presented a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Cove, in the county of Cork, for the repeal of the Legislative Union; and, in doing so, he was almost inclined to agree with the hon. member for Kent, that they should have very little hope from the presentation of all these petitions, when they were obliged to go on presenting them day after day without any of his Majesty's Ministers being present, who had stated that they would resist this question to the death. He was almost at a loss to know what course he should pursue, more especially at a time when the cry for the Repeal of the Union was become so prevalent. The petition which he held in his hand was from the town of Cove; and he conceived that the inhabitants had a good right to complain of the Union, for their town had been formerly flourishing and prosperous, and now it had been deprived of all its resources, for the little that had been left had lately been taken from them. What had that House done for Ireland, that Irishmen should not expect something from a domestic Legislature? What measure had been passed in the Reformed Parliament, either of grace, or justice, which could give satisfaction to the Irish people? He was happy to see the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) in his place and he would say, in his presence,—that no Ministry had done more to destroy the confidence existing between Catholics and Protestants, than the Ministry of which the noble Lord formed a part. It had been said, that they looked for other measures besides the Repeal of the Union; but he begged to assure the House that, the Irish Members had no such intention. One of the greatest checks upon the conduct of Members of that House was to be obliged to return to their constituents; but what availed it for the 105 Irish Members to come down to that House, where there was no disposition to accede to any proposition, be it ever so good, which emanated from them? He had been, however, told that the Irish Members had lately enjoyed some triumph, because it had been agreed that Baron Smith should pay a visit to this country. The House had been told, that the Repeal of the Union was to be resisted even to the death, and that his Majesty's Ministers were determined not to pass a law for the dissolution of that Union. What then became of the right of petition—that inestimable right of Englishmen, and Irishmen too? He would tell the House and the noble Lord opposite, that even with the threat of resistance to the death before him, the measure would most surely pass, or the total separation of the two countries would ensue. He had lately attended nearly twenty public meetings, at some of which there were more than 40,000 persons present, and all unanimous in asking for a Repeal of the Union. The inhabitants of Ireland knew their own interests too well to submit any longer to the domination under which they had hitherto so severely suffered. The farmers knew that their retail markets were gone in consequence of the Union, and that they were dependant for their wholesale market upon the caprice of England. Which of the two markets was of most advantage to the seller or the buyer it was not difficult to decide. It was quite true that a family could live cheaper in Ireland than in England, the larger the more cheaply; but he (Mr. O'Connor), as a private individual, could live more cheaply in the heart of London, than in Ireland. The reason was, that the retail markets of Ireland were gone. If a steak was wanted there, an ox must be bought. The noble Lord opposite, would, no doubt, understand the peculiar advantage of that; and if a pound of butter were required, it could not be had unless a firkin were purchased. The mass of the produce of the country was sent to England, and sold at an enormous advance on the price paid for it to the Irish farmer, thus giving all the profits to the people of England. The farmers of Ireland knew this perfectly well; and it formed an incontrovertible argument with them for repeal. Hon. Gentlemen were too much in the habit of thinking that Ireland was governed by some established and unchangeable law, but it was no such thing; it was governed by the will of the Lord Lieutenant. The petitioners were perfectly alive to the situation in which they were placed by the Union, and their language was, that the Legislative Union had not produced them those advantages which the advocates of that measure promised would result from it." No, nor had any of those promises been carried into effect by his Majesty's Ministers. The Coercion Bill was introduced, and was said (and on that ground, obtained the support of the Gentlemen on that, the Opposition side of the House) in order to prepare Ireland for healing measures. What was the first Act of the Government? They allowed those who had not received tithes for many years, and among them, the Duke of Devonshire, to come in and exact them. That noble lay-impropriator and English Duke, came into the parish, where he resided and claimed 2,000l. from a pauperized population, not because he wanted the money, but because Government had given him the opportunity. He might be told that the noble Duke was not a Minister, but he was a member of the royal household. He would not, however, further trespass on the House, but conclude by asking the opposers of the Repeal of the Union what single Act had Ireland a right to thank them for since the passing of the Coercion Bill?

did not wish to enter into the merits of the speech of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, but he wished to convey to the House the real sentiments of the people of Ireland upon the question. He had reason to believe that they were acted upon by individual influence, and priestcraft, and that half the petitions would never have found their way to that House but for such influence. If the real sentiments of the people were known, they would be found to be heartily and sincerely attached to England. They had been deluded by the declarations of individuals, by their own ignorance, and by a latent power in that country to make them think that Eng- land was their bitter enemy. He would pledge himself to the House that half the petitions flowed from this source. In respect to the county he represented (Mayo) he knew that they were the fruit of a system of terror, and an influence totally unconstitutional. Those petitions were not the constitutional voice of the people, nor was the question one raised by the people, but by the hon. member for Dublin. He did not wish to say anything offensive; but he felt it his positive duty to state to the House, decidedly and unequivocally, and without fear, the exact state of the feelings of the people of Ireland upon this question.

begged to say, that the motives for getting up so many petitions in favour of the Repeal of the Union, were not caused by terror. Perhaps the hon. member for Mayo, might be displeased to find that petitions from that county were intrusted to him. But it was not wonderful when the hon. Member's constituents, on such a question, differed from him, toto cœlo, that they preferred a stranger to bring their wishes before the House. It was an error to suppose, that the question of the Repeal of the Union was one raised by the member for Dublin. No, it was the question of the people; and when Mr. O'Connell was supposed to hesitate in bringing it forward, the national will propelled him. If to-morrow that hon. Gentleman wished to set the question at rest, his popularity would not last one hour. What did this prove? Why, that it was impressed on the hearts and understandings of the people, because they felt convinced it was the only measure which could administer a remedy to their wants. There were many of the people in Ireland old enough to recollect the condition of the country before the Union; and when they contrasted it with the present state of things, they found that the only benefit the Union did the country was to increase taxes, and establish despotism; so much so, that scarcely a single constitutional privilege was left the Irish. In England no prosecutions were entered into against those who got up the agitation of any public question; but in Ireland it was not so. Such a deprivation of privileges was enough to convince the people, that a Repeal of the Union was the essential measure for restoring constitutional rights, and, therefore, they would persevere until they obtained it. There was no attraction in Ireland for men of capital and opulence to reside in it; it was all in England, and therefore Irish property was transferred here. In the county of Kilkenny the rental property was estimated at 400,000l. per annum, and 200,000l. of that was given to absentees.

was sure that the people of Ireland, must know that the Repeal of the Union would greatly impoverish that country, by preventing the sale of the produce of the land. There was one class of persons in this country who suffered severely from the connexion of this country with Ireland—he meant the English farmers and landlords. If the produce of Ireland were not imported into this country, his own land would be worth a third more than it was at present. He, however, was content to suffer this diminution of his property, but he feared it would be an argument of the hon. member for Dublin to the farmers and people of England, that the importation of Irish produce materially affected their interests; and this he felt was an argument with which it would be difficult to deal.

would merely protest against the strange accusation which the hon. member for Cork had made against the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that of being too courteous and conciliatory. He felt it his duty to say, and especially he felt it a duty, differing as he did most widely from the policy of the Government towards Ireland, to say, that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in his office, was such as to give satisfaction to all parties, as far as he could understand the public opinion in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had been, unfortunately for the Government, if not for himself, involved in one or two collisions with the people of the country; but these were legacies left him most injudiciously by his predecessors; and although the right hon. Gentleman should never have taken office subject to such an incumbrance, yet it might probably be judging him too severely to say, that he was to be considered entirely responsible for their acts. The hon. member for Mayo most egregiously deluded the Government and himself, when he stated, that the agitation of Repeal was founded on delusion. He would assert, in contradiction to the speech of the hon. Member, that the feeling in favour of a Repeal of the Union was nearly universal—that the whole democracy was in favour of it, and a large proportion of those of a higher rank. He could not understand the object of those who professed to be the friends of Government, in thus deluding them. With respect to what had been said by some hon. Members, that a British Legislature would effect all the good that could be expected from an Irish parliament, he would merely say, that he doubted much the correctness of that assertion; but he asked the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), how the progress of the question could be arrested? The noble Lord could not hesitate to reply that he hoped it could be effected by good Legislation, by equal and just laws, and by removing all abuses, and, in a word, treating Ireland as if it were part of the soil of England. Well, then, here was the locus pœnitentiœ—had the Government availed themselves of it? Where were the measures of relief?—where was the participation in British privileges?—where the identity of treatment which the word Union implied? Were they to be found in that gift of Pandora, the Coercion Bill? He could not promise for the successful result of the experiment, but he most sincerely wished that the noble Lord would make an essay, in justice towards Ireland, and if anything could arrest the progress of Repeal, that would. The hon. member for Mayo had said, that the petitions in favour of Repeal were influenced by terror; and he challenged the hon. Member to point to one instance in support of that statement. The hon. Member had made another assertion, that they were the work of priestcraft. He would take leave to tell the hon. Member, that he was not warranted in making that assertion, and he would venture to tell him, in addition, that it was not very becoming in a Gentleman who now at least represented a Catholic constituency, to use such language. He would only add, that there was not in Europe a country in which the influence of the priesthood—except that influence which was legitimate and just, and which for the good of society ought to exist—prevailed so little as in Ireland.

said, that his Majesty's Ministers had called those persons who supported the Repeal of the Union, disloyal subjects; but such was not a true description, and the employment of such language could only gall every one with- out answering any good purpose. If it were meant that the old system of remedies should be pursued, he could tell the Government that it would not do. By the papers which arrived this very morning, it would be seen that the Tithe Bill had completely failed, and that the police and the military were now again called out to collect tithes. It was impossible that some parts of Ireland could be in a worse condition than they were; and they might expect all kinds of disorders unless the aristocracy returned to the country. There ought to be an Address to the Crown, praying for the return of the aristocracy, for Ireland could only be governed by an army, or the aristocracy. At no time could it be governed by abuse and vituperation. Some individuals might, and he believed, had erred in their conduct, but they were not to be corrected by ill language. The people of Ireland, he repeated, did not seek for separation. They sought for a Repeal of the Union, because they felt that it would be beneficial to their country. They might be wrong, but they were open to conviction.

agreed with the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, relative to the expectations of the people not having been realised. When the present Administration had come into office, one great measure had absorbed all their attention, and as soon as that measure was passed, and that the Parliament had met, they found Ireland in a state of agitation from one end to the other, so that it was not safe for the resident gentry to reside there. Under these circumstances, what could they do, but press that coercive measure, for which, he must say, he was a reluctant voter. Many other hon. Members of that House, who had been originally averse to that measure, had been reluctantly converted to it from a consideration of the unfortunate position in which that country was placed. What Ireland required, in the first place, to insure her tranquillity, was a resident gentry; and, what was still more important, manufacturers, who would give employment to her labourers, and contribute to establish that retail trade which the hon. Member opposite had asserted was almost extinct. Were not the exports of that country many times greater than they were previous to the Union? and if the hon. and learned Member succeeded in getting the Union repealed, what would the consequences be? They would have a Legislature sitting in that House and in Dublin, and they would have the English people looking for protection from the Irish landed proprietors, and they would be continually imposing additional duties upon the butter, the cattle, the corn, and every thing exported from Ireland. That the Union had been accomplished by fraud, by violence, and by corruption, he was not disposed to deny. But the question now was, would it be expedient to repeal it? The Union with Scotland had also been effected by means that were not very creditable; but in Scotland they had had peace and industry since the passing of the Union; and was there a single Member of that House, or any rational man outside the House, who would say, that the Union with Scotland should be repealed? It would perhaps be exceedingly beneficial to two or three large towns if separate Legislatures were established. York might be benefited, and he would say the same of Norwich; and in fact they might revert to the Saxon Heptarchy; but it would be only in so much as the expenditure of the nobility and gentry would amount to. In his opinion the Repeal of the Union would be a most impolitic and unwise measure.

trusted that when the question was brought before the House it would be discussed calmly and satisfactorily. He would ask the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) how had these petitions been got up? Were they not procured by a system of intimidation? Had not associations been formed for the purpose of obtaining signatures?—was not the country agitated from one end to the other? He would merely ask the hon. Member to state under what circumstances these petitions had been got up.

begged to assure the noble Lord, that he was not aware of any system of intimidation or terror further than this, that Catholic tenants had been ejected from their farms by Protestant landlords for attending Repeal meetings. He had never heard of any associations having been formed for such a purpose, nor did he believe that any such existed. One word, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Drogheda, who had taken upon himself the office of apologist for the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them what the right hon. Secretary had actually done for that country. Ireland was so circumstanced, that let a Reformed Parliament give the wisest and best institutions that could be devised for the government of that country, the moment they were sent over, the furious aristocracy there would pervert and turn them to their own purposes, and according to the whim of a faction. The hon. Baronet behind him had reminded him (Mr. O'Connor) of the story of Rip Van Wrinkle, who had slept for forty years. He stated what the circumstances of Ireland were when he was last there; but if the hon. Baronet went now to Ireland he would find that he had been asleep for the last forty years, and that his reception would be a very different one. It had been alleged, that the exports of Ireland had increased; but it was because the consumption had been diminished, and it was no sign of the prosperity of a country that it exported all its food, while the people were starving at home. He should not have said so much but for the question put to him by the noble Lord; and he could assure the noble Lord, that he knew of no associations existing in Ireland for the purpose of making the people repealers.

said, that he could not allow the observations of the noble Lord opposite, and those of the hon. Members on that side of the House, to pass without some remark. He could assure the noble Lord and those hon. Members, that the question of Repeal would be brought forward in a mode which would convince the House and this country of the necessity there was for its speedy discussion, and for its consequent success. In Ireland, the question was brought forward in a mode which must ensure its success. The whole people of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, would in a short time be repealers—he might almost say are repealers. He would mention two instances of the rapid progress of the question in that part of Ireland, where it had, until very lately, but few advocates, and many and powerful opponents. In Armagh, where a candidate would not dare offer himself at the last election as a repealer, a meeting was lately held, and a petition for Repeal was adopted, signed by 1,500 persons, of whom 400 were Protestants. There was subsequently a dinner to commemorate the change of opinion on the subject in that county, and the question had now for advocates those who once were its firmest opponents. It was well known, that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland seldom interfered in politics, or took part in discussions irrelevant to their sacred calling. But upon this question he (Mr. O'Connell) had the recent opinion of a Bishop, who never before interfered in politics. He alluded to the present Bishop of Galway, who was many years parish priest in Athlone, and who was well acquainted with the opinions and feelings of the people of that country. This venerable Bishop now stated, that he was a repealer, in consequence of the King's speech, which he justly observed was as unconstitutional as it was uncalled for. The Bishop also stated, that it had the effect of making repealers of those who were formerly opposed to the question, or lukewarm upon it. Would the noble Lord deem this immaterial? He assured the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman opposite, that they were mistaken in supposing that intimidation was resorted to to procure signatures to those petitions. [The Earl of Ormelie: Agitation.] There was a great deal of agitation upon the question he admitted; but that agitation showed the anxiety of the people. [The Earl of Ormelie: Associations.] The Coercion Bill had put an end to all Associations. There had been a Repeat Association, but it was suppressed by the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation, under the Coercion Bill. Indeed all existing Associations were put down by proclamation, except one—the Conservative Club; but he would do the Lord Lieutenant the justice to acknowledge, that the reason why that was not proclaimed was that its members had discontinued their sittings. The agitation of the Repeal question was attributed to one individual. It would be quite absurd for him to pre-tend that he did not know that he was the individual alluded to. But the agitation was at its height in Dublin, when he was in the mountains of Kerry, thinking of something else. The people of Ireland were quietly and soberly resolved upon the Repeal. If the noble Lord would canvass the whole population, he would not find one man in ten whose mind was not made up on the necessity of that measure; or, if he found one man in ten who was not quite so determined upon the subject, that man would still be not so much opposed to the measure as ap- prehensive of the struggle which he supposed necessary to effect it; and a very proper and prudent apprehension that was. But it was absurd to make this a Catholic question. There was not a man in Ireland who did not think that the Repeal would be a very good measure, if it could be procured without force; and for his part, he would say, with all the solemnity with which he could speak in that House, that if he thought cither that the Repeal must be effected by force, or that, if effected, it would lead to a civil war, or separation from England, no man would be more opposed to it than he. The Coercion Bill had made more converts to Repeal than any agitation could make—and certainly he was bound to say, that he never saw the interests of any country so neglected, or any domination so shameful, as in the passing of that most unnecessary and unjustifiable measure. The King's speech had also contributed a good deal to the desire for Repeal. Every man must admit that the House of Commons was the place in which the question was to be finally discussed; and he wished that they should not have the discussion by instalments. It was hopeless, however, to prevent its being so discussed. For his part he could only say, that when he came to make his speech upon it, he would give the House credit for all the statements which he might have been induced to make in the meantime; and he hoped that they would come to the discussion with the good temper, sobriety of deliberation, and attention to facts, which the consideration of so important a subject would require. He hoped, that when the financial and commercial part of the question came to be considered, that neither side of the House would press the question to a division upon their mere statements; but that the House would send the matter to a Committee, to inquire into the subject fully and fairly. It was urged that, owing to the Union, Ireland had prospered much. The advocates of the Repeal of the Union say the contrary. It was admitted that the imports and exports of Ireland had increased. The question was this—were these imports and exports of a healthful character? The advocates of Repeal say, that the exports from Ireland, instead of being as they ought to be, beneficial to the country, are, in fact, only a means of benefiting the absentees connected with that country. It was also said, that the imports into Ireland had greatly increased since the Union; but if these imports, had the effect of destroying the manufactures of Ireland, then were these imports instead of being beneficial, greatly prejudicial to Ireland. If, for instance, the importation of blankets into Ireland, caused the destruction of no less than twenty-four blanket manufactories in the city of Dublin, could, he asked, an increasing importation of these articles into Ireland be a proof that Ireland was benefited by the importation? Again, with respect to sugar-refining, previous to the Union there were eleven sugar-refining houses in Dublin—now there was not one. In Cork there was seven or eight—at present there was not one. Could, then, he asked, the importation of refined sugar into Ireland, under such circumstances, be considered a benefit to Ireland? He had taken the liberty of addressing the House at greater length on this subject than he at first intended. He wished to press upon the House, that as the question of Repeal of the Union was not to be elevated by clamour on the one hand, so it was not to be put down by force or violence on the other. It was only by fair discussion, that the question was to be met. They must argue the matter calmly and dispassionately. This was the way in which he wished to argue the question; and it was only by doing so it could be fairly discussed. Before sitting down he would only add, as the conduct of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had been alluded to, that no Secretary had yet been in office so long without drawing down upon himself popular odium; but he believed that not one word of censure of the right hon. Secretary had yet proceeded from the independent part of the press. Neutrality was certainly, in his mind, the most desirable quality in an Irish Secretary.

could bear testimony to the courteous manners and kind feelings for which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was peculiarly distinguished. He had known his right hon. friend for a long time, and part of that time intimately; and he could say, that it did not surprise him that the right hon. Gentleman had gained the popularity he had, for he knew of no person who was better calculated to attract and deserve it. He was very glad to find that the question of the Repeal of the Union was to be debated in a manner that became a question of such import- ance. That the Repeal of the Union would be injurious to the British empire at large, he was certain, but most so to Ireland; and it was with satisfaction he had heard from the hon. member for Dublin, that the tendency of this measure was to be submitted to a calm discussion. It appeared extraordinary to him how the connexion of an opulent and poor country could be injurious to the latter.

