PRACTICAL MEASURES.

THE conclusion of " Army Expenditure" is postponed till next week. In the mean time, we cast a retrospective glance to our first subject,

the Civil List ; and look more closely than before into the latest Par- liamentary record of Pensioners, as it stood a few weeks before the death of WILLIAM the Fourth. • The continuance, modification, or abolition of the Royal grants, will be one of the first things which Queen VICTORIA'S first Parliament will be called upon to settle ; in /aw, the Civil List Pensions ceasing on the demise of the Crown, however usual it may have been to renew them. They greatly underrate the importance of this document who look upon it merely as an account of so much of the public money as the Crown has thought fit to grant to certain individuals. Nor

is the subject exhausted when the deserving are separated from the un- deserving—when those valuable public servants who have spent the

best part of their lives in the discharge of arduous duties, or those eminent persons who have enlightened mankind by their knowledge or delighted the world by their genius, are distinguished from the crea- tures of Courtly favour or Ministerial patronage. The Pension list appears to us to afford curious illustrations of the political and social system of this country—exhibiting remarkable anomalies in the former, and showing much that is discreditable and unworthy in the latter.

Before analyzing this list, it is important to bear in mind that it is only the Civil List Pensions, which are granted. at the will of the Monarch ; excluding those for military, naval, diplomatic, and legal ser- vices, besides superannuation and compensation allowances, specimens of all of which were given in the Spectator of the 14th October.

The instructive Returns before us contain the names, we believe, of about 1058 persons of all ranks, from Earls and Countesses down to menial servants. The pride of aristocracy has here yielded to its neces- sities; for by the side of my Lord and my Lady stand worn.out footmen and superanuated housemaids. In this common sepulchre of corruption all distinctions of rank are levelled. thged by one common motive, the highest degrees of society of both sexes are content to associate with the lowest; and alike stand forth to the public gaze as state pau- pers—recipients of the public money, without, in many cases, having the slightest claim upon the gratitude or esteem of the nation.

An extraordinary disproportion exists between the sexes of the pe-t. sioners ; there being 858 females to 200 males. At first sight this fact might be attributed to a discreditable cause; but the circumstance is perhaps the most favourable characteristic of the list, since it may be said that widows and female orphans have been the peculiar objects of the Royal bounty. Some widows and orphans of meritorious per- sons in the middle and humble walks of life are certainly to be found on it; but the far greater number are widows and children of the nobility ; while in many instances the ladies were not orphans when the pensions were bestowed on them, but had fathers and brothers living in affluent circumstances. Jr must also be observed, that the reason why younger sons of the nobility more rarely occur than their sisters is, that the sons have been provided for at the public expense in other ways : for the Army, the Navy, the Church, the Corps Diplo- matique, and the Colonies, show how the younger male branches of' the poor aristocracy subsist. The frequent occurrence of persons of the same family, shows the poverty or audacity, or both audacity and poverty, of its noble repre- sentative. Encouraged by the success of his application for one rela- tive, he:soon after applied for another ; and, not satisfied with one grant, it has often happened that the same individual has obtained a second and sometimes even a third : for in this, as in other cases, "the appe- tite grows by what it feeds on."

A remarkable feature in this list is the rare occurrence of any name of the slightest celebrity ; and whenever one is to be found, the sum which he receives is a clear index of the low estimation in which he is held by the Government. This point will, however, be more fully exemplified hereafter.

To high•minded men (and of such ought an aristocracy like that of England—so proud and so exclusive—to be preeminently composed) it is an act ofself-abasement to receive pecuniary reward without services which deserve it ; but the recipients of the nation's money sink below contempt, when the salary is notoriously given upon condition that they shall perform the duties for which their class was created, not according to the dictates of their own consciences, but ac- cording to the will and pleasure of the party to whom they have sold their political rights. We have of course in view those pen- sioned Peers who have never served the country in any department; whose names are to be found in no other public record than the Pension.list, and whose Senatorial duties consi-t in giving a truckling vote in favour of the pal ty from which they originally received their wages. In this disgraceful category stand both Whigs and Tories. Alike do Peers of both parties degrade themselves, and bring obloquy upon their order. Whenever a Peer is unable to support himself, he has for a long period been considered to have ipsofacto a claim for a pension. So far is this rule a general one, that in two Ci1..C,;. where an obscure amid distant branch of a noble family has succeeded in proving his right to a peer- age, the party has almost immediately become a pensioner ; a. d in one of those instances, that of the Eall of licNTINGnos, his widow and all his children are burdens on the public to the amount of 1,070/. a year. Lord GII-TORD was created a Peer in 1S24, because his legal talents were required in the House of Lords, and he died in 1826 : his eldest son, the present Lord, is a pensioner of Rio/. a year, and his brothers and sisters receive 400/. more.

