§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the statement that the ages of the pensioners now living, who 68 years ago were on the Civil List of King George III., varied from 75 to 92 years, was intended to convey that some of such persons began to receive pensions at the age of 1650 seven years, and perhaps earlier, or whether such pensions were for two or more lives; when the persons now aged from 75 to 92 began to receive a pension, and at what ages respectively; on what grounds these pensions were granted; and, why, as they were all charged on the Consolidated Fund last year, the life certificates, which should be produced before payment, were not in all cases required?
§ THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)The hon. Member will find answers to the first three paragraphs of his Question, in far greater detail than I could give them here, in the Report of the Select Committee on Pensions in 1838. As regards the last part of the Question, I have to explain that a charge on the Consolidated Fund does not necessarily mean a payment. It is a provision against an anticipated payment, resembling the insertion of a sum in the Estimates. In the case of a pension no payment would be made, or would be passed by the Audit Office, unless supported by a life certificate.
§ MR. HANBURYasked, whether the hon. Gentleman admitted that some of these pensions began to run at the age of seven years?
§ MR. JACKSONIf the hon. Member desires to get information I will refer him to the pages of the Report, in which he will find the name and the full particulars of each of these cases.
§ MR. HANBURYThese pensions were all charged on the Consolidated Fund during the past year. The hon. Member told me the other day that in one case no certificate was received for three years. Was that pension paid or not? ["Order!"]
§ MR. JACKSONA charge on the Consolidated Fund is not the same thing as a payment out of the Consolidated Fund. It is a charge on the Consolidated Fund as a provisional payment which may become due. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I have made the most searching inquiries, and have satisfied myself that the payment has not been made.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)Can the, hon. Gentleman inform us whether, in the case of one of the pensions paid seven years ago, the pensioner must have been 136 years of age?
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, perhaps the hon. Member referred to the case of a pen- 1651 sioner who was 107 years of age; but he could not answer his Question without further particulars and Notice.