The leech swells with the blood it sucks.

did not wish to say one word against the gentlemanly conduct of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, for he had always found him most courteous and obliging; but he could easily see why the popular Press had not opened upon him; those connected with that part of the Press believing that he was under the patronage and protection of the hon. member for Dublin. He would not say that he countenanced his views, but he did not oppose them with that spirit which might have been expected. He was sure that the right hon. Secretary countenanced no party, nor ever would; for himself, he would say, that he had always avoided being liable to be denominated a political partizan. It was true, that circumstances had occurred that caused him to take a part that would give colour for such an accusation; but he would appeal to any gentleman in Ireland or the House, whether he had ever been considered a violent party man? He was willing to give the right hon. Secretary for Ireland credit for being of no party, but he could not give him credit for much firmness. He did not believe that any Government had done so much as the present to forward the views, and give force to the measures, of the hon. member for Dublin. The decision of the House, in the case of Baron Smith, he believed, would spread dismay throughout Ireland, and fill the minds of the people of that country with disgust and amazement. For his own part, he believed that Baron Smith had never done more than adopt the course which he conscientiously believed, as a man, the circumstances of the country required; and he felt confident that every man, from the highest to the lowest, would lose all confidence in the Irish Government if the consequences of that decision were visited upon Baron Smith. If such a course were adopted, the people would think the Government acceded to the views of the hon. member for Dublin, the head of agitation—he did not mean the term offensively—the hon. and learned Member avowed he was an agitator, and he honoured him for that avowal; but the people, if what he had adverted to took place, would consider that infinite injury would be done to Ireland.

bore testimony to the courtesy and good disposition of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to do more than he did, were he not prevented by others. He must complain that the Government had lately refused the small sum of 300l., to defray the expenses of a survey necessary towards commencing the formation of one of the finest artificial harbours in the empire. He thought such indisposition to assist in useful works most injurious to the Government, The present Lord Lieutenant and the present Secretary for Ireland, had made themselves acceptable enough as men, but as statesmen they were nothing; and he believed they would be nothing so long as they remained under the trammels of the present Government.

was persuaded that the people of Ireland were not anxious for the Repeal of the Union, but their miserable condition had brought them into that state of mind that they would be better for a change of any kind. He thought the opinion was growing very fast in the House, and gaining ground out of it, that until the measure alluded to by an hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, the performance of full and unlimited justice to Ireland, and affording the people full opportunity of earning their livelihood honestly—until some such measure was carried into effect—tranquillity could not be restored to Ireland. There were hundreds and thousands of individuals dependent for their very subsistence upon the caprice of a single landlord. An hon. Member had mentioned the other day an instance of a landlord who ejected at once more than 300 families, consisting of upwards of 1,000 individuals, from their homes, and from their only means of subsistence. No wonder, then, that such a people, so distracted and distressed, should be ready for the Repeal of the Union, or the dismemberment of the empire, or any other mad project which promised them relief. If, therefore, the Government wished to reduce the agitation, and to disarm the hon. member for Dublin of his most extraordinary, unprecedented, and dangerous power, let them give the people some relief, and take them out of the power of the landholders, and also take measures to secure them against that state of famine to which they were exposed. It was not necessary for him to say much on the question of Repeal, as it was doubtful whether it would obtain the least support in that House. He regretted, however, that Government did not contemplate the introduction of a system of Poor-laws for Ireland during the present Session. He regretted this on account of the Ministers as well as the people, because a strong suspicion existed that the Commission lately appointed was intended merely to give the "go by" to the question, or to delay it from time to time, and from Session to Session, until some event should arise to prevent its further procrastination. It was stifled last Session by a promise, and six or seven months elapsed before the commission was appointed; since then another half-year had expired. The House had been informed by the Government that they did not expect the Report of the Commissioners to be made during the present Session. He confidently hoped the Government would determine to bring forward some measure of the kind alluded to, as he was sure it would give satisfaction to the English population, who felt the rivalry of the Irish labourers; and it would also be the means of restoring tranquillity, and with tranquillity prosperity to Ireland.

assured the hon. Gentleman, that the Commission was not issued with the slightest intention on the part of the Government to give the question the "go by." He confessed that during a former discussion he said, that he was, indeed, very far from having made up his mind on the subject. The information possessed by Government, and that possessed by the hon. Member himself, fell very far short of being sufficient to establish the fact, that Poor-laws would be beneficial to Ireland. It would not be prudent for any Government to make such a change without full inquiry and the completest information that could be obtained. It was from want of that information that Government thought they would be unable to introduce the question this Session.

said, it was his anxious desire to trespass as briefly as possible upon the attention of the House in the discharge of the duty he had taken upon himself; and the importance of the subject would be his excuse for at all occupying the public time. As he thought the Libel-law was at present in a very unsatisfactory state, he could not foresee any very serious objection to giving him leave to bring in a bill for its amendment. How far the provisions of the Bill, which it was his intention to suggest, would meet the evils which were admitted to exist, was another and a different consideration, and should not in anywise be mixed up with the plain question before the House, which simply was, "Did the Libel-law require Amendment?" To the member for St. Alban's, he should apologise for, in some measure, having taken the subject out of his hands; and he should not have presumed to have done so, were it not that he had one advantage from practical knowledge. His professional experience had given him facilities of acquiring information upon the subject which no lay Gentleman, if he might so speak, could possibly possess. The basis of his plan, was to secure freedom of discussion—to give increased facilities to free and independent discussion. The object of the Libel-law, was the protection of character; his object was different. He was anxious to give increased power to the tribunal of public opinion, which had been sacrificed in a too great anxiety, though he did not condemn that, for the preservation of character. He did not mean to underrate the importance of affording efficient protection to character; but even that was secondary to the establishment of a tribunal found to be the most effectual in checking the progress of public and of private delinquency. He knew of no control over vice so great as public opinion; and it was, therefore, his wish to strike down those points of the Libel-law which interfered with its exercise—carefully retaining, however, such portions of it as, without chaining down discussion, would be found effectual for the protection of character. If he could succeed in preserving both advantages—if he could give additional facilities for the dissemination of public opinion—and he might add, too, of public morality, through the powerful medium of the Press; and, if he could, at the same time, give to every injured man a sufficient remedy for any wrong he might sustain, and to all men a sufficient protection for their character, he should have accomplished that which he most ardently desired, and have rendered a great, and he trusted, a permanent good to all classes of the people. Such was his object. Without entering into the detail of the complaints so frequently and so justly made against the Libel-law, he should refer to the most obvious of the anomalies by which it was disgraced. The first, and perhaps the most glaring, that struck the attention was that, while falsehood was not punishable, truth, no matter whether religious, moral, or political, was held to be a crime. He had said, that falsehood was not punishable by the law of Libel. There was the falsehood of flattery, which was not punishable. A writer was at liberty to flatter the worst of men, or the worst of Governments. He might go almost the length of deifying the greatest miscreant that ever lived, and no indictment was ever brought against him. Yet surely, in its effect upon the morality of a nation, it was no less criminal to extol vice than to calumniate virtue. Another anomaly was, that truth was a libel, and some Judges had even gone the length of holding that the greater the truth, the greater the libel; and he should admit, that according to the present state of the Libel-law, they were justified. The excuse was, that the libel was calculated to tend to a breach of the peace, and certainly no libel was more likely to do so than a publication which carried with it the sting of truth, and the consciousness of being deserved. But that was merely a legal fiction, and an abuse, and nothing could demonstrate its absurdity more clearly than the fact that, if a breach of the peace did actually take place, the guilty party was, perhaps, imprisoned for a fortnight, a month, or six weeks, and, it might be, fined 10l. But if found guilty of a libel, down came the Judges, and, for an offence which could only be regarded as accessorial, six months' imprisonment was regarded as light punishment; and it often happened that a man was imprisoned for so long a time as two years for merely provoking a breach of the peace, while, had he absolutely committed it, he should have been merely imprisoned for six weeks or two months. But that was merely a pretext. He would put another case to the House; if a man made a speech or published a document, and was charged with having spoken or written a libel, he had many defences. He might show that it was his duty to have so written or spoken. He might show that he was—suppose a Judge—and that he had written or spoken in the discharge of his official duty. He might show, that he was a Commissioner appointed by Government, and that the proper discharge of his functions required him to write or speak the imputed libel. He might urge in his defence that he was a lawyer, or that the alleged libel was a true account of what took place in a Court of Justice. Any of these circumstances might be urged in justification of the libel; and the only thing he was precluded from urging in his defence, was the truth of the statement. Under the existing Libel-law, the indictment charged the accused with improper intention. Surely, there could be no better criterion of the intention with which anything was said than its falsehood. If it were false, and the party publishing knew it to be so, that would furnish the Judge with the best possible criterion of his guilt; but if, upon the other hand, the statement were true, its publication could not be regarded as evidence of evil intention. But there was another matter which had already struck the public, which exhibited in a very strong light the absurdity of the Libel-law. A man perfectly innocent of the publishing or the printing of a libel, might yet be punished for it. The present Libel-law had no definition—no description; and anything which reflected upon the Government, any thing calculated to hurt individual feeling, was construed to be a libel. Under these circumstances, if a man wished to speak of the Government, he could only praise it; for any thing in its disparagement might be construed to be a libel. Lord Redesdale having been called "a stout-built special pleader," it was held to be a libel; and Lord Hardwicke having been called "a sheep-feeder, from Cambridge," that, too, was held to be a libel; and he would pledge himself, that he never yet read a Newspaper which did not contain something which, under the existing law of libel, could not be construed into a libel. If it were a Ministerial Paper, it libelled the people; and if what was called a "popular" Paper, it libelled the Ministry; and if a neutral Paper, the chances were it libelled both. If a man sold a Newspaper which con- tained a libel, he could be prosecuted and convicted. So that every Newspaper-vender in the British dominions was liable to be prosecuted for selling a Paper which might happen to contain a libel. Indeed it was lately very gravely held, that it was the duty of every newsvender to take care that he did not sell a paper containing a libel; so that it became necessary for him to read every newspaper in his possession, and to take a legal opinion upon their contents. He should, in fact, be a lawyer as well as a news-vender. But there was another point of view in which the present Libel-law affected gentlemen more nearly. It was not necessary to receive money for reading a paper to constitute the publishing of a libel. If one gentleman handed a newspaper to another in a club-house, and it contained a libel, he would defy any lawyer to prove that, under the existing law, he could not be indicted for a libel. And, indeed, if some half dozen of the members at Brookes's, or the Conservative Club, were indicted and found guilty, it would probably have the effect of producing the desired change in the Libel-law. Such being the state of the Libel-law—being incapable of definition or description—depending, in fact, for its construction upon the discretion of the Judges—embracing every thing which might be construed as disparaging to the Government, or hurtful to the feelings of individuals—excluding from the defence of the accused the truth of the allegation—it surely would not be said that leave should not be given to bring in a bill for its amendment. In fact, so bad was the law, that the odium which attached to any person seeking protection from it prevented its intentions from being carried into effect. Public opinion was always directed against any person applying to the Libel-law for relief; and, without intending any disparagement to the noble individual to whom he was about to allude, he might illustrate his position by a reference to the case of Lord Durham. He was accused, and it appeared most unjustly, of very tyrannical conduct. He appealed to the Libel-law for redress; an outcry was immediately raised against him. Now, what was the use of a law of libel, if it were insufficient to meet a case of that kind? A man was assailed in his private capacity, and accused of tyrannical conduct by the party who were opposed to him in politics; but yet, so odious was the Libel-law, that he could not, by appealing to it, obtain redress. The noble Lord was forced—and he was glad that the noble Lord had been forced—to abandon his prosecutions; and, so long as the law remained in its present condition, no man could have recourse to it without soiling himself with the filth with which it was surrounded. The law, therefore, it was clear, required amendment. In its present condition, no man with a good character would think of availing himself of its protection. For his own part, he never yet knew a man who instituted a prosecution for libel, who did not come out of it a great deal worse; who, in fact, was not a great deal more libelled, before he was done, than he might originally have been. One case he was himself cognizant of, in which the prosecutor got 500l. damages; but, so blackened was his character in the course of the trial, that he was obliged to leave the country. At present, the law gave no remedy—no redress. Counsel for the defendant, in an action, had no right to urge the truth as a justification of the alleged libel; but then he had a right to deplore the existing state of the law. He might say, "Oh, Gentlemen of the Jury, I wish the law permitted me to prove for you the truth of this libel! If the plaintiff would but consent that I should examine witnesses to prove the truth of every allegation my client has made!" Thus it was that counsel might insinuate even much more than was contained in the libel; and the wrong sustained by the party might be greatly exaggerated by the very law to which he had appealed for redress. These were the anomalies from which he wished to vindicate the law. If asked upon what statute a party was prohibited from urging its truth in defence of an alleged libel, he could only say he knew of none. If asked for a rule of common law, he knew of none; for, certainly, a printed libel could not have been contemplated by any rule of common law. If he were asked, where was the Statute prohibiting the truth from being told in writing, his answer would certainly be, that there was no such Statute. Publication by printing was, of course, unknown to the common law; but, as a lawyer, he might refer to two Statutes; the first was the Statute of Westminster, 3rd Edward 1st; and the second, the Statute De Scandalo Magnatum, passed in 2nd Richard 2nd. The one was passed against the "bearers of false news and tales;" and the other against "the bearers of false news, and the utterers of horrible lies." The titles of these Acts showed the value that was then set upon truth, though truth, it seemed, was now of no value. What did the Judges do at a subsequent period regarding those Statutes? They met and solemnly determined that he who was to be punished for telling false news and horrible lies, was equally liable to punishment for telling the truth. This was, in fact, the Legislation of Judges—not expounding Statutes, but contradicting them. Then, as to cases in which actions were brought for damages—as that of a newsvender, or a Paper which copied the articles supposed to be libellous.—he would observe that, in Ireland, if any man got one farthing damages, he got his costs; whereas, in England, it was not so, the Judges having a control under these circumstances. In alluding to this, he would refer to the late case of the True Sun and Mr. Hunt, where the parties were punished, by costs, to the amount of 80l.; so that, as the law stood now, it was at the utmost peril that men published any newspapers; they knowing that 80 or 100 actions might be brought against them, where, though the plaintiff, in each case, might secure, perhaps, five shillings, the attorney pocketed 80l. There was one branch of the Libel-law which he would not touch upon—he meant that which applied to libels against Christianity. He did not wish to meddle with this part of the subject, because he did not wish to cause any opposition in the House, which might endanger the introduction of his Bill, as he thought it would be amply useful in its present form, and that he should do well in not involving himself with the House by allowing the law, in this case, to remain as it was. He thought that there ought not to be any punishment for libel against Christianity; such, however, was his private opinion; but the feeling upon which he acted, on the present occasion, was deference to the House. But he thought that, when a country was divided in opinion on these grave subjects, they were those in which, above all others, it was legitimate to impugn some of the doctrines held by others, and which, in his persuasion, were of great importance to him, as a Roman Catholic, for instance, who did not dispute the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. He really thought that there was no reason to make this a subject of penal restriction; but he did not touch this part of the law. He must protest, however, in saying thus much, against its being supposed that he did not object to the law on that subject, as it at present stood. He would confine himself, on the present occasion, to prosecutions and actions; and begged, in the first place, to call the attention of the House, to the difference between the law of libel and the law of slander. Libel, in the law, was written calumny—slander, in the law, was oral calumny. Calumny being the essence of both, it would have been thought that there ought to be no difference in principle. But there was a material difference—the law of slander was limited within reasonable bounds. No man could bring an action for slander, unless it imputed some crime—impeached him in his trade or business—charged him with having an infectious disorder, or had been followed by some special injury. In all these cases the legal description was sufficient for all practical purposes; but it was not so with written slander—it was confined by no bounds, and had broken through all limits; "everything," in the words of Lord Ellenborough, "that hurts a man's feelings is a libel, and may be made matter of action or of prosecution." Was it not an absurdity, that the same grievance should have a different species of remedy? It had been proposed, by that Judge, to bring up the law of slander to the standard of the law of libel. He had great respect for the individual who made this suggestion, but, with all becoming deference, he must say that he was exceedingly mistaken. The true way was to cut down the law of libel to the standard of the law of slander—thus, in all private cases, there would be fixed rules and boundaries of offences. Trespassing on the patience of the House for a few minutes longer, he would advert to the possible consequences of a change. Prosecutions were either public or private—at present anything tending to disparage Government, or, in the words of the law, reflecting on Government, was liable to prosecution. He meant to put an end to that, and to endeavour to find sufficient legal grounds to define what should or should not be a libel. He would state what he proposed to substitute. He took the law of principal and accessory. At present, if one man counselled another to commit a crime, the accessory could not be punished unless the crime had been committed. At common law, the accessory could not be convicted until the principal had been convicted; but that rule had been altered by statute. At present, no man could be punished as accessory, unless the crime he had advised had been committed. He thought that a limitation which ought to be excluded from the law of libel, because if a man were an accessory, the law ought not to wait for the commission of the crime. He proposed to make anything accessorial equally criminal, whether the crime were or were not committed. This would be done by striking out from the indictment the averment that the crime had been committed. By acting on this principle, he should be able to bring every offence of the Press within known categories of the law. In High Treason there were no accessories; in misdemeanour there were no accessories; and he thought this principle should be extended, and that the same rule should hold in the publication of matter proceeding merely to misdemeanour. The liberty of the Press could never be secured until that step had been taken. He then came to private libels; and here he would have nothing actionable that was not at present actionable as oral slander. Thus he would limit all private prosecutions to the bounds of oral slander. His next step would be to do away with ex-officio and other informations. Prosecutions for libel ought to be, like other offences, submitted first to a Grand Jury, and proceed by indictment. The Court of King's Bench would not grant a criminal information to any man who did not purge himself by denying the truth of the charge in the libel. This was one of the strange anomalies to which lawyers sometimes became reconciled by habit; for though the truth was no answer to a libel, the Court of King's Bench would not allow a man to prosecute in a particular form, without denying that the libel was true. When the criminal information was granted, the case came to be tried by the Court in the first instance, How? Upon affidavits—in the absence of the witnesses—without the means, therefore, of cross-examination, and without the power of sifting a single phrase or expression. When once the Court granted the information, it might, in fact, as well proceed to the sentence at once. Next he meant to take from Counsel for the Crown the right of reply in all cases in which the defendant adduced no evidence. He would allow of no second speeches for the Crown, except in such a case, and even then he would give to the defendant the right of having the last word in the proceedings. With regard to prosecutions before Special Juries, he thought Special Juries in the highest degree objectionable, and that the practice of bringing actions before them ought to be done away with. The evils of that mode of procedure, were strikingly illustrated in the case of Mr. Cohen, the editor and proprietor of The Brighton Guardian. With the circumstances of that case the House was well acquainted. Mr. Cohen was now suffering six months' imprisonment, and was, besides, subjected to a fine of 50l., for an offence of which he had been found guilty by a Special Jury. He did not believe that any man could suppose that Mr. Cohen had any ill intention in publishing the article for which he was suffering imprisonment. He was indicted for the offence at the Sessions, composed of the very Magistrates who were angry at his general political writings, and supposed themselves referred to in the article complained of. He was charged, in the indictment, with an intention to excite the lower orders to the incendiarism which had existed in that neighbourhood. The Special Jury before whom he was tried, and who had been, in the first instance, Judges, as Grand Jurors, as well as Special Jurors, convicted him of the offence. But what did the Judge think and say on the occasion? When the defendant was brought up for judgment, he told him he had been convicted by the Jury, but that he did not think Mr. Cohen had been actuated by any evil intention in the publication complained of; and, therefore, the Judge only sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of 50l. Though he adverted to the evils of Special Juries, he did not wish to see them abolished altogether. What he wished was, that there should be this distinction made between the prosecutor and defendant—that while the latter should have the right to be tried by a Special Jury whenever he chose, the prosecutor should have no such right without the concurrence of the defendant. This arrangement would constitute a safeguard to the Press, for which he had a high respect, and which he wished to see protected and afforded full liberty of discussion. The course he suggested would not, in any respect, interfere with the right of an aggrieved party to bring his action. He could do so by indictment, though not by criminal information. He would do away all ex-officio informations, though it might then be said, that libels might be published so rapidly, that the Attorney-General could not proceed fast enough against the offending parties. There would be no ground for this apprehension; and if there were, he knew of nothing that would excuse criminal informations. These were the principal features of the plan which he had to propose for the reformation of the law of libel; adding to it, that the truth of the allegation ought to be admitted as a defence. He knew there were many who would be adverse to this part of his plan. It might be objected, that if a man had, in early life, been guilty of improper conduct, but had since repented of that conduct, and acted in the most praiseworthy and exemplary manner for a long course of subsequent years, it would be hard indeed if the editor of a publication, or any other person, should be suffered, with impunity, to bring that one improper action before the public for the purpose of gratifying his own private spleen, or from any other unworthy motive. He admitted that such a case would be a very hard one indeed; but he conceived that, so far from the defendant commending himself to the Jury in the supposed circumstances, or bettering his condition, it would operate very much against him to urge the truth of such a statement in extenuation of making it. He wished the House to understand, that he did not mean that the truth of an offensive article ought, at all times, to be regarded as a justification for the publication: he only wished that the defendant should have the right of proving his allegations in his own defence; and he thought that, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a Jury would find that the proof of the charge ought to be a justification of the defendant, and entitle him to a verdict of acquittal. He now came to the question of speculative actions. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him during the time he had trespassed on their attention, and would not now detain them much longer. Without intending to interfere with the principle of the present law relative to the costs of libels, be wished to introduce a law which would have the effect of putting an end to the practice of bringing speculative actions against publishers. The clause he meant to introduce was, that in those cases in which the prosecutor did not recover more than 40s. damages, he should obtain no costs, but should, on the contrary, be made to pay the costs. If a man's character were estimated at 20l. or where 20l. damages were obtained, the plaintiff should receive no costs, nor be made to pay costs, but each party should pay his own expenses. If the plaintiff recovered 50l. damages, then he should receive the same amount in costs; but if above 50l. damages, then he should obtain all costs against the party responsible for the libel. These were the principal alterations he proposed to make in the existing law of libel. There were other minute things which he had not then mentioned, which might occur to him before drawing up the proposed Bill. He again thanked the House for the indulgence it had extended to him during the time he had occupied its attention. He begged to conclude by moving for leave to bring in his Bill relative to the law of libel.