Mt it is in a constitational point of view that pansions to Peers and their families is most objectionable and :inomalous. A Peer, who is either so poor or so MOI111 as to accept a pension, without having rendered the country any adequate services, becomes from that moment • An A0,0:flit of :01 11, MAjo,tl'S rim 114 awl (on..03.1.1.,1 on the 1,In Mny 1'31. l',■;.••1 :37!t. 1,4 Mr if ttyrr.) Hitt ton Itf 0•1 !.t• 1,11:■•11 .• 12,11 Ni.:1 .5. lua fill 11111 d 1)1 ';:t. I.,•I A.•• ',I:13 1V.

e. 110. ii Ii I too ['on" ..m. n • 1-3:3 I' .:3 450, S,••:.0:1 Mt, :I.t It; Mr. 11.-:y 1

the political creature of the Minister. For a seat in the House of Commons, poverty is in itself a disqualification ; and not only a pen- sioner, but even a salaried public servant, is often (and sometimes most

absurdly) considered an improper person to sit in Parliament : and why ?—because he is supposed to be under the influence of the Crown. This prudery does not, however, extend to the Upper House, though

a few prostituted votes therein may have the effect of rendering the ishours of the House of Commons and the wishes of the People tatted), nugatory. A poor Commoner, no matter how honest, or bow able, or how experienced, is from his poverty alone unfit, in the eye of

the law, to be a legislator ; but let the most impoverished or the most vicious Commoner succeed to a Peerage, not only does his disqualifi. cation cease, but he will continue to be qualified, even should be be a

pensioner of the Crown, though that would be on additional disqualifi- cation in a Commoner. The absurdity involved in these facts is self- evident. There should be no other disqualifications for a seat in either House of Parliament, than nonage, insanity, criminal conduct,—or the disqualification should extend to the Upper House.

In so aristocratic a country as England, public feeling would be hurt were a Peer or his near and titled relations to become parish paupers; and as, from the accidents of fortune, there will always be some poor and needy among them, they should lose their rank with their property ; or means should undoubtedly be provided for main- taining them in decent comfort. But by whom ought this to be done? By an overtaxed people, whom they may never have benefited, but, on the contrary, whom they may have injured to the extent of their power, by supporting an inefficient Administration or by voting fo- an oppressive law ? The very proposition carries injustice on its face. By whom then ? Common sense, propriety, and justice, alike

answer, by their own Order—by those who have the deepest interest in the respectability of all who belong to their elevated class, and who are bound to each other by the common bonds of rank, feelings, and sympathy.

The Pension-list contains the names of the twenty-three following Peers LordAylmer (Irish). Viscount Hereford (English). Lord Aston (Scotch). Earl of Huntingdon ( English). Viscount Allen (Irish). Viscount Mountmorris (Irish). Lord De Blaquiere (Irish). Earl of Alinto (English). Lord Bloomfield (Irish). Lord Montfort (English). Earl of Cavan (Irish). Viscount Molesworth (Irish). Lord Cranston (Scotch). Earl of Rothes (Scotch). Loni Elphinston (Scotch). Earl of Roscommon (Irish). Bart of Errol ( Scotch andEnglish). Lord Sinclair (Scotch). Viscount Falklaud (Scotch and Eug. Viscount Strangford (Irish &English). lish) Earl of Tyrconnel (Irish). Lord Gifford (English). Lord Walsingham (English). These noblemen divide 11,9931.; and their pensions vary from 881. to 1,965/., giving an average of above 5251. a piece. Of these twenty-three Peers, nine use English, nine are Irish, and five are Scotch Peers. One of the five Scotch is a Representative Peer ; and though none of the other Scotch or the Irish Peers sit in Parlia- ment, they vote for those Peers of their respective countries who do so; and they are themselves eligible. Now, we say without hesitation, that of those twenty.three Peers, there are scarcely three of any celebrity whatever ; and (with perhaps a solitary exception) the few in question were amply rewarded by their salaries and honours for all that they have done for their country. Among the largest of the recipients is

