TOPICS OF THE PAY.
REVISION OF THE PENSION LIST.
'I THERE is a time," said BURKE, " when the hoary head of in- veterate abuse will neither draw reverence nor obtain protection." When Parliamentary Reform was carried, the people of England fondly hoped that the time mentioned by BURKE was at hand; and that abuses would no longer receive efficient protection from any quarter, least of all from the firs.% freely-chosen House of Commons. The proceedinga of last s,ession dispelled this illusion. The Reformed Parliament refused. to sanction the abolition of sonic of the worst atuses in the State. Of these, Sinecure places and Pensions, if not the most b ordensome, were the most odious ; and the public indignation at the protection which they received was displayed in a manner too decided to be misunderstood or trilled with.
But Ministers have again plactil themselves in the gap between the receivers of unmerited pensions and the Independent Repre- sentatives of the People. Again have they disregarded the voice of the Nation; as if it v:ere the "whisper of a faction," which a Treasury majority cou'el silence for ever. The Reformed Parka- tnent hail scarcely be:gun the real business of the session, before its Members were called upon to sanction the Ministerial refusal to inquire into the state of the Pension List. It is gratifying that their call was di‘e.e.garded by so large a majority of the professedly reforming Members of the House, and that the question was barely decided in their fiivour by the assistance of their Conserva- tive allies. Of these, fifty-five recorded their consistent votes in behalf of the unw-orfhy recipients of the public bounty. We say the unteorthy recipients; for they who can justly claim the pen- sions They receive—who have by themselves, or their relations, .done the State good service—were seriously injured by a vote 'which confounded them with the parasites, profligates, and inca- Tables on the list. The great body of the people in this country are so vehemently prejudiced against pensions and sinecures, that the mere circum- stance of being found on the list, would be almost sufficient to blast the fair fame of the most virtuous and deserving man or woman in the land. When the Pension List is mentioned, who thinks of the name of DALTON, or CAMPBELL, or RODNEY? Is not that of ARBUTHNOT, or some other person supposed to be equally undeserving, the first that occurs to popular recollection ? And yet it is possible that even Mrs. ARBUTHNOT may have rendered some "secret service unexpressed" to her country ; or it may happen that her husband is insufficiently paid by his retiring pen- sion, and therefore may fairly claim an extra allowance for his lady. Should this, upon inquiry, turn out to be the fact, no one will pretend to say that any wrong has been done to the fair recipient by proclaiming it to the world. On the con- trary, she and her husband, and the Duke of WELLINGTON, under whose administration the pension was granted, would also be relieved thereby from unmerited obloquy. What- ever would be the result of inquiry into the case we have
mentioned, it is undeniable and admitted, that in many instances pensions have been most improperly conferred. In some instances, they are pocketed by people who are possessed of abundant pri- vate wealth. If these parties were compelled to disgorge the sums they have thus disgracefully obtained, it would not be an unjust, although a somewhat harsh proceeding. But this is not intended. It is only asked that they shall keep their hands out of the public purse for the future. Were this hint acted upon, a very considerable sum would be placed at his Majesty's dispo- sal for the reward of eminent public services, whether performed by statesmen or warriors, or men who have bestowed much time and uncommon talents on literary and scientific pursuits, which, from their nature, have not been justly appreciated or sufficiently rewarded by the public. It is a gross mistake to suppose that
the payment of pensions granted to ill-requited merit would be grudged. The actual amount, the 75,000/. a year, which Parlia- ment has voted his Majesty for the purpose, is not the source of the popular discontent on this subject. Were the sum less than half what it is, the expression of dissatisfaction Would be just as strong as at present. The purposes to which it is applied cause the anger of those who are taxed to provide it.
It is not proposed that the sum fixed at the commencement of the present reign should be altered. The Nation is quite prepared to keep faith with the King. All that it required is, that the mode in which the money is disposed of should be subject to the supervision of Parliament. Ministers acknowledge that they, as the responsible advisers of the Crown, are liable to be called to account for the improper appropriation of the Pension-fund. This admission implies the existence of the right of the House of Commons to inquire into the mode in which it is expended: with- out inquiry how shall the Ministerial responsibility be made effec- tual? But mere inquiry will not be of much value, if, on proper occasions, it is not followed up by such representations as will in all probability prevent future abuses. Ministers, however, utterly deny the right of the Representatives of the People to meddle with any portion of the Pension List, which was in existence at The time when the King's Civil List was voted. What then be-
comes of the control of Parliament over the expenditure of the public money, voted fir the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown ? What becomes of all the fine arguments which were urged in the support of Sir HENRY PARNELL'S motion, which
--
turned out the Duke of WELLINGTON? IF the only opportu nity affieded for a revision of' the Pension List is at the com- mencement of a new reign, with what propriety did Lord ALTHORP, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and other leading Whigs, vote in 1828 for an inquiry similar to the one proposed by Mr. HARVEY? At that time, these Ministers saw the propriety of exercising control over the application of every shilling of the public money. It was urged by Mr. STANLEY and Mr. SPRING RICE, t.'oat an inquiry must be followed up by an address to the Crow a for the removal of improper persons from the Pension List ; Ind that the Crown could not without gross oppression comply with such ad dress, because the parties aimed at have a legal right to their pen slows. Mr. STANLEY even said- " In this instance, as in that of solemn tre.at.ics with other nations of the world, the principle was recognized, that that which was sanctioned bv the au- thority of Parliament could not be set aside without the consent of the parties who were interested. How far, he would ask, was the present inquiry to go? Was the House now to look if rights had been acquired by fraud, violence, con- fiscati ,,, injustice, wrong, or robbery; which rights having been sanctioned by law and Parliament, could not, as he maintained, be set aside, however great might have been the viciousness of their origin ?" Was it not exceedingly indiscreet in Mr. STANLEY, to place tlfe obligation to keep solemn treaties, and to regard the rights of pri- vate property, on the same footing with The obligation to continue the payment of unmerited sinecure pensions ? especially when it was very doubtful in what way Parliament would decide the latter point. But Mr. O'CONNELL demolished this well-elaborated argu- ment, in a few short sentences.
It appears to us, that the two essential points in favour of a re- vision of the Pension List after due inquiry, are fully established. First, great benefit will arise from it to the deserving; and secondly, wrong will be not done to those who have no fair claim to the pensions they now receive. We should not hold this to be the case did the title of the latter to their pensions rest on the same basis as that which secures private property to its possessor. But the sole tenure of the pensions in question is the King's pleasure ; and it pleases a Constitutional King to act as his Ministers and the High Court of Parliament advise.
Previous page