rejoiced most sincerely to find that this matter had been taken up by such an able advocate as the hon. and learned member for Dublin. In many of the arguments which had been urged by the hon. and learned Member, he perfectly concurred, but he would not say much on the present occasion, as another opportunity would occur for him to state his sentiments. He was glad that the subject of proceeding by information was to be altered, and the very instance of the indictment of the editor of the Brighton Guardian had confirmed any doubts he might previously have entertained upon the question. In Westminster, he believed in three cases out of four, no prosecution followed upon the first proceeding. In the general principle of the Bill proposed to be introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he fully concurred; but at the same time he begged to reserve to himself the right of suggesting those alterations which he might think were desirable to be made.

had intended to move, as an Amendment to Mr. O'Connell's Motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to Inquire into the existing Law of Libel, and to Report to the House what Alter- ations ought to be adopted." But after hearing the hon. and learned Member's speech, he did not mean to persevere in that intention.

thought, it would be desirable to bring in a Bill to amend the law of libel, and therefore he would not oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, though he hoped he should not be understood as acceding to the details, because he was disposed to go to a certain extent with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's plan went farther than he should be disposed to go. The hon. and learned Gentleman had divided the question into two parts—namely, criminal prosecutions, and those by civil actions. In the first instance he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as he could understand him, went to this length, that truth might be pleaded and proved in cases of criminal prosecution. In cases of private libels, this system would operate most injuriously. With regard to cases of criminal information, though he, with the feelings which he entertained as to Grand Juries, would prefer a Bill being found by them to ex-officio informations, still as the question affected criminal informations, he entertained some doubts. He would not, however, enter into the details of the measure, reserving to himself the right to make such objections as might arise in his mind to the Bill when it was brought in.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. and learned member for Dublin to include in his Bill the right of bringing civil actions against more than one party for the same libel?

said, it was not his intention to limit the right of action to any given number of actions; but he thought, that the regulations which he had suggested, in respect to costs, would check the evil to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.

said, if the House would allow him, he would allude shortly to some of the details of the Bill proposed ["oh, oh."] He would then only express his wish, and hope, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce into his Bill some mode of registering the real, the bona fide proprietors of newspapers, pamphlets, &c, who should be made amenable for the consequences of libel. This was a point of great importance, and he wished to call the attention of the House to this, though there were many others upon which he was desirous of addressing the House; but, as it was usual to bring in a Bill at once without discussing it in detail, he would retain his observations for a better opportunity.

:^* Sir, it now becomes my duty to redeem a notice of Motion which I gave "at the close of last Session, and which I seized an early day in the present to renew upon your notice book, having for its object the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the consideration for which each pension has been granted, as the same appears in the List returned to this House and printed in August last. Taking into consideration the importance of the subject, and the great interest it excites in the public mind, I feel that there can be little occasion for an appeal on my part to the kindness and indulgence of the House. It is very true, that in a former Parliament, I should have viewed the unusual array of Members whom I now see before me, with feelings of no inconsiderable apprehension; I should have suspected that many of the large body of those whom I have now the honour to address, had been invited hither by the intimation of a Treasury note, to the effect, that a formidable and appalling Motion was to be submitted to their consideration, and urgently imploring an early attendance. But, Sir, in a Reformed Parliament, I feel assured there can have been no justification for inviting the Representatives of the people to oppose and falsify their solemn engagements; for I would appeal to every gentleman who hears me, who calls to mind the solemn compact into which he has entered with his constituents, renewing, as he has, that compact, by his recent intercourse with them, as he has traversed the counties and visited the cities and boroughs of this country,—and I would call upon him to tell me whether there be one subject of domestic interest to be compared with the Pension-list. Sir, if I were called upon at this moment to say what was the question which, more than another, hurled the late Government from their position, and placed the present

^* From the Essex and Herts Mercury, by authority.

Administration in their stead, I should say, that it was the hostility of the one to, and the avowed declarations of the other in favour of, an inquiry into these pensions. I am now addressing several hon. Members who were present upon the memorable division of November, 1830, when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the Civil-list consequent upon the accession of his present Majesty to the throne. Upon that occasion, it was proposed that the Pension-list, to which I intend studiously to restrict my Motion and my observations, should be limited to 144,000l. Upon that occasion, the right hon. Member, now member for Dundee (Sir Henry Parnell), moved, as an Amendment, and enforced that Amendment by various cogent, and, as the result proved, successful arguments, that that proposed List should be referred to and closely scrutinized by a Select Committee. That Amendment was resisted, but yet it was triumphant. The then Government was overthrown, and it introduced Reform and the Reformers of the present day; and this is the first occasion on which it can be fairly said that the question of the Pension-list has been impartially and coolly submitted to the deliberation of a Reformed House, pledged especially to the abolition of unmerited pensions. It is because this is the case, that I have been anxious to invite the attention of the House to it thus early, because experience tells me that every day gives strength to injustice, confirms irregular practices, and strengthens the plea by which they are maintained. It is very true that this question was partially agitated at various stages, previous and subsequent to the settlement of that great measure to which I have referred. Previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, every man's mind in and out of this House, was so entirely absorbed with its intensity, that even the matter under our present consideration appeared a point of minor importance; yet, Sir, it was not lost sight of; those who were anxious to maintain their consistency, and who threw out insinuations of their determination at some future period to scrutinize the List, were admonished not to be too tenacious of their object at that period, lest it might interpose an obstacle by which Reform itself might be endangered, if not defeated. But, Sir, we have happily triumphed in that measure; the people more than this House, aye, more than the Government, yes, even more than our constitutional Monarch, have secured that splendid victory; and it has been one of their first and earnest expectations to reap the benefits of it; there is no subject towards which their attention is directed with such just anxiety, or in which so much of chastened indignation is mixed with firm resolution. Under such circumstances, I own it has been to me matter of equal surprise and regret, to hear that this Motion is to be opposed. I make this observation thus early in the Debate, that no Member who hears me, and who is anxious to escape from the Motion in consequence of the length and dryness of its details, may find an apology for his absence, in the expectation that it is to be granted. No, Sir, every man who feels that he is pledged to his country to establish economy—every man who does not shrink from his engagements to redeem those pledges—every man who is not prepared to say that promises are mere delusions, which he looks to redeem by the security which the long period of seven years unhappily affords—must not flinch from his post, but be present and do his duty on this occasion. I fain could wish, not only in this, but on similar Motions, that a course were pursued in our discussions which I cannot help thinking as calculated to save the time of the House. When a notice of Motion has been given on a subject of great importance, I think it would be well if those who were opposed to it were to commence with the ground of their opposition. I am speaking in the presence of lawyers, who will tell you that it is ofttimes a struggle in court which gentleman shall first begin. It would be well for those whose title is impeached, to stand forth and defend it; it would be well if a Reformed Government stood forward to show on what grounds the persons whose names are contained in this Pension-list claim as of right to subsist on the industry of the country; it would be better for those who have marshalled themselves on this occasion in dread array to defeat this Motion, if they were now to come forward and become at once its honest advocates. I know well the weight of that ingenuity, of the sinister dexterity, I have to encounter. It would be far better for me to say at once, "I move that this Resolution be carried;" yet, if I did so, we should be told that it was a marvellous thing for a Member sitting on the Opposition bench to be silent. His Majesty's Ministers would say, "When an adherent on our side of the House refrains from speaking, the object and his motives are obvious, but for an opponent—one arrayed against the Government—to be silent, is indeed a miracle; yet it is not to be doubted that such a course would have its advantages, because, while I have no apprehension of the defeat of this Motion on its merits, yet I dread a contest with that force which is opposed to me, prepared as it is to seize any accidental suggestion by which the real merits of the question may be evaded. If, for instance, I were to analyze this Pension-list, and to speak of any one individual upon it in terms even of measured kindness, all the fashion and feeling marshalled before me would at once be up in arms. What a pity it is that every hon. Gentleman opposite has not come down to the House on this occasion, habited like the mover and seconder of the Address, in a court suit! With what capital effect would some hon. Gentlemen be able to rise and say, "I came down to the House somewhat inclined to think that the opinions of the people were of little worth, and that a shorter than a septennial Parliament might bring me into contact with my constituents, and, therefore, I was prepared, under some slight modification, to entertain the Motion; but when I heard the hon. member for Colchester single cut lady A. or lady B., and speak of them in such ungenerous, uncourteous, violent, and democratic language, I became indignant, and at once resolved, at all hazards, to defend this List and to resent the rashness and violence of those who dared to breathe a whisper against the character or pretensions of those who appear upon it. I shall not, therefore, touch the List upon the present occasion. It is too sacred and too delicate to be touched by unhallowed hands." For these reasons, the House would be pleased to have a Committee, for the purpose of showing that from the oldest dowager down to the youngest beauty, there is not one on the List who has not earned the pension by substantial public and honourable services. Sir, let it not be supposed that the laborious multitude of this country, although they may-express themselves in uncouth language, although their hands may be stretched forth uncovered with silken gloves, and although they may not step with the ease and grace of the drawing-room, that, therefore, they grudge compensation to real merit. Do not suppose that if this Pension-list should contain names, be they few or many, nay, all whose claims are based on meritorious service, although that merit may have lost something of its lustre by the rust of time, and although those who could best speak to their title may now be no more—that, on that account, the rude blast of the public voice will drive such supplicants from your Committee. No, Sir, the people are too honest and kind-hearted; indeed, the real objection to vesting in Parliament an unlimited power to reward merit, is the just fear that the generosity of the people would out-strip their resources. This pleasing truth has been one argument against submitting each case to the candid consideration of the people—for I delight in the idea that, when speaking to the Reformed House of Commons, I am speaking to the Representatives of the people, and that all those who were used to come to this House through agencies unknown to that power are now gone, and that there is no one instrument in this House which is not under authority and influence, and bending responsibly to the moral energy of the nation. Why, then, should we dread the decision of the people? But it becomes necessary for me to state shortly to the House how this matter stands in a historical point of view. Prior to the date of what is generally known by the name of "Burke's Bill," the power of the Crown in granting pensions had no other limit than a sense of decency. How much was the fund of that decency is shown by the state of things at the time when that justly celebrated measure was brought forward. From that period various attempts were made, during the reign of George the 3rd, to bring the Pension-list under the cognizance of this House; for the advocates and admirers of high prerogative principles, previous to, and at the time of the discussion of Mr. Burke's Bill, maintained that the King's prerogative justified any grant that his country, nay, his caprice, might think fit to bestow. When it was found that the prerogative was restricted by that salutary measure to a sum of 95,000l., in regard to England; 50,000l. in regard to Scotland; and that a corresponding limit was afterwards ar- ranged in regard to Ireland. When, I say, it was found that some bounds were put to the Royal extravagance, it was contended, that whatever Parliament had granted was placed at the disposal of the Crown, beyond the control and supervision of this House. Sir, in these feelings and sentiments, those who advocated them were perfectly consistent. But, at different periods, it was contended, by some of the oldest and most eloquent patriots of the country, that this list, thus restricted, was open to the inspection of the House; and on several occasions experiments were made, with various success, to establish the principle of constitutional control. Sometimes the attempt was made in the shape of a Motion for a return of the entire list; and the parties opposed to the grant contended, that those who asked it could not call for the whole list, because the power of the Crown to dispose of this money as seemed to it fit, was not to be disputed, except in instances of palpable perversion and criminal abuse; that all else was censurable curiosity, and must be resisted. This contest between the people and the Crown, was carried on with varied success, as patriotism rose in the thermometer of the public feeling. But, without troubling the House with a detail of what passed on those occasions, and was said by distinguished men, who were then in this, and some of whom are now in the other House, I will bring your attention down to the year 1830, when the doctrine of prerogative was still maintained, and struggled for; but it was overthrown, and its advocates paid the price of their consistency, by their extinction. Toryism was supplanted by the present Government; and then it was that the present Ministers were expected to redeem their pledge to the country,—that the entire Civil-list should be referred to a Committee of this House. This was affected to be done; and I have now before me the result of their labours, in a Report made to the House shortly after. Although, previous to the appointment of the Committee, it was powerfully urged by the right hon. member for Dundee, then representing the Queen's County, that the Pension-list ought to be subjected to the strictest scrutiny, yet, for reasons with which I, of course, cannot be acquainted, that Committee touched no item on that list, but came to a Resolution, recommending the following arrangement:— The Pension-list previously proposed was 144,000l.; they proposed that 75,000l. of that amount should be placed on the Civil-list, and the residue carried to the Consolidated-fund; and that they might not—impartiality in all things being a virtue with them—be accused, in making the division, of picking out all the decrepid and declining dowagers on the one side, and all that was cheering in infancy, and beauty, and joy, and hope, on the other, they divided all the names in the List alphabetically, from the letter A to the middle of the letter H, and planted them on the Civil-list; leaving the residue to the last letter, to be disposed of on the Consolidated-fund; the effect of which arrangement would be, so far as regarded those persons whose names appeared on the Consolidated-fund, when death had established stronger claims to them than the living, the chasm should not be filled up; and to that extent there would be a sluggish benefit to the Exchequer; but so far as concerned the 75,000l., from A to H, they were to remain upon the Civil-list; so when any pensioner fell, his place, should be filled by the will and command of the Crown. The future Pension-list, when death shall have purged the Consolidated-fund, would be limited to 75,000l. Now, Sir, as I disclaim most solemnly all influence of party motive, in bringing forward this question, so I must admit, that there was much liberality in this arrangement, inasmuch as while, previous to Burke's Bill, the Pension-list was without bounds, and subsequent to that Bill, and up to the demise of the Crown, it was very considerable, the prospective effect of the new alteration was to restrict the power of the Crown, in granting pensions, to the comparatively small sum of 75,000l. Although this arrangement was well understood by the House, as being part of the plan suggested by the Committee, yet it in no way met with the satisfaction of the House. It was justly impugned by every hon. Member who rightly looked to the objects of a Pension-list, and to the financial advantages that would result from economy in dealing with it. It was doing something, but not enough. I may here be allowed to notice the part which I took, because I am one of those fortunate individuals whose obscurity is their protection,—who may say a thing one day, and repeat it the next, without any apprehension of being reminded, that the same thing had been stated the day before; while, on the other hand, there are some men, so important and imposing, that what they say makes an impression on their auditors not to be effaced by the long lapse of twenty years,—at every stage of the Civil-list, and when the Reform Bill was uppermost with us all, I uniformly stated, that I reserved to myself the right of challenging the Pension-list whenever it should be directly brought under the consideration of the House. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, cannot forget the statement which he made, after the recommendation of the Committee had been suggested. He then proposed, that there should be a partial and limited grant for the Pension-list, not exceeding three months. On that occasion, many hon. Members—I will not refer particularly to any one, because it would be invidious to omit any—suggested, that the matter ought to be considered; and, although at the same time disinclined to withhold their assent from the proposition for a partial grant, yet they protested against being committed to the principle to which it might be regarded as giving sanction. Then it was the noble Lord opposite said, with his usual candour,—a candour far more powerful than eloquence,—that no Member would be committed by that vote, nor deterred from its future consideration. Indeed, the observations of the noble Lord on that occasion are worthy of remark; and I will quote them as I find them in the Mirror of Parliament, for February 4, 1831. He there says,—"It is certainly true, and no man is more ready to admit it than I am, that many of the pensions on the List are such as ought never to have existed; but, on the best examination that I have been able to give them, it appears that a large majority of these pensions are purely pensions of charity; and, therefore, to take them away now, after they have been so long enjoyed, will be to inflict great distress on many individuals." Now, Sir, the point I seek to establish, and for which I contend, is this,—that this part of the Civil-list is as much open to the control and inspection of Parliament as it was in the year 1830, when the hon. member for Dundee challenged the proposal of the late Government, or as it was after the matter had come from the Committee to the House, not, indeed, as the result of investigation, but of no investigation at all. Then, Sir, what is the ground, if I may gather it from the rumours which float around us, on which it is proposed to resist this Motion? I feel that I ought long since to have ceased troubling the House, and rather have begun and ended with this question—"Are you prepared to stultify your own resolutions? But the resolutions of the House are so many and move on before our eyes with such unheeded rapidity, that we may be pardoned if we do not carry in our minds every vote; yet, on this subject, there can be no forget fulness. It will be remembered, that, in the month of May last, I moved for a Return of each pension, stating the specific amount, the period of the grant, and the consideration of each grant. The noble Lord opposite then concurred in the Motion, with one restriction. He expressed himself perfectly willing and ready to give the Return, with the explanation required, so far as regarded that portion of the Pension-list which had been allotted to the Consolidated Fund, but said, that he had doubts as to the propriety of extending the order to that part which was placed on the Civil-list. However, feeling the force of the original obligation, and not being prepared to forfeit the bright character which he had earned by his consistent course of conduct, when speaking of this matter on this side of the House, confined his opposition to a mere suggestion, and the motion, as originally framed, was passed. It was true that the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, entered the House just on the eve of its decision, but, happily, not in time to interpose his successful resistance, as he contented himself with saying, that he should forbear his opposition, inasmuch as I had then made my reply; but if he had entered the. House a little earlier, and before I had made my reply, there is little doubt I should not have been now in a condition to address this House, for I should have been so maimed and mangled as to have been glad to escape with signing a truce, the condition of which would be, that I should never dare again to touch the Pension-list. The question now before the House is, whether the House is prepared to abide by its own order, and whether, the first effort proving unsuccessful, it will not attempt another. I will say one word on that order. On the 22nd of May, 1833, in the first Session of the Reformed Parliament, it was ordered, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously-pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of all persons on the English, Irish, and Scotch Pension-list, heretofore paid out of the Civil-list and Consolidated Fund, specifying, with each name, the sum received by each individual, the period of the grant, the public grounds or other consideration, as far as practicable, on account of which they have been granted; distinguishing those who are widows or orphans of deceased public servants, and such as are in receipt of any salary, profits, pay, fees, and emoluments, from any public source." Such was the order. Has it been complied with? Can it be complied with? We are told that it cannot. I am much inclined to think that it cannot be complied with, and for this reason. An hon. Member, the Representative of Merthyr Tydvil, in the former Session—in the Unreformed Parliament—for I like to distinguish between the Reformed and the Unreformed Parliaments—that hon. Member, in the Unreformed Parliament, wished to obtain a Return of one specific grant, in respect to which, no one but himself could have any belief that it was not founded on valuable public services. It was due to his eager and undecaying patriotism, that his extreme scruples, in this matter, should be satisfied; and he had what some may call the tenacity, but I should say, the spirit and integrity of true patriotism, to ask for the consideration for which a lady of the name of Arbuthnot has a pension of 900l. a-year on this List. The Return was made, and what were the words of it? That it is granted to trustees, to be paid to the lady during her life, but to continue during "our pleasure." Now, I take for granted, that in each individual instance in which a return similar to this was asked for, it would be couched in the same words, or thus: "Whereas we are graciously pleased to grant to our well-beloved Dorothy, the clear annual sum of—l., to be continued during our pleasure." I do not inquire whether, in some instances, a softer appellation might not have been applied to them, yet, the term is during pleasure, and very rightly, for whoever gives pleasure, should be recompensed in the same feeling. When, there- fore, I consider of this matter, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord is, in his conduct, more deserving of applause for the sinister dexterity of his resistance than of praise for disinterested patriotism. There is a great bustle made about this List; there appears no objection to give us the names upon it, the dates of the grants, and their amounts, but the only really valuable object, the consideration, is withheld: we can only learn, that the pension is given to sundry affectionate creatures, "during our pleasure." That is the response to all our inquiries. The noble Lord seems to think that we shall run through the entire List, and be amused with this Return, and there ends the matter. In this he is mistaken. It is quite clear that there must be another inquiry. We must have a Committee of real upright patriots, who will call before them every person whose name appears on the List, to state the consideration for which the grant was made. Then one of two things will happen. All of them who have any real ground, any valuable consideration to assign, will be eager to rescue themselves from the opprobrium which the general and just feeling of the country attaches to this Pension-list, under the belief that there is not one honest grant in it, but that they are all the reward of political servility or drawing-room compliance. So far, indeed, Sir, from considering, as has been hinted, that the Motion which I am about to place in your hands is an un gallant one, calculated to plant thorns in the bosom of virtue, I say this, that if I were twenty-five years younger, and desired to win all sorts of praise from the fairest of the creation, I should make precisely this Motion; for it affords to those who in every respect are innocent of blame, a shield against the foul imputation which has indiscriminately gone forth against them, that they are luxuriating in lascivious indolence, rioting upon the industry of the country. The whole House would cry shame against such an imputation. When I see on the List a number of distinguished names—upwards of 200 persons actually bearing titles, and whose manifold appellations show that they are intimately connected with other titled personages, I am quite satisfied that such an imputation cannot be suggested in this House without arousing a spirit of chivalrous rivalry, who, among our romantic nobility shall step forward and avenge their proud and fail-associates from the imputation of revelling and noting upon the labours of the country, without rendering a valuable and ample equivalent. Let us, then, concur in the Motion and thus redeem them from this ungenerous imputation. I believe that while many persons would be rushing forward with trophies or emblems of reward in their hands, and thus at once not only silencing suspicion, but receiving the amplest meed of praise, there are some who would retire from the contest, and who when asked to produce their titles, would beg leave to tender their grateful acknowledgments for having been so long the unmolested recipients of the nation's bounty—perhaps for some half century; and with all possible thanks for the supineness of the people and the protection of the parliament, resign all further claims for grants without merit, and services not without suspicion. Thus we should protect retiring honour, and chastise criminal imposition. The Motion I now make is in furtherance of that system, by acting on which his Majesty's Ministers have derived their claims to the public countenance as the friends of economy; and I am sure that they will hail every similar suggestion with a favourable feeling, and regard all who make them as friendly to themselves. What more need be said in support of this Motion? In May, 1833, they offered that to be done which it appears now cannot be done in the way then suggested. I propose, therefore, that a Committee should be appointed, to whom these grants should be referred, for the purpose of ascertaining what consideration has been given for them. I am aware that it will probably be contended by some gentlemen, that whether we restrict the Pension-list to a small or a large amount, whether it be prudent or otherwise to grant any stated sum to be disposed of as the Crown shall seem fit; it is ungenerous, and cannot be tolerated, that in a British Parliament, whose feelings are liberal and affectionate towards the Monarch, who so nobly and consistently co-operated with the darling wish of his people, that we should investigate, or even suspect the grounds on which specific grants have been made. Against that doctrine I decidedly protest; but it is not sufficient for one individual so to do. Some, indeed, of the most distinguished men in the present Government, as well as some of the greatest among their predecessors, have always discountenanced that opinion; they have always given this construction to the Pension-list—that it is an uncontrolled disposition of a limited grant. But there are those who have contended otherwise, who say that it is a sum of money entrusted to the Crown, to be appropriated to public and useful purposes, of which merit and service must be the sole basis—the Crown standing in this case as the trustee for the people. If it were otherwise, why is there any control at all, as was well said by the noble Lord opposite before he entered his present situation. If we are not to look on the List, why have it at all? If we are not to deal with it, why have it? The List is now as foul or as fair as it ever was. It has never been looked into. It never could be, because there have been other matters of paramount importance to absorb the attention of the House—still its investigation has ever been uppermost on our minds—we have held it in reserve to bring forward on the first suitable occasion. Will it be now said, as it was said by the noble Lord on a former occasion, that he will grant the Motion as restricted to that portion of pensions which is placed in the Consolidated Fund? But even that concession will be made to depend upon circumstances. If he finds the Ministerial affection more than usually rampant, it is very possible that he will not grant so much; but if he finds one member after another, representing counties and large towns, rise, and say, "that however he may be disposed to act with you generally, yet that, having during the recess visited our counties and cities; having gone into our market rooms and partaken of the humble fare, for none other than humble fare is now to be found there; calling to mind what he there heard and saw,—he is so fully convinced of the deep feeling among all classes, and when speaking of all classes he meant not the vulgar unreading democracy, but the thinking and intelligent middle classes,—that every practicable economy should be enforced, and therefore he dare not, cannot vote against this Motion." Then, when that is found to be the case, four or five Gentlemen of the Cabinet will put their heads together, and say, "This is very unpleasant—truly awkward—but we must listen to the dull prejudices of these peo- ple; therefore we will have a modified Motion; let all the poor souls from H to Z on the Consolidated Fund be taken and jostled together as they please, and God speed the result." Against that sort of Amendment I protest. I am not aware that I need trouble the House further, as I reserve to myself the usual courtesy of being allowed to reply to those objections which may be urged to my Motion; and I therefore only thank the House for the kind and patient hearing which has been afforded to me, and conclude with moving "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the consideration of each pension in the List ordered to be printed in August last, and to Report therefrom to the House."

