord
Mahon, Lord Steuart, R.
Manners, Lord C. Stewart, P. Maxwell
Marjoribanks, S. Strutt, E.
Stuart, Lord D. Ward, H. G.
Stuart, Lord James Welby, G. E.
Stuart, V. Wemyss, Capt.
Start, Henry Charles Westenra, H. R.
Surrey, Lord Weyland, Richard
Talbot, C. R. M. Whitmore, Thos. C.
Thomas, Colonel Wilbraham, Hon. B.
Thompson, C. P. Wilde, Sergeant
Thompson, Paul B. Wilkins, W.
Townley, R. G. Williams, Robert
Trevor, Hon. Arthur Williamson, Sir H.
Trevor, Hon. G. R. Wilson, H.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Winnington, Sir T.
Vere, Sir C. Wodehouse, E.
Verney, Sir A. Wortley, Hon. J. S.
Vesey, Hon. T. Wynn, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Vivian, Major Yorke, E. T.
Vivian, J. H. Young, J.
Vivian, John Ennis TELLERS.
Walker, Richard Smith, Robert V.
Walpole, Lord Wood, C.