said, that before going into the general question which had been brought forward, he was anxious to disembarrass it of some circumstances in which the memory of the hon. and learned member for Colchester had certainly failed him, with respect to the Debates and Resolutions winch on former occasions had taken place. The hon. Member had stated, that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the member for Dundee (Sir Henry Parnell) on the subject of the Civil-list, was to refer the Pension-list to a Select Committee; but, in reality, it was to refer the whole of the Civil-list to a Committee, and, as far as he recollected the Debate, he did not think the Pension-list had been very particularly insisted on. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman had attributed to him the opinion, that this was to be an open question. Now, he had admitted, certainly on the occasion referred to, when proposing a grant of money for a particular period, and postponing for some time the bringing forward of the Civil-list Act, that up to that time it was open; but he had never stated, that it would be generally open, for after the Civil-list Act was passed, such an opinion would be directly contrary to the provisions of the Act itself. He had stated, when the hon. and learned Gentleman formerly introduced the subject, that it would be extremely difficult to vindicate all the grants in the Pension-list; but what was the real question which the House had now to decide? He apprehended the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman amounted to this—that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the pensions, with a view to decide whether they should continue, if it should appear that they had been improperly granted at the first. It was upon that ground that he felt perfectly ready to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition. The House must recollect that there was a great and most essential distinction between the questions, whether a pension legally granted at the time had been properly so granted, and, whether, being improperly, but legally granted, it should be taken away? He did not hold the doctrine, that the pensions on the Civil-list were completely without any control whatever, even though the prescribed limits were not exceeded; the Government for the time, as the responsible advisers of the Crown, being answerable to that House for the course they might recommend. But, then, the responsibility should be visited on the proper parties, without taking away the benefit from those on whom a legal right had been conferred, because the advice which had originally been given might afterwards be considered to have been mistaken. On the occasion to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded, he had argued, that, as these pensions had always been considered as grants for the lives of those who held them, though you might have a legal right to take them away, you would commit an act of injustice if you did so. That was, undoubtedly, the case at the last discussion, but it was not so now. At present, whether they looked to the justice, or to the legality of these grants, it must be admitted, that, during the reign of his present Majesty, the parties in possession have a legal title to them. If the House entered into a consideration of these grants, with a view of taking away the pensions from the present holders, it would take away from them a legal right. It might be, that the responsible Ministers of the Crown, in advising these grants, acted wrongly in giving such advice; it might be, that the original grants were quite indefensible, but the parties had received them according to law; and if the House proceeded to take them away, it would be depriving them of a right strictly legal. The hon. member for Colchester had admitted that a great reduction had been made of late years in the amount of pensions on the Civil-list. The hon. and learned Member had truly stated, that, up to the time of Mr. Burke's Civil-list Bill, there had been no limitation as to the amount of pensions charged upon the Civillist. At present, that was no longer the case; and, in order that the House might more distinctly understand the limitation which existed, he would state how much the Pension-list had been reduced since the accession of his late Majesty, in 1820. In that year the pensions charged on the Civil-list of England amounted to 74,200l., on that of Ireland to 67,377l., and on that of Scotland to 37,191l.; besides those charged on the four and a half per cent duties, which amounted to 24,290l., making a total of 203,058l. At the accession of his present Majesty the pensions charged on the Civil-list of England amounted to 74,200l., on that of Ireland to 51,155l., on that of Scotland to 30,467l., and on the four and a half per cent duties to 25,122l.; making a total of 180,944l. The House would recollect, that when he brought under its notice the proposition respecting the Civil-list of his present Majesty, he had proposed that these three different Civil-lists should be taken away, and that they should be all consolidated into one; upon which 75,000l. a-year was fixed as the limited amount of pensions to be charged in future; thus making a prospective reduction of 138,058l. a-year below the amount of pensions in 1820. One question which the House had to consider then, but which it was not called upon to consider now, was, whether any such sum should be granted for such a purpose. He contended, that it was right that the governing power should have means at its command for the reward of merit, for the relief of persons of station in distress, and for the remuneration of those who had distinguished themselves, not in the public service of the country, but in the scientific and literary attainments of civil life. Hon. Gentlemen might, perhaps, quote instances of pensions which did not come under any one of these categories. He did not mean to say, that there were not some names on that list which ought not to have been there; but when he said that, he must add, that it was an abuse of power which had placed them there, and that those who advised the abuse were, and ought to be, responsible for it. The right to grant these pensions must exist somewhere under every government. There were names on the present list—and he had never denied, nor would he now deny, the fact—which ought not to have been there. But the strongest objection, as it appeared to him, against the list was, that it contained the names of several persons who were rightly placed upon it originally, but who, since that time, had acquired large incomes, which rendered them unfit objects for Royal benevolence. [Cries of "No."] What! was not that change in their fortunes any objection to their continuance on the Pension-list? He thought that it was an objection, and a very strong and proper objection. Though he was not prepared to take away any legal right from those now in the enjoyment of it, he would say this,—that he should be sorry to be in the situation of such individuals, enjoying a large private income, and, at the same time, receiving a considerable pension from the Crown. He had now stated the grounds on which he objected to the inquiry proposed in the present Motion: he objected to it because he thought that it was unjust to take away from any man that which was legally given to him. With respect to the power of granting these pensions, he should be sorry if it did not exist, when it was considered how many objects there were to which it might properly be directed. When he considered the purposes for which such a power ought to exist,—when he considered that it provided a fund from which rewards could be distributed to eminent public service, and assistance could be administered to persons who, from their rank and station, were not able to obtain the means of existence by entering into ordinary professions, and were yet placed in distressed circumstances,—when he considered that you could in this manner aid persons engaged in scientific and literary pursuits, and soothe the declining age of such a man as Mr. Dalton,—when he considered all this, he was convinced that the power of granting these pensions ought to exist; but he must add, the greater the utility of having the power, the more was every abuse of it to be condemned. He admitted, likewise, that if a case were made out of gross abuse in the grant of a pension, it was a case in which a Minister ought to be made strictly responsible. In saying that, he did not mean to admit, that it would be either right, or just, or proper, to take away from the party holding the pension the legal right to it which he had acquired. As to his own opinions on this subject, he had stated them so frequently, that he felt that he had no occasion to repeat them now. He would simply say, that he should be sorry to be a party to such a proposition as that made by the hon. member for Colchester; and he earnestly trusted, that the House would not adopt it. He was ready to admit, that there was a strong public feeling excited on this subject. He admitted, that the name of pension was an odious name, and that a Motion for the abolition of all pensions was, and necessarily must be a very popular Motion. He had, "therefore, stated what the circumstances of the case really were; he had pointed out the facts as they existed at the accession of his late, and as they had been altered since the accession of his present Majesty. He would now proceed to record, in a resolution which he would propose, as an Amendment, to the House, the principles on which he thought that the responsible advisers of the Crown ought to act in such cases in future. It would be desirable that the House should lay down, as a guide to Ministers, the principle, that no pension should ever be granted unless the Minister recommending the grant were convinced that the person who was to receive it had rendered some service to the country, so as to deserve the recommendation. It would, however, be unjust to grant the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and to affirm that persons, having a legal right to their pensions, should be deprived of them because the original grant of them was disapproved of. He should move, as an Amendment, the following Resolutions:—

That it appears, from papers before the House, that, upon the accession of his late Majesty, the charge for pensions on the Civil-list of England and Ireland, the hereditary revenue of Scotland, and the four and a-half per cent duties, stood as follows:—

England	£74,200
Ireland	67,377
Scotland	37,191
Four and a half percents	24,290
	203,058

That on the accession of his present Majesty, the charges of an analogous nature amounted to the following sums:—

England	£74,200
Ireland	51,155
Scotland	30,467
Four and a half percents	25,122
	180,944

That his present most gracious Majesty having placed at the disposal of Parliament his Majesty's interest in the hereditary revenues, in the droits of the Crown and of Admiralty, as well as the casual revenues, both within the United Kingdom and in his Majesty's foreign possessions, two acts were passed by which the Legislature, in proof of dutiful attachment, assigned a Civil-list, for the life of his most gracious Majesty, and raised further charges on the Consolidated Fund, thus providing for the honour and dignity of the Crown, and for the support of the Civil Government. That under these acts a sum of 75,000l. was fixed as the amount of the pensions on the Civil-list of his Majesty, the balance of the existing pensions being otherwise provided for, by which arrangement, on termination of the existing interests, the whole charge of the pensions, except the charge on the Civil-list, will become a saving to the public; and the charge for pensions, which is now 44,263l. below its amount in 1820, will be reduced eventually to 75,000l., being 138,058l. below that sum. That under the provisions of these Acts the charge on the public has already been reduced, since the accession of his present most gracious Majesty, by the sum of 12,149l.; and that the further reduction of the expenditure to the sum limited by the Civil-list Acts is progressive, and has been fixed by law. That it is the bounden duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to recommend to his Majesty for grants of pensions on the Civil-list such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country.

agreed with the noble Lord, that there ought to exist a power somewhere of rewarding merit; but, at the same time, he would maintain, that that House ought to possess the power to determine whether that power had been exercised properly or not. If it appeared to the House, as the Representatives of the people, that the advisers of the Crown had improperly applied the money of the people, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that not only the responsible advisers ought to receive punishment, but that the persons who obtained the money ought no longer to receive it. If that House had been induced to pass an improper law—if it had been misled to confirm improper rights—the best thing it could do would be to abolish the law, and to destroy such rights. Every day that House was employed in curtailing legal rights, and in abolishing laws. If, in abolishing rights, the House did any individual wrong, it was the custom to com- pensate the sufferer. If, in abolishing these miscalled rights, the House did no injury, but only placed the pensioners in the position in which they ought to have been, and in which they would have been had not the wrong been done in their favour, then it could not be said, that the House was going beyond a proper exercise of its powers. What was the position laid down by the noble Lord? A person advised his Majesty to confer certain grants on individuals; the adviser went out of office, or died; and yet the improper grant could not be rescinded, or taken away, on account of its having been given on the responsibility of a person who was no longer responsible. Perhaps not a person might be in existence who had been concerned in advising the grant of an improper pension; not one might be within the reach of responsibility; and yet, said the noble Lord, the House must continue to pay the sum that had been so improperly granted. He would ask the noble Lord to point out the persons to whom he had alluded as being improperly and unadvisedly placed on the List. This country was the most profuse and lavish in the world of public money; but its profusion was not exhibited towards literary merit, or merit of any sort, except corrupt merit. It was bestowed on those who had done what was called secret service. God knew what such service meant, what it had been; but it would be satisfactory to know distinctly what sort of merit constituted such secret services. If anything were done which ought to be rewarded, it might be safely told to that House, and the House had a right to institute an inquiry into it. He appealed to every Gentleman in that House, at least to every man who had any constituents, whether by the vote he gave that night he was not going to be pledged to the people of England to inquire how far their money was disposed of. He was ready to agree with the noble Lord, that the amount of the pensions were paltry; but the expenditure was so large, that every individual sum, of whatever amount, must appear trifling. The principle involved was by far more important than the sum itself. In saying that these pensions were a legal right, and that the House ought not to disturb it, the noble Lord had gone much further than he, or any democrat in that House had ever gone, to disturb legal rights, by confound- ing the just with the unjust, and mingling together what ought never to be con founded. The noble Lord had gone far to break down all barriers between right and wrong, by the Resolutions he had moved, in opposition to the motion. The noble Lord had gone far to sanction the pensions he acknowledged to be improper, and the grounds on which they had been granted. He had not only supported the abuse, but the principle upon which all such abuses ever had and ever could be committed. He, for one, would enter his protest against the vicious principle which the noble Lord had advanced; and, he trusted, that the House would, at least, show its consciousness of its responsibility to the people by supporting the motion and rejecting the amendment.

had seen, with extreme regret, the course which his Majesty's Ministers had taken. He was sorry to say, that the noble Lord was not following up the principles which he had professed, and that he obliged him to vote against the Government, to which he was conscious that the people owed many and great obligations. He could not see anything whatever that ought to prevent the inquiry called for on the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester. The pensions, if legal at all, could not be legal for more than one reign. The noble Lord had been pleased to acknowledge that the pensions were odious to the country, and he could say, that they were most thoroughly and most justly odious, to every class of the people. Much more than the amount of the List was involved in the question. There was a principle involved, and it must be obvious to every man that, in the cases of the abuse of power which the noble Lord had acknowledged, the pensions which had resulted from such abuse ought to be done away with. There was another ground on which he felt it his duty to support the motion. It would be the duty of that House very shortly to inquire into the evils of the Poor Laws. Vast numbers of paupers were supported at the expense of the industrious, and if in the investigation of the Poor Laws the House went into that subject, it would behove them much more to examine into the cases of those who were connected with the aristocracy, and were possessed of large property, and who were yet living on the people. He deeply regretted that Ministers intended to resist the inquiry, which was essentially necessary to set that House right with the country.

was of opinion, that Ministers ought not on such an occasion to shrink from uttering their sentiments or from acting upon them. His mind was not influenced by any party motives or personal considerations, and he might state, that he acted from no feelings of sympathy with any of those whose individual interests were involved in the discussion. In looking at the list of these pensions, he certainly saw much reason to condemn those who had advised the granting of many of them. He was also fully aware of the excitement which prevailed out of doors on this question, and of the great obloquy which all who opposed the motion would be liable to. He could have no motive except a sense of public duty for taking the course which he certainly should take. He hoped that he never would be disposed to shrink from the performance of his public duty. Whatever reluctance he might feel in addressing that House, it did not proceed from his wishing to shrink from the responsibility of his vote, or from any fear or reluctance to expose the grounds on which he voted. The question before the House had assumed a very different shape from that which it used to bear, for, since the former motion that had been made upon the subject, the pensions, which from time immemorial had been granted for the lives of the persons holding them, had been sanctioned and confirmed by the laws of Parliament. It was, therefore, on the ground of those acts, it was on the ground that Parliament stood pledged on the subject, that he rested his opposition to the present motion. His noble Friend in his Resolutions had strongly laid down the future responsibility of all Ministers who advised the granting of pensions; and, he trusted, that his Majesty's Ministers, and all others that might hereafter fill their situations, would feel that pensions were not to be disposed of at the mere will, the pleasure, or caprice of the Sovereign, but that they were to be granted in the execution of a trust by the King in disposing of the public money, and that they were to be given solely as the reward of merit. He trusted, that the principle would be strongly borne in mind in future; but feeling that the present pensions were sanctioned and secured to the holders upon the faith of a Parliament, and that they were founded on immemorial customs, and that the possession was granted for the lives of the holders—that they were granted by persons who had the power to grant them—and feeling that in voting for the Committee he could not consider himself but as giving a power to the Committee to take away each pension, he should feel himself bound to oppose the motion. It would be nugatory to vote for the Committee if he did not support the Committee, if they should recommend the taking away of the pensions. Whatever reluctance he might feel on the subject, he could not take any other course than that of voting for the amendment.

was really surprised at the speech of the noble Lord, representing, as he did, a large constituency, which he would say, had done itself honour in sending him into that House, pledged as he was to support every system of economy that was consistent with honour. The noble Lord had admitted that many of these grants were most improper, and had said that it was his wish, in concordance with the resolution of the Cabinet, to have the money allotted to the Crown properly applied, and to what purposes? The noble Lord said, that it was money in trust for the people, granted to the Crown to reward merit, to support those who from rank and station had fallen into misfortune and distress, and to assist men of literature and science. He thought that the noble Lord, instead of talking in this loose and general way, had better attend to the sound sense and shrewd observation of the hon. member for Exeter; for, with what face could the noble Lord come down to the house and say, "I will introduce a law which will take from the poor man the scanty pittance which the law now allows him, but I will not even permit an inquiry into the circumstances of the noble pauper, who is quartered on the public, lest it should deprive him of the large portion of public money on which he now lives in luxury and comfort?" Was this politic? He would not ask, was it just? The poor man had no connexions upon earth to assist him, and might starve if deprived of his miserable dole; but the noble pauper had connexions to assist and support him in case he was deprived of the public booty on which he had so long fattened. Was it on that account that the poor man was to be mulcted, and that the aristocratic pauper was to pass scot-free? He knew not how the noble Lord, after proposing so large an expenditure of the public money for the mendicant members of the nobility, could venture to propose a law, which he would not be able to carry without some difficulty—a law taking from the poor their present amount of relief, with a view of bringing back the poor laws to the healthy state in which they were when first established. There was no probability of injustice being done to any individual in consequence of the proposed inquiry: the cheers with which the mention of the name of one gentleman upon the list had been received, showed that the House would always be ready to recognize and attend to the claims of persons of merit. He reminded the noble Lord (the member for Devonshire) Lord Ebrington, of what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, he thought, many of those pensions ought not to have been granted, and expressed a wish, that they never had been granted. Could it be said, after this admission, that those who were now favourable to inquiry were advocates of injustice? How could a proceeding which the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer fairly admitted that he wished never to have taken place, be one for the House or the supporters of Ministers to sanction? It was not sufficient to rely upon the technical grounds of an act of Parliament in order to support the continuance of an admitted injustice. Let there be an inquiry, and let a line be drawn between merited and undeserved pensions. Could anything be fairer than that? If some pensions had been granted improperly, was it to be supposed that his Majesty would not thank the House for affording him an opportunity to remove from the pension list those who had been long fattening on the public purse? He was not prepared to repeal the acts of Parliament; but if it should turn out that many of the objects participating in the sum of 75,000l. were totally undeserving, and that their pensions were disgraceful, would it be degrading to the Crown, after full inquiry, to address his Majesty on the subject, and request him to erase such pensioners frem the civil list? Surely, that would not be an improper interference with the Royal prerogative, but the contrary; doubtless his Majesty would feel satisfaction in removing from the list unworthy objects, and placing upon it in their stead men deserving of the public bounty, and who had distinguished themselves by public services or scientific or literary acquirements. If this were done, people would no longer look upon pensions as something disgraceful, but as the reward and result of meritorious services. At present the case was widely different. He did not wish to mention individuals, but he could name one person who had already received 46,000l. of the public money by way of pension, and he should be glad to know whether he was entitled to the public liberality for any services that he had ever performed. The Acts of Parliament in question would not have been allowed to pass as they did, but for a dread of their rejection being attended with other consequences of a disastrous nature. Ministers were now bound to admit of the proposed inquiry, in order to make the amende honorable to the House and the country for previous injustice. If the House refused to grant an inquiry which took from no man or woman a single farthing, but only ascertained on what principle pensions had been granted, the country would not be satisfied. The popular voice was against the pension list—why? because it was full of abuses, and an imposture on public liberality. Pensions had been improperly and corruptly granted, and of such pensions the list ought to be purged. The pension list boasted of some names which did honour to it—such was that of Rodney; and if others of a different description were not found there, no complaint would be heard on the subject. The object of an inquiry should be to place pensions on a proper footing of meritorious services in the pensioners or their progenitors, and to secure the country against a diversion of the public money to persons who should never receive it, and who could only be appointed through the most corrupt practices that ever existed. Did he ask the noble Lord to do anything contrary to honour or integrity? By no means; it was for the honour of the country that unworthy pensioners should be removed from the list. Take the three first names on the pension list: he had calculated that those individuals had cost the country no less than 90,826l.; this was calculating their receipts at compound interest. He had calculated what the whole list had cost the country, and found that the sum exceeded 11,000,000l.; Were there eleven worthy objects upon it? He called upon every Member who had any respect for the credit of the House to agree to the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester, without reference to the noble Lord's resolutions. A promise to do well in future was not enough, and ought not to induce the House to allow the plague-spot which had been long since contracted to continue. He was for purging the present unworthy list of its incumbrances; at the same time he should be happy to vote for the continuance of the pensions of those whose public services or literary and scientific acquirements gave them just claims upon the public bounty.

would support the Resolution of the hon. member for Colchester upon its own merits, and because the noble Lord's Amendment offered no answer to the Motion. The noble Lord's Resolutions contained a string of truisms to which anybody might assent and nevertheless vote for an inquiry, inasmuch as the Amendment had no bearing on the question, and was of no value whatsoever. The noble Lord had made two important admissions, of which he hoped the House would not lose sight; first, that, legally speaking, those pensions had no existence after the death of the Sovereign by whom they were granted; and secondly, that there were many names on the list which ought never to have been there. He rested his support of the hon. Member's Motion on those two propositions of the noble Lord. The noble Lord argued as if Parliament was about to take away the pensions of deserving persons; but he (Mr. Robinson) denied the desert of the parties, and was satisfied that if they were deserving, we should never have heard a word against the Pension-list either within the walls of Parliament or out of doors. His notion was, that if a Committee were granted, every person who could show a decent claim to reward for public services would have his pension continued, and that even in doubtful cases, where pensions had been enjoyed for a number of years, and distress would follow their abolition, the utmost consideration would be bestowed previous to the adoption of a decided course. All he asked was, that where there existed no pretence of public service, and no just claim on public munificence, and where parties were able to support themselves without aid from the public purse, pensions should not be continued. This was perfectly fair and reasonable. He did not consider the Motion as conveying any imputation on the present Ministry, who were clear of offence in the matter, and whom he believed to be quite incapable of recommending improper persons to his Majesty as objects of public bounty. He said thus much in reference to the existing state of the Pension-list of which the present Government were not the authors; but if Ministers persisted in opposing an inquiry, people would not be well able to see the difference between those who had advised the granting of improper pensions, and a Government which threw the whole weight of their influence into the scale in order to prevent their removal. If Ministers thought proper to oppose an inquiry in their individual capacity, he saw no reason why they should make resistance to it a Government measure, or call upon those who generally supported them to vote against the Motion, inasmuch as though Ministers should be left in a minority (as he hoped they would), he did not see how it would affect their stability as a Government. For his own part he was of opinion that this was a fit subject for inquiry, and, disclaiming all hostility to his Majesty's Government, he should give his cordial support to the Motion.

said, the hon. member for Middlesex had declared that he sought no economy inconsistent with honour. It was on that admission that he opposed the Motion; and unless the hon. Member could draw a distinction between honour and justice, he thought he should be able to satisfy the House on that principle, that the Motion was objectionable; and he then trusted that he should not find himself in the minority which the hon. member for Middlesex seemed to anticipate. It had been, observed by the hon. member for Bath, that the sum in question was small in comparison with the gross expenditure of the country; true—but a subject like this could not be entertained as a mere question of economy. The hon. member for Middlesex had certainly swelled the amount most enormously by the somewhat preposterous computation of compound interest. This was raising up a phantom—a phantom, which, though it might produce but little effect in that House, was calculated to make a great sensation out of doors. The House would see that such calculations were like that arithmetical puzzle, with which boys were sometimes amused, and which consisted in estimating the cost of a horse, by successively multiplying the nails in the animal's shoes, beginning with one, and fixing that at a farthing, and multiplying progressively, by which process as hon. Members knew, the value of the horse was made out to be almost as great as the National Debt. If any inference was to be drawn from the large sums said to have been paid to some individuals, it was that many of those pensions were of very great antiquity, and that those persons by whose recommendations they were granted had been long deceased. How would the House be able to deal with such cases? He implored the House to consider the great difficulties in which they would involve themselves by an inquiry of this kind, and would then ask them, when they considered the small amount of pecuniary saving, whether it were worth investigation? The hon. member for Worcester had admitted that no blame would attach to his Majesty's Government with reference to these pensions, as the names upon the list were not selected by those with whom he had the honour to act. If, therefore, members of the Government came forward on what certainly was an unpopular side, he was sure that no man, on an impartial and candid consideration, would accuse them of looking with a favourable eye on those grants, on the maintenance of which a sense of public duty alone induced them to insist. The hon. member for Colchester need not expect from him any of that sinister dexterity which the hon. Member deprecated, though he had displayed a great deal of dexterity of one kind or another. The hon. Member had said, he would not deal with names, but nevertheless, with the dexterity (he did not say sinister dexterity) of which no man in that House was a greater master, the hon. Member had involved the subject in much of imputation, and had rendered it as invidious as possible to many individuals, without leaving any fact for his opponents to grapple with. The hon. Member had dexterously referred to the opinions of the constituency, and certainly that was an appeal which he for one was not afraid to meet. At a numerous meeting of his own intelligent constituents he had been asked by them how he would deal with the Pension-list, and as it was after he had explained his opinion to them on the subject that he was elected, he had nothing to retract. He had on being questioned by his constituents, answered, that he would not defend many of the names contained in it. That there were many names on it which ought never to have been placed there; but, at the same time, that he preferred the adoption of a course with a view to prevent the recurrence of abuses in future, rather than, by the removal of existing names to enlist the claims of sympathy, against the cause of salutary reform. He had expressed his conviction that Ministers would not add a single name to the Pension-list on improper grounds; if he found himself mistaken in that belief, he should consider it his duty to separate from them and oppose the attempt; but that he was not prepared to take away from individuals what had already been given them by the law of the land; he would not do so, because he thought such a proceeding would be unjust. The persons whose names were upon the Pension-list held their pensions upon security given them by the law of the land, passed on full deliberation, with all the means of inquiry in the hands of Parliament. Such being the case, he looked upon the question as resting upon a solemn contract. [No, no.] Gentlemen who cried "No" would have an opportunity of disproving his statement by argument, which was preferable to any interruption. He was prepared to show, by reference to acts of Parliament, that the individuals now upon the Pension-list possessed the fullest security which it was in the power of the Legislature of the country to afford. If, at the time of passing the Civil List Act, and the Act by which pensions were charged on the Consolidated Fund, Members had only the gross amount of the Pension-list before them, some pretence for complaint might exist, but the Pension-list itself with all its items was on the table of the House long before the Acts were passed; and every Member must have known every objection that could be raised to every one of those pensions previously to the passing of the Bills. It was with a full knowledge of all those objections that Parliament had passed the Acts. The Pension-list was an open question until those laws had been passed, but afterwards it ceased to be so, unless the Parliament was now prepared to agree, not merely to the removal of those names, but to a censure upon the Government and of the Legislature which had passed those laws. The hon. member for Middlesex talked of the pretext of an Act of Parliament; did he mean that the law was a pretext? Would he tolerate persons who spoke of the Habeas Corpus Act, or the Bill of Rights, as a mere pretext of an Act of Parliament? The pensions had been granted by the three branches of the Legislature, and though it had been considered expedient to limit such grants in future, it would be most inexpedient, unless they meant to loosen all that Parliament had most strongly bound up to examine the grounds of the several existing grants, with a view to rescind them. The hon. member for Colchester had truly stated, that prior to Mr. Burke's Civil-list Bill, pensions were granted at the discretion of the Crown, and, subsequently to that bill, the gross amount was the only thing limited. Although he had before observed that he did not rest the question on mere pecuniary grounds, it might be worth while, having stated the grounds upon which the right to the pensions rested, to compare the Pension-list of the present day with that of former periods. Looking at a favourite year of economy, 1792, he found the amount of pensions then to be 208,900l.: comparing the present amount with that, there already appeared an actual saving of 40,100l.; and the eventual saving, when the provisions of the existing Acts were carried into full effect, would be 133,900l., or nearly two thirds of the present amount: this is the result as compared with the economical year of 1792. Even since the commencement of the present reign, what had been the effect of the prospective measure which had been then brought forward by his noble friend? The beneficial consequences of that measure had already begun to show themselves, though his noble friend had not adverted to them. Since November, 1830, up to the present time, the actual saving effected by his arrangements had been 12,000l. a-year, and the contingent saving would amount to 130,000l. The great question between him and the hon. Gentlemen opposite was, whether the House forgetting all moral principles, and all those principles which gave force to their own acts, should proceed to set aside Acts of Parliament, and injure existing interests, or whether they would not rather wait a short time, till these grants were extinguished in the course of nature? He would ask, what did gentlemen propose by going into Committee? What did they expect to extract through the means of that Committee? He would not, indeed, attribute to any Gentleman an undue curiosity, or any prurient desire to pry into the private affairs of others: but for his part, he did not see what other object the examinations before the Committee could attain. He was told, to be sure, that they wanted to go into the origin of those grants. Now, as the antiquity of most of these grants was admitted, the majority of the Ministers who were responsible for advising them, could not be forthcoming: were Members then to take the list up—to call all the parties before them (the responsible advisers for the grants not being in existence), and to enter into the private merits of each individual grant? Was that the course of inquiry which it was proposed to institute? He could not imagine an inquiry of a more disagreeable character to the parties inquiring, and of a more painful character to the parties into whose affairs they would have to inquire; while he could not divine what single object of real practical utility could possibly be obtained by the adoption of such a course. He would only say, that should such a Committee be appointed, the Gentlemen that would occupy the future chair would neither have to undertake a very agreeable nor a very useful course of examination. He must be allowed to say, that the hon. member for Colchester had not dealt quite fairly with the Ministers. The hon. Gentleman said, "Support your own resolutions; and whereas, on a former occasion, your resolutions went to call for an account of the motives or considerations on which these pensions were granted, I now call upon yon to do that by inquiry which you were then prepared to enforce by order." All the Ministers meant and all they stated, on acquiescing in that order was, to engage that if on the face of the written instrument, they could find assigned the reasons upon which the pension was granted, to produce as a matter of course each grant to the House. There was not one of those grants, a copy of the warrant for which could not, upon Motion, be laid before the House. They all ran in almost the same words; and in no case did they specify any consideration, except the will and pleasure of the Sovereign. The principle, in fact, of all such grants was, that they were acts flowing from the will and pleasure of the Sovereign. The hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion, and the hon. member for Middlesex who supported it, differed upon some rather material points. The hon. member for Colchester considered the Civil List Act and the Consolidated Fund Act as both equally fit objects for inquiry, and of course for revision. But the hon. member for Middlesex acknowledged, that he was pledged to the Civil List Act; he would not therefore touch the pensions that were placed on it, but he would have those placed on the Consolidated Fund inquired into, with a view, if possible, to their reduction. Now, what would be the effect of adopting such a proposition? Why, simply this—that as these pensions were arranged in literal order, all those after the letter H would be submitted to inquiry, while those placed before that letter would be exempt from any examination. He would admit, with the hon. and learned Mover, that if one of those Acts was open to inquiry, they were both open to it; but being prepared to deny, that either of them could, with propriety, be subjected to such an examination as that now proposed, he was bound to resist an inquiry into either of them. He had said, that these engagements were in the nature of a contract. He was ready to prove this proposition. At the time of the accession of his present Majesty, the House obtained an entire and absolute abandonment, not only of the hereditary revenue—which, upon any other former occasion, had been surrendered by the Crown—but of other revenues, which, up to that moment, had been kept within its uncontrolled and unrestrained dominion. The House of Commons was grateful for that resignation on the part of his Majesty. But did the House of Commons, however grateful, abandon its duty with respect to this very particular vote? It did no such thing; because it looked naturally—but it looked justly—to the restriction of this vote for pensions, as one of those important duties, the discharge of which its constituents had a right to demand; and, notwithstanding the large concession on the part of the Crown, the Committee suggested—and the House and Legislature acquiesced in the suggestion—that there should be imposed a limitation upon the Civil List pensions greater than was ever agreed to by any former Sovereign—greater than in 1792—greater than at the time of Mr. Burke's Bill—greater than at the accession of the late King—greater than at any period of comparison to which reference could be made. Yet it was now proposed, the compact having been executed on the other side, that the House should proceed on the case made out by the hon. member for Colchester, to revise such portion of it as the House might think it advantageous to alter, and to open anew that arrangement which was solemnly agreed upon, and carried into effect in the last Parliament. It was open to the House, at the time of the discussion of the Civil List Act, to refuse these pensions; the House might have said, at the time of the consideration of the Consolidated Fund Act, "We have already placed a sum of 75,000l. at the disposal of the Crown by another law, and we will not add to that grant at the present moment;" but, after having sanctioned both grants within the last two years—after having sanctioned them in the positive terms of those Acts—could the House bring itself to revise the decision, and deprive the Crown of that which the House had so recently placed at its disposal? The wording of the preambles to modern Acts of Parliament was, generally speaking, neither so lucid nor so expressive as that of the more ancient statutes; but the preamble to the Civil List Act par took in a great measure of the force and expressiveness of the more ancient legislation. The Civil List Act—an Act which had been recognized and strengthened by an Act passed by the present House of Commons—so clearly expressed in its preamble the contract into which Parliament entered with regard to those pensions, that he thought he could not better describe the nature of that contract than by reading the words of the preamble to the house. They were as follows;—"Whereas, his Majesty having been graciously pleased to signify to his faithful Commons in Parliament assembled, that his Majesty, placed, without reserve, at their disposal his Majesty's interest in the hereditary revenues, and in those funds which may be derived from any droits of the Crown or Admiralty, from the West-India duties, or from any casual revenues, either in his Majesty's foreign possessions or in the United Kingdom: and that in surrendering his Ma- jesty's interest in revenues which had, in former settlements of the Civil List been reserved to the Crown, his Majesty rejoiced in the opportunity of evincing his Majesty's entire reliance on their dutiful attachment, and his Majesty's confidence that they would cheerfully provide all that might be necessary for the support of the civil Government, and the honour and dignity of his Majesty's crown. His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, with hearts full of the warmest duty and gratitude, declare their desire that provision should be made for the support of the civil Government by charges upon the Consolidated Fund, and otherwise by other Acts to be passed in the then Session of Parliament, and that a certain and competent revenue for defraying the expenses of his Majesty's household, and supporting the honour and dignity of the Crown of the United Kingdom during his Majesty's life (whom God long preserve), might be settled upon his Majesty." Such was the contract which Parliament had made. Whilst the Act was under discussion, then was the time to raise an objection to such a contract,—then was the time to protest against those grants; but now, after that Act had been law for more than two years, was the House of Commons prepared to alter the terms of the contract, and to take back pensions that had been granted under it? He remembered well that, in the discussions on the Reform Bill, they had been told that a reformed House of Commons would forget obligations or engagements of every kind, no matter how solemn or how binding they might be; he recollected equally well, that the advocates of reform, denied that assertion; and he now confidently trusted that the event of that night's division would verify the anticipations of the friends of Reform, in favour of the honour and good faith of a Reformed Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Motion had referred to many authorities, and amongst others, he had referred to the authority of Edmund Burke. At the time to which he alluded, the argument and authority of Burke was applicable, and so might the authority of Fox and Dunning, and so might many other great names, down to the beginning of the present reign, because, till that period, the Civil List included many charges for the support of the civil Government of the country, as well as the support of the honour and dignity of the Crown. By the alterations made by the present Ministers the sum appropriated to the Crown was separated from every other; making the Civil List more safe and the compact with the Crown more secure and binding. There was another point which must also betaken into consideration. On former occasions, the Crown had asked for an increase in the amount of the Civil List, or for the payment of Civil List debts. It was clear, that, when the Crown placed itself in such a position, the whole question of the contract was thrown open by the Crown itself; but a proposition, which was refused to be entertained even at times when the debts of the Crown rendered an application to Parliament necessary, was now made, and was expected to be carried, at a period when no gentleman had attributed, and when no gentleman could attribute, to the Crown the creation of a debt upon the Civil List. But as the hon. member for Colchester had referred, among other authorities, to the authority of Mr. Burke, in support of the view which he took of this question, he must observe, that there was a passage in one of the speeches of that great man which expressed, so much more powerfully than he could express, the arguments which he was desirous to place before the House upon this point, that he was sure he should gratify hon. Members by reading it. It was contained in Mr. Burke's speech upon economical reform,—the point immediately under discussion, where the passage occurred was, whether it would be wise and expedient, in carrying into effect economical reforms, to proceed by sacrificing existing interests, or whether it would not be at once more just and more wise to proceed by a prospective measure, and to let time carry the object in question into full effect. Let them see, then, what Mr. Burke said, speaking of places, which he says are analogous to pensions—places, which were granted as the reward of services, but which, like the pensions now under discussion, were, in too many instances, given without a due regard to the nature or degree of the services performed. Upon that point Mr. Burke's words were these; —"Those places, and others of the same kind, that are held for life, have been considered as property. They have been given as a provision for children; they have been the subject of family settlements; they have been the security of creditors. What the law respects shall be sacred to me. If the barriers of law should be broken down upon ideas of convenience—even of public convenience—we shall have no longer anything certain among us. If the discretion of power is once let loose upon property, we can be at no loss to determine whose power and what discretion it is that will prevail at last. It would be wise to attend upon the order of things, and not to attempt to outrun the slow but smooth and even course of nature. There are occasions, I admit, of public necessity, so vast, so clear, so evident, that they supersede all law. Law, being only made for the benefit of the community, cannot, in any of its parts, resist a demand which may comprehend the total of the public interest." The hon. Gentleman opposite cheered that sentiment. Let him prove, that "the total of the public interest" was at issue on this Motion, and then, but not till then, his cheer would be applicable. Mr. Burke went on to say—" To be sure, no law can set itself up against the cause and reason of all law; but such a case very rarely happens; and this most certainly is not such a case. The mere time of the Reform is by no means worth the sacrifice of a principle of law. Individuals pass like shadows; but the commonwealth is fixed and stable. The difference, therefore, of to-day and to-morrow, which to private people is immense, to the State is nothing. At any rate it is better, if possible, to reconcile our economy with our laws, than to set them at variance—a quarrel which in the end must be destructive to both." It was impossible for him (Mr. Rice) to add anything to the powerful reasoning of Mr. Burke on that point. The analogy between the pensions alluded to by Mr. Burke and those now under discussion was obvious. Were not the present pensions protected by law? He understood the hon. member for Marylebone (Sir S. Whalley) to say "No" to that proposition. As one of the constituents of that hon. Member, he must deplore the expression of such a sentiment on his part, Again. he would say, that those pensions were protected by law, and that they could not be altered except by act of Parliament. [Sir S. Whalley was understood to intimate that they could.] The new constituents of the hon. Member had certainly reason to triumph in their representative's powers of discrimination. The hon. Member asserted, that an alteration in those pensions could be effected otherwise than by Act of Parliament. He should like to see that hon. Member exercise his ingenuity in endeavouring to effect such a point. He rather imagined that it exceeded even the ingenuity of that hon. Member to get rid of one act of Parliament, except by repealing it by another Act of Parliament. These pensions were, in fact, the same as an estate, granted by the Crown, and the grant confirmed, by an Act of Parliament. There was not one of those grants which was not before Parliament at the time when it passed the two Acts under which they were now paid; that was, as he had already said, the time to object to them. Why should the question be now opened? Why should the House be called upon by the hon. member for Colchester to go into a most fruitless, a most painful, and he would say, a most disgusting inquiry? He did not understand that cheer from the hon. Gentleman opposite. Undoubtedly such an inquiry was not necessary, and under such circumstances it was one opposed to the good feelings of all mankind. He would suppose the case of military officers. Suppose such officers receiving pensions for years, under authority of Act of Parliament, and that then that House should call on them either to forfeit their grants or individually to substantiate their right to claim them. He was justified surely in saying, that such a species of inquiry would be-painful to every well-regulated mind. The distinction which had been laid down by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was perfectly compatible with the course which the Government adopted in the present instance. They were ready to admit, as his noble friend had admitted, that many of the pensions on the present list were such as could not be justified, and that if they were to come before them as original grants, they ought not to be granted; they were ready to admit that several of them had been given to persons who though originally in want of them, yet who having subsequently risen to superior station and wealth ought to have resigned them. That, however, was a matter of taste. The House had no right to dragoon any man into generosity. He held in his hand cases of a contrary description, which he believed had never been alluded to in Parliament. He was glad of the opportunity thus afforded him of adverting to them, especially as the first of them had been animadverted upon in the public prints, though not, he believed, in that House. Hon. Members probably recollected that, at the time the Pension-list was under discussion, the pension which stood under the name of "Charles Bathurst" was one of those alluded to in the public prints. He had the honour of receiving a letter from the hon. and learned gentleman resigning the pension in question, and he was sure that the House would excuse him for reading a document in every respect so highly honourable to his hon. and learned correspondent. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following letter:—

Sydney-park, Glocester, July 21, 1832. My dear Sir,—There are two pansions, together amounting to 600l. a-year clear, held by myself and my wife, under the sign manual, which were granted by the late King in compensation for my surrendering the patent-office of Receiver-General of the Duchy of Lancaster, which my father, as Chancellor of that Duchy, had conferred on me in 1819. In the altered situation in which I am placed by his death, and succeeding to the properly which he possessed, I think it proper to abandon those pensions, as I should have done the office, had it still subsisted in ray hands. As the portion of the pension which, at my request, was conferred on my wife stands in the names of trustees, there may be some difficulty in point of form about that portion; as to which I will make inquiries; but in substance it is the wish of both to resign them from the present time, including the July quarter,

Believe me very sincerely yours,

CHARLES BATHURST.

His hon. and learned friend was well known to the members of his profession, and to many gentlemen in the West of England; and such an act of patriotic generosity on the part of his hon. and learned friend was just what those who were best acquainted with him would have expected. The other case to which he was about to advert was one that he believed bad been, on a former occasion, alluded to in just terms of praise by his right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Of this he was sure, that if there was a pension to which hon. Members would not be inclined to object, it was one that had been granted to the brother of Sir John Moore. He held in his hand a letter which he had received from Mr. James Carrick Moore, resigning the pension which had been granted to him, and which he would read to the House, It was as follows:—

No. 1, Saville-street, Jan. 16, 1834. Sir,—I do myself the honour of addressing you to request that you will inform the right hon. the Lords of the Treasury that I resign the pension of 1,000l. a-year, which was most graciously granted to me by his Majesty King George 3rd.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient and most humble servant,

JAMES CARRICK MOORE,

To the Hon. Thomas Spring Rice, &c.

The Lords of the Treasury, in entering this record on their minutes, felt it their duty not only to record the generous sacrifice thus made by the individual, but the circumstances under which the grant had been made by the Sovereign, and the claims of the great man in honour of whose services it had been given. Those circumstances and those claims were sufficiently well known to the country, and it was unnecessary for him to offer any tribute to the generous motives which had dictated such a sacrifice. He contended, that a forcible inquiry of the kind suggested, would effectually put an end to these instances of patriotic generosity. Suppose these sacrifices had been made after notice of this Motion had been given by the hon. member for Colchester? Would not everybody have immediately said, "Ah! yes; but Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Moore were dragooned into the sacrifice: they make it in fear of the Motion,"—!would not the act lose all its gracefulness; and honour? On those grounds, thinking that no case had been made out for this Motion, and thinking that the resolutions proposed by his noble friend, which stated what had been done, and what would be; done, in the way of economical saving, met. the whole merits of the case, he should oppose the Motion, and vote for the Amendment of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before he sat down he would just advert to one of the pensions in the present List—to which the hon. member for Middlesex adverted—he meant the pension given to Mr. John Dalton, perhaps the greatest discoverer of our times, who might be termed the Newton of chemical science, and who, though not left to perish, was left to toil for a wretched subsistence, in the decline of his life, as an usher at a school, until the munificence of the Crown interposed, at the age of eighty, with a small and well-earned addition to his comforts and; means of subsistence; adding a reward from the public to the fame which this great philosopher had, by his scientific attainments, procured for himself. If all pensions were equally well deserved, there would be nothing to object to. He had heard the acclamations with which the announcement of this pension was received at a meeting of the most learned men in Europe, and was unwilling, that such means of rewarding merit should be curtailed or withdrawn. Again, he begged to repeat his objections to this Motion, as being one calculated to lead to a fruitless discussion, and to a violation of rights sanctioned by the authority of acts of Parliament; and under such circumstances, he would heartily and sincerely vote for the Amendment proposed by his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

begged to say, that if this Motion could be construed into a violation of contract, he for one should be ashamed to support it; but he regarded it in no such light. He was ready to admit the solemnity of the contract to which the hon. member for Cambridge had alluded but he would observe, that this Motion did not go to take from the Crown any portion of the Pension-list at its disposal. The sole effect of the Motion, if carried, would be to inquire how the Crown, acting by the advice of its responsible Ministers, had dealt out that 75,000l. which had been left at its disposal in the way of granting pensions. He would repeat that this was merely a Motion for inquiry, to see how that money had been disposed of. He would call upon the House, as it respected the honour and dignity of the Crown, to assent to this Motion. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged that the Pension-list was in such bad odour that the public confounded those who really had performed services to entitle them to the pensions they received, with those who had performed no services at all to entitle them to such a reward. It was therefore but due to the Crown that means should be afforded for discriminating between those two classes. He would beg his Majesty's Ministers to remember that it was upon this rock the previous Administration had split, and had gone out of office with the general reprobation of the country. If Ministers should that evening happen to obtain a majority in that House, they might depend upon it that out of doors the public feeling would be against them, and that they would fall reprobated, as their predecessors had been, by the whole country. On these grounds he would support the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Colchester.

contended that nothing could be more impolitic or unjust than for that House to violate the compact it had made with the Crown with reference to its Civil-list, and more particularly after having limited the power of the Crown in the granting of pensions hereafter to an amount equal to only one-third of the power formerly exercised. After this compact the Crown was no longer responsible for the distribution of pensions. He regretted that the noble Lord had not placed his opposition to the Motion upon higher grounds than those he had selected. He regretted that he had not made a stand against the popular cry against pensions, and at once declared, that the Crown possessed constitutionally the right to grant pensions as the reward of particular instances of science, merit, and personal distress, without giving any account of its motives or the grounds upon which such grants were made. The hon. member for Colchester had told them that that House would never be insensible to a case of real distress—that it would not fail to attend to such a case, and make adequate provision for it. For his part he had no such confidence in the good feeling of popular assemblies. Ever since the Chamber of Deputies in France had refused to vote the pensions of the widows of persons killed during the three days of July, his confidence in popular assemblies had much diminished. Within the last month that assembly had refused two pensions which the Minister would never have thought of refusing. Yet it was to such a body the hon. and learned member for Colchester proposed to assimilate that House as the organ of public opinion. If that House were to become the dispenser of pensions instead of the Crown, there would be no common prin- ciple of action upon which the grants would be made. It was, and had been from early periods, part of the functions of the Crown; and, at few periods, he must say, were those functions exercised with greater moderation than at present. He believed that on reference to the Pension-list, it would be found that the much larger portion were not only small in amount, but had been granted in cases of actual individual distress, and that distress was much aggravated by the publication of the names of the parties whom it was sought to benefit by the grants, which until a very recent period, it was ever considered the exclusive right of the Crown to make. He would not scruple to own his regret that the Crown in this respect was to be brought to submission to public opinion. The hon. member for Middlesex appeared to hold the opinion that the amount of the Pension-list was just as much part of the property of the country as any other fund which might pass or originate out of a vote of Parliament; but he would inquire on what principle it was, that the Civil-list was established, and whether or not it was, as he had before observed, a compact entered into between the Crown on the one hand, and the House on the other; and if so, he must contend that the House had now no right in any way whatever to interfere with it, because, in his judgment, any interference with the discretion of the Crown would not enable the House to act safely or the Crown to deal justly in these respects. If the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had met the present Motion with his direct negative, he would have obtained at least as large a support as would now rally round him, and he should have been better pleased to have followed the noble Lord, but as the Amendment which had been moved appeared to him to present the least of two evils, that Amendment should have his support.

felt desirous of offering to the House a few observations in explanation of the vote which it was his intention to give on the present question—a vote which, without explanation, might apparently be contrary to the principles which he had ever maintained. He was most decidedly of opinion that no pension, pay, salary, or remuneration, should be given except in return for good services, or for merits of the highest and best order. Maintaining as he did, this to be the proper definition of pensions and remunerations, he turned to the list now before the House, and in the hands of almost every man in the country; and he did not want the speech of the hon. member for Colchester to convince him that in that list very many names would be found whose recommendations were the reverse of good, useful, or meritorious services. It might then be asked why he should now refuse his vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester. His refusal clearly did not originate in any allegiance to the present Ministers, because he believed it to be the case with all of that body, as most assuredly it was with himself, that so far as he knew, they had no political or private connexion with any name contained in the Pension-list now on the Table of the House. He declined to vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester, because he entertained a conviction that the Legislature were bound by two Acts of Parliament, and also by other arrangements, by which a reduced amount of pensions was consigned to the disposal of the Crown; an amount not more than be-coming the head of a great constitutional monarchy. He felt with his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the chief weight of the misdeeds complained of with reference to the Pension-list ought to be visited on those whose extravagance and carelessness had increased the list; but as he could not contemplate a recurrence of such proceedings in the present altered and improved times, he thought the evils of a rigorous investigation into past history, and the hardships which must arise from such an inquiry, would not he redeemed by anything like an equivalent benefit to the public. There was ample field for retrenchment and improvement without having recourse to an inquiry, the object of which was the mulcting of individuals. If the question before the House was, that past abuses should remain unrestricted and unabated, he should be ready to vote for full inquiry; but such was not the question, and, therefore, as his Majesty's Ministers had taken the course of men of honour, not shrinking from the obligation of standing in the front of that party, in screening whom they could have no interest, he felt that he should not act also as a man of honour if he hesitated or refused to join his vote with those of his Majesty's Ministers.

supported the Motion for inquiry; for it was highly wrong that parties nearly or actually connected with the aristocracy of the country should be supported in splendour and luxury at the expense of the most useful portion of the community—the labouring and working classes. On that ground alone he should be induced to support the Motion for an investigation into the nature of the claims of those whose names appeared in the list, not only before the House, but before the whole country. That list was, in fact, public property, and as such he would deal with it. He would take a very few instances, and those he would confine to Ireland. The first names he should mention were those of Eliza, Gertrude, and Mary Gossett. It appeared that in the years 1828, and 1829 pensions had been granted to them; as the period of the grant was so very recent, he presumed that if an inquiry should be decided upon by the House, it would not be very difficult to prove any services these ladies might have performed to the country by which they became entitled to the pensions of 122l. to Eliza. 95l. to Gertrude, or, in short, to the payment in the whole, within four or five years, to these ladies, of between 1,300l. and 1,400l.—for such was the sum which the labouring classes of the community had paid within the period he had mentioned to these Gossetts. [A laugh] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at the names of these pensioners, but he complained, that when a Government could not afford, as was alleged, the expense of a survey of certain ports in Ireland, that any such sum should be paid to any young lady or gentleman. He also found that in the year 1826, a pension of 177l. had been granted to Sir Robert Hunter, and in the following year a further pension of 111l., making a total of 288l. per annum. This gentleman had been a private physician to one of the Lords Lieutenant; but then he found no less a sum had been paid for pensions on precisely similar grounds than 3,348l. He (Mr. Ruthven) did not know whether the list before the House was to be considered as an Irish list, but he must remark that he found in it the name of George, Earl of Errol, with a pension granted in the years 1819 and 1820 of 276l, per annum and to the Countess of Errol a pension of the same amount. He should be glad to know what services this noble gentleman and lady had performed to the country to entitle them under these pensions to the receipt of no less than 7,066/. There was another name in the list to which he must also refer—that of the Viscountess Allen, who it appeared, was now dead, but who had received no less a sum in pensions than 9,065l. 3s. 4d. This might be an amusement to the House, but it was none to the labouring classes, who had to contribute to the fund from which this payment emanated. Though the gross amount of this payment was large, yet the pension itself was so small as scarcely to merit attention, but it afforded an instance of proof how great a burthen a small pension might eventually become. He was anxious for this inquiry, to see what value the country had received for these payments, and what had been the services of Harriet Arbuthnot to entitle her to the receipt of upwards of 9,365l. of the public money. He asked that inquiry as a representative of the people, and representing as he did a large constituency, who had a right to demand the fullest investigation. He therefore trusted that the Motion of his hon. friend would be acceded to by the House, and that an inquiry would be instituted with a view to show what were the real claims of the several persons in the list before the House to the pensions appended to their name.

was understood to say, that under all the circumstances, he not only wished for, but should vote for the inquiry. He was satisfied that in case it should be shown that these pensions had been honourably acquired by meritorious services, even the lowest classes in the community, as the labouring people had been termed by some hon. Members, would most cheerfully contribute to the fund. He called on the Government to draw a comparison in the Pension-list between those granted for naval and for civil services, and he could venture to say that the former would be found to have been much worse remunerated than any others. Though a man might serve twenty years in the navy, it was not until he entered a civil department under Government that he began to raise his title to a pension. He maintained that many unjust decisions had taken place in the naval department in respect to the remuneration for meritorious services. The present Motion for inquiry should have his most cordial support, and he hoped that in the result it would go forth to the public where the blame of the system was properly chargeable.

could not say that he thought his hon. and gallant friend who had just spoken had thrown much light upon the question before the House. That question appeared to him to be so simple, and to lie within so small a compass, that he thought he should best consult the convenience of the House and do full justice to the subject by saying a very-few words. He must confess that he had heard with surprise his hon. friend opposite, the hon. Baronet the member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), charge his Majesty's Government with having yielded to popular clamour. Surely his hon. friend must have known that if ever there was a question which offered a temptation to give way to popular clamour, and, he must add also, to strong feeling, a Government not controlled by a strong sense of imperative duty, by the dictates of principle and justice, but seeking to obtain a momentary applause, and to establish itself upon popular feeling, would have conceded the Motion now made. As, however, he had contended, when on the other side of the House, so should he now contend, that the House had no right to control the Crown in the application of the fund placed at its disposal by Parliament for a special purpose, even though that fund should have been dispensed by the Minister. In the year 1828 he was in a minority in that House with his noble friend, upon the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex for an inquiry into the Civil-List. He had so voted upon the ground upon which the hon. Member rested his Motion, viz., that there was gross abuse and corruption in the management of the Civil-List, and that some check was necessary. It was not now alleged that, as regarded the present Government, there was any foundation for a charge of abuse and corruption. He felt no disposition to shrink from responsibility upon that head. His hon. and gallant friend (Sir E. Codrington) had, however, placed the question upon grounds precisely opposite to those of the hon. member for Middlesex in 1828. He had said, that he should vote for inquiry, not because he wished to do away with the pensions granted, but simply that the consideration of pensions should be made public. He (Mr. Secretary Stanley) objected to the proposed inquiry, not because he defended the grounds upon which pensions had been granted, but because, in his opinion the claims of justice to the parties, respect for the compact entered into with the Crown, and deference for all the feelings of honour and delicacy, debarred their going into the inquiry. He should be extremely sorry to take up the present Pension-list for the purpose of defending the various grants which appeared upon the face of it. He knew there were many that were objectionable, and some for which it would puzzle the ingenuity of any one not in the secrets of the former Governments to divine the consideration. But they had been granted on the faith of the Crown for life during the reign of the late King, and confirmed by Act of Parliament for the life of his present Majesty, and had thus acquired a legal character, and assumed all the power and authority which they could derive from an Act of Parliament, which nothing but a violation of every principle of justice and right could set aside. An hon. Member had said, that the single obstacle to inquiry was a mere Act of Parliament. Was this the proper mode of speaking of an Act which determined the right of individuals? Was this the example that a Reformad Parliament would present to the world—setting aside the Acts of former Governments—wielding, for the time, all the authority of Parliament? Was the. House prepared to say, that no decision of the three Estates of the Realm should be binding unless it had the assent of the ruling power of the day? Let them look at the unvarying principle which, in this respect, governed all the proceedings of the House. From the lowest to the highest in the State, from the individual whose interests were affected by a Turnpike Road Bill, to the solemn Treaties made with other nations of the world, the principle was, that that which had been sanctified by the faith of Parliament was binding as to the rights of the parties affected, unless set aside with the consent of those parties. If the contrary principle was now to be established, how far would the House go back? Did they mean to examine the title of every man to his estates, however remote the period from which that title was derived. The principle recognised by the Constitution of this country was, that the title to a man's estate, whether obtained by fraud, by violence, by injustice, confiscation, wrong, or robbery, if it had the sanction of law and the authority of Parliament, could not be set a side, however objectionable the origin of the title. If it were now to become an established principle, that one Government might set aside the acts of another—once do that, and that House would no longer have any claims to be thought a protective body; the rights of property would be trampled upon; our engagements with other nations would not be respected, but would become the laughing-stock of the world; there would be no stability for anything, but the Government and the rights of individuals would fluctuate from day to day upon the breath of popular opinion. The hon. and learned member for Colchester, when he introduced the question, said, that he would confine himself to the subject immediately before the House; but, instead of doing so, the first sentence he uttered was a departure from the rule he had laid down. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that in consequence of a firm adherence to the Pension-list, our predecessors were driven from office, and that this might be the case with respect to the present Administration. He replied, that if the present Government were driven from office in consequence of adhering to the principles of justice he should not repine, but he should consider it a disgrace if they retained office in consequence of a departure from principles, which he thought just. But this was not the question which led to the resignation of the late Administration. The vote which led to that event was on the Civil List. The Civil List was then under the consideration of Parliament, and strong opposition was manifested to the mode in which it had been brought forward. The Civil List as proposed by the late Government was no less in amount than 976,000l., and in this sum was included 144,000l. as a permanent Pension-list at the disposal of the Crown. His friends and himself objected at the time to renew the Civil-List without inquiry; and at that time it was the right and in the power of Parliament to discuss the whole matter. They objected also to place so large a sum out of the control of Parliament. When his noble friend (Lord Althorp) brought forward the Civil-List he proposed that it should be only 500,000l., and that the 476,000l. should for the future be placed under the control of Parliament. Now, he (Mr. Stanley) would ask the House how much of this 476,000l. had since this time been taken away? Many of the items formerly included in the Civil-List had been transferred to the Miscellaneous Estimates and a great number of them had been reduced, which could not have been the case if the Civil-List as brought forward by the late Government had received the sanction of Parliament. The Pension-list at the time he alluded to was 186,000l.; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, that for the future it should be reduced to 144,000l. His noble friend proposed, that it should be 75,000l.; that was prospectively. Before he proceeded further he wished to allude to an argument which had been taken up by an hon. Member opposite, as to the mode of proceeding which he supposed the Government had adopted with regard to the Pension-list. The Report on the subject had been alluded to by the hon. and learned member for Colchester, who had very justly observed that such a course would be extremely absurd. It was obvious that if no new pensions were to be granted until the list had been reduced to 75,000l., none would be given for many years. It was therefore proposed that the Civil-List should be modified, so as to leave it to the Crown to grant pensions to a certain amount as vacancies occurred in the present list. The list was, therefore, divided according to the letters of the alphabet, and it was arranged that part should be filled up, and that the remainder as they fell in should not be re-granted. In consequence of this it had been suggested that all pensions in the latter class should be inquired into. How any hon. Gentleman could have arrived at such a conclusion was surprising to him. It appeared to him to be most absurd, because certain names began with the letters S or T that therefore there should be inquiry, and that all pensions the names of the holders of which began with A or B, should be exempt from inquiry. The hon. and learned member for Colchester very properly said, "Deal with all or none;" and this was the principle upon which his Majesty's Government proceeded. His noble friend (Lord Althorp) undoubtedly, on a former occasion said, that this was an open question; but under what circumstances did he say so? At that time, in consequence of the multiplicity of business before Parliament, and in consequence of the late period of the Session, it was impossible to enter into any arrangement for the settlement of the Civil-List for the life of the Sovereign. His noble friend, therefore, got a vote of credit for that year to the full amount of the Civil-List as it was afterwards settled; and, until it was finally settled, he contended, that his noble friend was perfectly justified in designating it as an open question; but when the House settled a fixed revenue on the Crown it was no longer so. The House, when the Civil-List was before it, dealt in a spirit of liberality and justice, and then declared that, although the pensions were nominally to exist only during the life of the Sovereign by whom they were granted, yet there was an unquestionable understanding that they were to continue during the lives of the holders of them. Indeed, so anxious was the House to maintain this principle, that in the Report of the last as well as those of previous Committees on the Civil-List, it was expressly declared, that the parties were entitled to their pensions for life. Parliament then had always acted upon the principle upon which he grounded his opposition to the Motion; and he was of opinion, that, the principle was sound, wise, and just. He called upon the House not to look into particular evils which it was not in their power to cure—not to dive into forgotten scandal or idle slander—not to drag old and weak and infirm persons to plead their age as a privilege before a Committee of the House of Commons;—but to be contented with marking out a course for the future by which the evils now so justly complained of would be avoided. He trusted that the House would not consent in consequence of past excesses to sanction a principle which he felt was founded in injustice. His Majesty's Ministers brought forward a measure for the future regulation of the Civil-List, which received the sanction of Parliament. In that Measure principles were laid down with respect to future pensions. He trusted that the House would be satisfied that the course which it had been called upon to pursue was unjust and inconsistent with every principle of honour; and he sincerely hoped, that there was no Gentleman in that House who would be disposed, for the sake of momentary popularity, to sanction any opinion which he did not believe to be founded on justice and on honour. He called upon hon. Members who were returned by wise and just and upright constituencies, as he believed most of the constituencies throughout the country to be, who, at the same time that they were anxious for the strictest economy, did not desire economy founded on injustice or oppression, and that they would not hesitate to tell their constituents and the people of England, that they had done their duty, that they had laid down just principles for the future guidance of Government, and had taken care that Parliament should exercise hereafter an efficient control as to the granting of pensions; but that they had refused to look back at that which they could not cure, or to break engagements which had received the sanction of former Parliaments. He repeated, that they had put a stop for the future to all transactions of that nature which had been described to them. He would not stop to inquire whether the pensions had been justly bestowed upon the individuals who held them; but they had received the sanction of Parliament; and he was sure that it would be inconsistent with honour and sound policy to take any steps with a view to their resumption. In conclusion, he could not consent to a Motion which he conceived to be fraught with injustice, and which, if he supported, he felt it would be a dishonourable support, because it was not just nor wise.

did not rise to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but merely to supply a deficiency in his speech, namely, to state what the question before the House really was. The question was, whether the House would inquire into the pensions in the list on the Table. It was not whether they would strike off one of those pensions. The only question was for inquiry. What was the answer? The only answer given was by the right hon. member for Cambridge, who said, that it would be disgusting to inquire. He contended that even this was a ground for inquiry. What was there disgusting? The reasons for granting the pensions. Did the right hon. Gentleman call these reasons disgusting? Were the people of England to pay money for reasons which excited disgust? He would at once tell the Reformed Parliament, that they were not what they called themselves if they did not get rid of these pensions. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the pensions were held by contract, and that length of possession prevented the House exercising control. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that length of possession did not justify wrong possession. He would say, that there never was a greater sophism than that drawn by the right hon. Gentleman from the Acts of Parliament. The Acts of Parliament only said, that the King should have 75,000l. to pay pensions. It did not say that one shilling more should be paid, or that the House should be prevented from inquiring into the nature of pensions granted in former reigns. He did not say, that the money was distributed to corrupt Members of Parliament; but would any man assert that, if suspicion was entertained that it was employed in that way, it would not justify inquiry? The House had set at rest the matter as to the grant of 75,000l.; and it was their duty to consider all pensions from the commencement of the reign granted de novo. Beyond the 75,000l. everything was open to inquiry; and if they were truly the Representatives of the people, they would remove from the people this most just cause of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the evils of violating contracts. He (Mr. O'Connell) agreed with him that it would be a very great evil to violate a contract. But he denied that any contract existed, and he contended that it was in the power of the House of Commons that the name of every person to whom a pension had been improperly granted should be struck out. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies alluded to a Motion made in 1828, for an inquiry into the Pension-list. [Mr. Stanley: The Motion was for Returns.] Were the returns of names only for the purpose of gratifying curiosity it would have been an idle waste of time, but it was intended to follow that up by inquiry. The far greater portion of the names on the Pension-list were there previous to 1828, and, of course, that motion had reference to those pensions. The arguments now brought forward against the present motion would have been equally applicable to the proposition supported by the right hon. Secretary and his present colleagues. If the right hon. member for Cambridge had then held office, he might then have pleaded with the same tragic air and plaintive tone as the right hon. Gentleman had used that night for the Pension-list of his gracious Majesty George the Fourth. The Reformed House of Commons had fallen in the estimation of the people, and it could only be raised by a great reduction of the public expenditure. He would not indulge in any invidious observations; but he was willing to give credit to the right hon. Baronet opposite (the First Lord of the Admiralty) for having exerted himself to cut down the expenditure in the department over which he presided; and if he (Mr. O'Connell) did not vote last night for the reduction of the number of seamen, it was because, in the present state of affairs, he did not think it wise to do so. The right hon. Baronet had been obliged to cut down the salaries of his clerks, writers, and shipwrights, until he had hardly left more than skin and bone. Under these circumstances, was it proper that the Sophias and the Harriets should have pensions lavished on them? Then he perceived the name of Ashurst, who had held a pension ever since 1788. He should like to know what public services this person had rendered? He had looked over the Irish Pension-list, and he had no hesitation in saying, that there was not one amongst them which had been granted for public service. Oh! yes; there was one to the three daughters of Admiral Rodney, who had 56l. a year each. These, he admitted were well deserved. He would not cut down the pensions of any who had served their country. He would not strip the families of those who had successfully fought our battles of the paltry pittances allowed to them. Talk to him of honour and honesty! They were not paying the pensions to those who had served their country: those who had fought our battles were left destitute; but those who cajolled, and crinsged, and flattered, got their pensions. He was told that these pensions were held by law. If the law was such as had been described, it ought at once to be altered. He called upon the House to support inquiry, and there could be no doubt at all that where a pension was well earned it would be continued. The right hon. member for Cambridge said, that they ought to consider, that every I thing had been done, as there was a prospective provision against future abuses. This might very justly be called a paulo post futurum argument. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Edmund Burke, who said, that hours and days might be of importance to individuals, but, they were of no consequence to nations; the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to act on that principle, and to think it would be equally satisfactory whether the pensions were cut off now or 100 years hence. That might suit the right hon. Gentleman but it would be a mockery of the expectations of the suffering people.

said, that his personal feelings would induce him to support the Motion, after the charges, which had been brought against former Governments, implying, that the exposure of their acts would be followed by the severest condemnation. He gave credit to his Majesty's Government for their disinterestedness in opposing the Motion. He believed that their conduct was influenced by public principle; for the present Government could have no personal motive to oppose the inquiry. When he heard former Governments charged with acts of the grossest corruption, and with having been influenced by motives of the most improper character, he felt called upon to answer these accusations. He must appeal to those Members of former Governments who were also Members of the present Government, whether any such iniquitous proceedings as they had that night heard described, had ever, to their knowledge, been committed. He was satisfied that, if the list of pensions were inquired into, the result of the inquiry would not, in the slightest degree, substantiate such a charge. He positively denied that the result would prove any iniquities or offences. ["Inquire then."] No, he would not inquire. He would not inquire, because he would not allow,—and he had no hesitation in saying so,—the dictates of personal or private feeling to overrule the objections which, on public principles, he felt to controlling the prerogative of the Crown in every individual instance, by the supervision of that House, or to commit acts of individual injustice towards the parties in receipt of pensions. He would venture to say, that an accurate examination of the Pension-list would prove, that parliamentary corruption had never been the object in the grant of a single pension. Of course, if he were asked whether he meant to contend that he could vindicate every single pension in the whole list, he could only reply, that he had not gone through the list, so as to be enabled to speak of every individual case; but he would say, that there were not five exceptions to the rule, that the desire of acquiring parliamentary influence had not been the motive on which the bounty of the Crown had been awarded. To look over this list would convince every man that there had been no such object in view. He believed there were upon the list pensions,—and considerable pensions too,—granted to persons who had the decencies of high rank to support, but who had not the means of supporting them. If the House chose to establish a new rule for the future, let them establish it; but the grant of these pensions had been made with an implied understanding, on the part of Parliament, that such was to be the application of the money during the lives of the parties. Where a person of high family, and distinguished rank, had been without the means of supporting the high dignities of his station, the Crown had felt itself justified in granting a pension to that person, fully relying on the acquiescence of Parliament, and convinced, by its universal silence, that that was a legitimate application of the money. They would find in the Pension-list many honourable grants to the relatives of persons who had performed great public service, but who had passed their lives in opposition to the Government. He would admit, that they might find instances in which there had been, perhaps, a lavish reward of public service. He would not deny, that there might be instances in which services had been rewarded more generously than they would be at the present day. Let them adopt a new line for the future, if they thought fit; but it would be an act of injustice,—it would be an act of real iniquity,—to visit the consequences of a change of opinion in the House upon those who had been in the receipt of these pensions for years, on the implied, or rather on the direct, faith of Parliament,—that it would be derogatory to the character of this House, to deprive those individuals of their pensions. There had been much—and not very becoming or decorous—levity, exhibited with respect to the names of the persons on this list, as if the mere mention of the grant of a pension to a lady were in itself sufficient to prove that no public service had been rendered for it. Why, who did not see, and was it not perfectly obvious, that, although public service might not have been rendered by the individual lady, the highest public service might have been rendered by her relations; and might they not have implored the Government not to reward their services by direct pecuniary grants to themselves, but to reserve their liberality for those who had claims upon their kindness and assistance? Was it well, then, to drag into the discussion, in the absence of the parties, the cases of the ladies whose names had been mentioned, though that afforded not the slightest surmise or suspicion that the grant connected with the name had not been honourably made? The hon. and learned member for Dublin said, that he did not believe that there was a grant made to any one family in Ireland which could be justified. So far as he was personally concerned, there was nothing he should desire more, or, to say the least, there was nothing he should deprecate less, than being called upon to answer for every pension with the grant of which he was connected. He would turn to names of which he knew something, and which would, probably, excite the most attention. He would take a case which had been already mentioned,—the names of Elizabeth and Gertrude and Mary Gossett. Why, suppose they were the sisters or the daughters of a public officer, who had rendered great services to his country. He would take a case, however, with which he was more immediately acquainted—the case of seven ladies of the name of Hanfield, to each of whom a pension of 88l. a year was granted; and what was more, to increase the indignation of the House, he would tell them that these ladies were all sisters He would give the House their history. When he went to Ireland, he found, in the Commissariat Department, an officer of the name of Colonel Charles Hanfield, of whom he knew nothing previously, whose name he had never heard of until he went to Ireland; but who was an officer distinguished by his extraordinary bravery during the American war. He found Colonel Hanfield holding the situation of Commissary-in-Chief; he had constant intercourse with him; and in all his life he never met with a man, in any public de- partment, actuated by so sincere a desire to promote the strictest well-regulated economy. He must say, that it was a very rare thing to find an officer of this description in any public department. He said to that gentleman, "In what manner can the Government reward your services? "Colonel Hanfield replied, that he had seven daughters, for whom he had no means of making any provision; that he begged to waive all claims on his own behalf; but he entreated Government to make some provision for those seven daughters, who would be left destitute in the event of his death. Instead of going to Parliament and asking for a vote, the government of that day said, "We have, placed at our disposal, a sum of 12,000l. a-year; let us appropriate part of that sum, amounting barely to 700l., to making provisions for those ladies; "—and there they were on the list,—Catherine, Hannah, Margaret, and so on. He asked the House, whether it were not possible for many females, bearing the same name, to receive a public grant of this description with perfect propriety; and whether the grant itself might not be perfectly honourable? The same might hold good with respect to provision for families in distress. If they would establish a new rule, let them do so: but, until that were the case, it could not be held, that grants of pensions to families in distress involved a misappropriation of the public money. What was the distinct admission, or rather the triumphant declaration, of Mr. Burke's Reforming Act? Why, it recited that "Whereas it is no disparagement to any person to be relieved by the Crown." Was it decent, then, towards the public, years after these pensions had been granted,—was it decorous,—that, after the Crown had acted on their express declaration, that it was no disparagement to be relieved by its bounty,—was it decent, to call upon the objects of the munificence of the Crown, whatever might be their age, their infirmity, or their distress, to make out the original case on which their pension was granted? Or, could the respect,—he would say it without reserve—for the Monarchy be maintained, if they were thus to overlook every Act of Parliament and every engagement of the kind which might have been entered into when they themselves had committed to the Crown the discretionary power of giving that relief? The House of Commons had never yet maintained that they had a right to control the Crown, every year, in the distribution of this sum. He admitted that, if there were any case of corruption to be shown,—if they could prove that there had been any misapplication of this vote for the gratification of mere personal objects on the part of a Minister, and, above all, for the purpose of corrupting a Parliament,—the Minister would be bound, in his responsibility, to enter into explanation, and submit to inquiry; but it had never yet been maintained that Parliament had a right, after committing a certain sum to the Crown, to control it in the exercise of its bounty. If such a doctrine had ever been maintained, why had not Parliament called every year for an account of the persons to whom that bounty had been extended? He would prove, that this was the opinion of Parliament at the time they passed the Act of 1792. It was found, at that period, that the Pension-list had swelled to an extravagant amount; and, in the Act which was passed for the purpose of reducing it to a certain extent, there was the following express provision:—"That no pension shall be granted of more than 600l. in any one year, until the Pension-list shall be reduced to 95,000l." Observe this distinct provision,—" and until the Pension-list be reduced to 95,000l., the names of those, to whom pensions are granted, shall be annually laid before Parliament within twenty days after the meeting thereof." After the Pension-list, however, had been reduced within these limits, the Crown was to be free from the obligation of laying these names before Parliament. Could there be a more convincing proof of the intention of the Parliament of that day? Could there be a doubt that they intended to give a discretionary power to the Crown, in respect to grants of pensions to be exercised, subject to responsibility in case of abuse; but a discretionary power which it was never intended to control by the specific and constant superintendence of Parliament? For these reasons, thinking that there were very few cases, indeed, in which the House of Commons would itself wish, even on account of a lavish grant of the public money, to quarrel with its amount;—believing that common justice to individuals required that the House should maintain good faith towards them,—and thinking that, after the Acts which they had passed, it would imply an unjust disposition on the part of the Crown, and would be derogatory to its honour and dignity, now to review in detail, through the medium of a Select Committee, every act of the Crown exercised under those enactments of the Legislature,—he, for one, whatever his private interests might be, would, on public principle, coincide with his Majesty's Government in discountenancing and resisting the Motion.

supported the Motion. The Government was by no means in an enviable situation, as it was forsaken by its old friends, and was looking for support, on the present occasion, from those who had been its deadliest opponents.

said, that he should not have trespassed on the time of the House at that late hour, but that he wished to express to the House the extreme difficulty he felt in making up his mind to vote for the Amendment which the noble Lord had proposed. He must say, that he most cordially concurred in the sentiments which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Cambridge, and that he should give his most strenuous opposition to any such Motion as that brought forward by the hon. member for Colchester. To concede to such a proposition, would be to commit a gross breach of honour and trust, and to be guilty of a direct infringement of the prerogative of the Crown. But he could not think the House would agree to the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester. Although he certainly should not support the proposition of that hon. Gentleman, he was still in difficulty as to whether he would be justified in voting for the Amendment of the noble Lord, for he saw, or thought he saw, insuperable obstacles in the way of his supporting that Amendment. The terms of it were not, he apprehended, generally known to hon. Members, and surely, before they proceeded to a division on the question, they ought to have some knowledge of it. If he understood the Amendment rightly, it went to pledge the House to advise the Crown to grant pensions only to those who had rendered personal services to his Majesty, who were eminent for their public services, or who had distinguished themselves by their scientific labours. He had taken some pains to understand the Amendment; but if he put a wrong interpretation upon it, he should be happy to be set right. He, however, believed, that he was not wrong in the construction which he had put upon it, and this was proved by the surprise and regret which had been expressed by the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, at the course which the noble Lord had taken. All he desired was, that he should not be entrapped into a vote, and, therefore, if the noble Lord would say, that his proposition was not intended to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, he should be satisfied. The Crown had a distinct right to distribute its favours how and where it pleased, and unless he was told, that the Amendment of the noble Lord would not in any manner curtail the power of the King in dispensing its bounty in respect of granting pensions, he could not give it his support.

was anxious to give a vote on the present occasion that would be satisfactory to his own conscience, and at the same time prevent injustice being done to any human being. He now stood forward as the advocate of the honour and fair fame of those who were involved in the inquiry for which the hon. member for Colchester sought. It was not by this Motion that odium could be thrown upon them. They would suffer more by the ambiguous attempt of the noble Lord to stifle inquiry, than by any other means that could be suggested. The rejection of the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester, would lead to the conviction, that there was something foul and disgusting in the Pension-list, which it would be unsafe to disclose; but he denied that, and stood forward there to vindicate the major part of the persons named in that list, from the aspersions which had so unjustly been cast upon them. He had the honour of knowing one person whose wife enjoyed a pension; and he could, for him, and he might add, for the great majority placed in the like circumstances, assure the House, that they desired nothing so much as a full and fair inquiry. A few persons might receive pensions which they had not deserved; but although a disgusting case might here and there be found, was it just that ninety-nine persons should suffer undeserved imputation, because of the turpitude of one individual? Inquiry would prevent any such injustice; and if he wanted an argument in favour of this assertion, he had only to refer to the proceedings that had occurred a few nights ago in consequence of a charge made against a Member of that House. The inquiry then instituted had terminated satisfactorily, and he had no doubt, if the Motion of the hon. member for Colchester were now agreed to, a similar result would be obtained. Granting the inquiry was only an act of justice to those whose characters were impeached; but the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Cambridge, had said, that the House had not the power of granting an inquiry, which surely could not be the case. He must complain of the want of candour which the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had exhibited in the course which he had pursued. Instead of meeting the proposition of the hon. member for Colchester, with a negative, as he ought to have done, the noble Lord had come forward with a sort of promise, that if the Motion was abandoned, no pension should in future be granted that was not founded upon merit. According to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, it was plain, that pensions had been granted to parties for no other purpose, than to enable them to cut a figure in the world beyond that to which their own private fortunes entitled them; and however he might oppose any interference with pensions granted for meritorious services, he could see no reason why those pensions he had described should not be at once abolished. He did not wish that those who enjoyed pensions with clean hands and spotless honour, should suffer the least annoyance; and it was for their sakes, and for their sakes alone, that he should support the proposition for inquiry; being convinced, that investigation would only set them right with the public, and furnish a much better security for the proper distribution of the Royal bounty, than the abstract recommendation of the noble Lord.

observed, in reply, that the long and interesting discussion in which they had been engaged, had given rise, as might have been expected, to a variety of suggestions, some bearing fairly and fully upon the subject, some glancing lightly and partially upon it, and some not approaching it at all. The right hon. gentleman, the member for Cambridge, indeed, had reduced his opposition to the Motion, to a shape perfectly simple and intelligible, but not very applicable. The right hon. Gentleman had told them fairly that whatever objections they might have entertained against this List from prejudice, or whatever errors or offences they might have detected in it by inquiry, yet were their lips closed by acts of their own. The right hon. Secretary appealed to two Acts of Parliament as an estoppel to all further inquiry and to all effort upon their part, and declared to them, that however baseless and disgusting any or ail of these pensions might be, however degrading to the characters of those who might receive, and however insulting to the feelings of those who were compelled to pay them, yet that, because that List had received the sanction of an unreformed Parliament, it was conclusive, notwithstanding, that they, the Representatives of a reformed constituency, were sent to that House mainly to correct evils of this description. He denied that the House stood in this position. He reminded them that these Acts had been passed at a period when the friends of the people in that House were unwilling to bestrew the path of the Ministry with difficulties in addition to the many against which they had then to contend. He should feel inclined to deny the position, even if the Acts had been passed after the gravest deliberation—if they had received the solemn sanction of a Parliament composed of men deeply imbued with the feelings of the people. But as it was, he could not conceive that any obligation rested upon a Parliament pledged to economy,—pledged to inquiry into every payment not justified by necessity, and sanctioned by individual merit. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman if those pensioners stood in a better point of view now than they did in the reign of George 4th? Were they more deserving—more renowned—more pure—more virtuous? No! All that Government could claim for them was, that they were no worse. Had not the House then the same right to deal with them now, that it had when the Government was at that side, when the noble Lord and his friends were in opposition? But when the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Hume) moved in 1828 for an inquiry into this List, how was it met by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who had that night so consistently supported his own doctrines now put forward by his old opponents from the ministerial benches? The right hon. Baronet spoke of these pensions as a sacred fund, accessible only to the Royal hand, to be distributed by the Royal will, and in such sort as the Royal feeling might direct. Oh! it was to be sacred from the vulgar scrutiny of the public, and the meddling interference of Parliament! But what said the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said that the hon. member for Middlesex did not desire to bring the House into unnecessary conflict with the Crown, but simply to know if certain sums of money were not improvidently disposed of. And then the noble Lord proceeded to say,—in that plain, unadorned, down right style, for which he is remarkable, and which is far more forcible upon most occasions than the most exquisite eloquence,—if there was nothing discreditable in the expenditure, wherefore was it that Government resisted the inquiry? The noble Lord convinced him. He voted with the noble Lord; and were they now to conclude, that the conduct of the noble Lord upon that memorable occasion was only a passage in the tactics of opposition? Were the doctrines which the noble Lord had advocated when out of place to be flung aside like infected garments, the moment he made the haven of power? If not, why was it that he now seemed to regard it as his duty to cherish and defend that Pension-list, of which he had strenuously demanded an investigation? The right hon. Secretary for the Treasury had certainly displayed a most laudable zeal in the same good cause. Now, it was true he was not the representative of the Corporation of Cambridge, but if not now, he would be so hereafter. The Corporation would see that they had altogether mistaken him; a member of a Government half-Whig, half-Radical, he was naturally regarded with apprehension and distrust. He was looked upon most probably, as an ally of those travelling Commissioners who went about the country seeking whom they might devour; hunting out every minion of Corporation corruption, that they might drag him into light, and expose him to the public contempt! But now, after the hon. Gentleman's vigorous defence of vested rights, the Corporation of Cambridge would at once perceive their error, and joyfully exclaim, "This is the very man for us!" "This is just what we wanted—a representative who will see in every alderman a peer, and in every common-councilman a member of Parliament." He disclaimed for himself, and for those who supported him, all ungenerous or unkindly feeling towards persons on the Pension-list. If there were any on that List either so extremely young, or so stricken in age, that their helpless condition might render them objects of solicitude to the great, he was satisfied to permit them to be excepted from the proposed inquiry. And with respect to cases of another kind, he was quite sure that if there could be raised in favour of their exception from investigation anything which, if modesty might conceal, generosity would yet suggest, the Committee would receive it cheerfully. He remembered that the present Earl Grey, when a Member of that House, opposed a motion brought forward by Mr. Huskisson, touching the amount of pensions paid to retired Chancellors, and the time of their services. The motion was made with the view of attacking the pension of Mr. Ponsonby, who had only held office for six months under the Whigs. But upon this question, Lord Howick observed, that Mr. Huskisson was not the best man in the world to resist improper grants of the public money, when so many had been made to himself and his connexions. Now, if he (Mr. Harvey) were to describe the pensions of the most obnoxious persons upon the list, he would not desire to employ other words than those addressed by the present Earl Grey to Mr. Huskisson upon that occasion, for he proceeded to say, "Got by what means the Lord only knew how, and for what, the Devil only knew." If he were to apply such language to the pension of anybody, it would be declared a piece of gross vulgarity and low abuse. But yet Lord Grey was not ashamed of the expressions. Why, they embodied the sound Whig doctrines upon the subject; and when Lord Howick, in the excess of his virtuous indignation against undeserved pensions to the connexions of an individual in power, used these words to one who was present—to a man, and one so capable of defending himself as Mr. Huskisson,—what would he not have said if he had to deal with the persons now upon that list, whose pensions were less capable of defence? It had been said, that these pensions were only for the life of the parties receiving them. But there was such a tenacity of life among these old dowagers, that, like the possessions of the Church, no time could destroy them. Their years, like beauty, never fade. It was asked, too, what good could result from an inquiry into the grounds of their pensions? for it was said, that all who could speak to that point—all who had anything to do with these women in early life, whether in court or camp, had been long since extinct—long since gathered to their fathers; and if there was a Committee, whom was it to examine? They ought to examine the receivers of these grants. It appeared to him, that the person in possession of the title deeds was the fittest to prove a title to the money obtained, and to justify the ground on which the grant was made. But if they were so eager for the interest of the persons who received the money might be not remind a Reformed Parliament assembled specially to protect the people's purse, whether there were not a payer as well as a receiver—whether there were to be no feeling for those to whom they had said they sympathized with them? "Only send me to Parliament," was the frequent appeal at the hustings," and I will go to the root of the evil; for, of all the crying sins and grievances which afflict you, none affects me so deeply as that which I feel when I look around and see your hardy and honest features and robust forms, and think of the difficulties with which you have to struggle to secure the common necessaries of life, while, at the same time I can scarcely walk the streets of London without danger of being run over by the glittering carriages of the pensioned paupers of the State, to whose luxurious indolence you are obliged to contribute from the hard-gotten earnings of your laborious industry;—return me to Parliament, and the first thing I shall do will be to raise my voice, and record my vote against such a shameful state of things." What was to be said for the amendment? It was, in his view, the best speech that had been made, or could be made for the original motion. It was a contrivance to soothe the qualms of tender consciences. The adherents of the Government, hearing that the Motion was to be opposed, had hurried in dismay to the Treasury, and addressed the noble Lord something in this strain:—"You know from experience we will go nearly all lengths with you—but oppose this motion by a direct negative we dare not—it would end our political lives, if not our natural existence; for God's sake get up something, do suggest something,—no one knows better how to do it than you,—propose something,—never mind what,—the less intelligible the better—in the shape of an amendment, promising-prospective reformation. We can tell the people it means more than we understand, and that it is full of benefit to them." That, it was agreed, should be done; and done it was;—and a pretty thing it was. The noble Lord said, that as far as the Motion went, there was something inherently sound in it; it was impossible to give it a cold, heartless negative. "We must do as the Whigs always do—deal in promises. It is easy to give promises; they form a fund which never fails, on which you, my friends, may draw without fear of exhaustion; and which possesses, as it were, the power of eternal renovation. All we ask is, don't call upon us to redeem them." That was enough, the amendment was proposed—it was much applauded; and this was the delusion to be practised on the nation. He might enter into a particular examination of the List, and select divers names, and hold them up to the scorn of the people, and scandal of the parties. But he would not do so; it might be deemed unkind. For the present, it might be presumed, that every pension had been granted for solid commendable considerations; that national utility, and personal merit, had been the sole recommendations. He could not doubt that the result of inquiry would be to fortify that impression. He, therefore, asked the House, in the name of those who were in that List,—in the name of all that was venerable in years, or lovely in beauty,—to concede this inquiry; and, above all, he entreated them, as the sincere friends of reform, not indeed yielding to vulgar clamour or unmeaning abuse, but respecting the intelligence of the country, to support the Motion; remembering their promises—redeeming their pledges—and, above all, insulting not the sorrows of the poor,—nor provoking the just indignation of the people.

, in explanation of what he said in 1828, observed, that the hon. member for Colchester had not read the whole passage from his speech, but had only quoted as much as suited his (Mr. Harvey's) purpose. He had not said, that those pensions should be taken away which had been given improperly, but that those persons who had given such pensions should be called to account for it. The hon. Member had said he (Lord Althorp) had convinced him on the occasion of the debate in 1828, and, had added that he (Mr. Harvey) had given him his vote. It was very satisfactory to him to learn that he had convinced the hon. Gentleman, but it would have been still more satisfactory to him if he could have found his name in the list of the division.