Lord MINT°, the present First Lord of the Admiralty; another is Lind ELPHINSTONE, now Governor of Madras : and since both are Whigs, pledged to economize the public money in all possible ways, may we hope that neither of their Lordships think of drawing their pensions whilst holding these lucrative situations ? If the practice in the case of the House of Commons were to be extended to the Upper Chamber, none of the ten Peers in question would sit therein. And (though not exactly bearing on the subject under discus- sion) it might be suggested, that, as being in holy orders is a disquali- fication for a seat in one House, there is no sufficient reason why it should not be so in both. For a similar cause, all Peers who hold offices is hich w..tild disqualify them from sitting in the House of Commons, ought to be excluded from the House of Lord-.

From pensioned Peers we come to pensioned Peeresses, and thence to the immediate relations of Peers. The pensioned Peeresses are also twenty-three in number ; and they are in six instances the wives or mothers of the pensioned Peers. They divide among them 7,111/, or about 300/. per annum each, though one has no more than 971. and another but 88/. Some names among these noble ladies tend

to excite surprise: for example, the Dowager Countess of Met.- GRAVE, the mother of the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, re- ceives 800/. per annum ; the Marchionesses of WessEssev and CAER- MAILTHEN, 2001. between them ; the Dowager Countess of CLARE, 7801.; and the mother in-law of Lord ERROLL, 276/.

Among the immediate relations of Peers, only their children, grand- children, nephews, and nieces are included in our present calculation. Other very near relations no doubt occur ; but, to avoid the possibility of exaggeration, the more distant branches are not now noticed. These scions of nobility do not exceed fifty ; and they receive altogether 11,7201., in sums varying from 431., 521, 811., 971., 1001., to 6001.; and averaging about 243/ a piece.

This part of the Pension.list shows that it is not only the relations of the poorer or les-cr nobility who are quartered upon the public. Such names as HASTINGS, GIFFORD, MACKAY, ERSKINE, and Hwy, might be expected there ; but few will perceive the names of the sister of the Duke of WELLINGTON, and the sisters, or aunts, or nieces of the Dukes of RICHMOND, GRAFTON, and 'AMSTER, without astonish- ment.

There is assuredly something revolting to female delicacy, to say nothing of aristocratic pride, in having the names and necessities of the female nobility exposed to public observation ; more especially when they are placed in close juxtaposition with some of their own sex, from whom, on any other oi canon, they would shrink on the score of morals, or on account of their iefetior station. But poverty, like death, is a great leveller of distinctions; and in this truckle-bed of pau- perism, the high and the low, the pure and the impure, associate with apparent complacency. We may be asked what are persons of high birth to do, when re.

duced to poverty—" to dig they cannot, to beg they are ashamed:" would we have them inhabitants of the Unions, or dependents on casual charity? Far otherwise. All true friends of the aristocracy wish to rescue them, not only from want, but from the reproach of deriving an unworthy subsistence out of the taxes of the people. The public has never complained of providing for the old age of meritorious public servants, or of supporting their widows and children, if without any fault of their husbands or parents they happen to require such aid. Poverty in these cases is rather an honour than a crime ; and the nation is neither niggardly liar ungrateful. But to those who have no such claims, we say, Do like all others of the community—endeavour to live on the little you have; add to that little the contributions of your richer friends ; exercise whatever talents you po:ssess; do all and every thing rather than become a pauper. There is no real distinction to a well-regulated mind between degrees of pauperism: The parish and the state pauper are equally to be pitied ; and if their poverty be the effect of improvidence or crime, they are equally.to be censured or despised. It is, however, true, that cases may arise, in which, from age, sickness, the want of friends, or from other uncontrollable causes, a noble person may be destitute. Is there then to be no other resource for such than the common poor-house? Certainly not. In all countries, sects and privileged orders form a fund for the support of their own members : why do not the Peers of Great Britain imitate so proper an example, and, instead of exposing their class to the odium of being maintained out of the earnings of the poor and industrious, establish a fund for the maintenance zif decayed Peers, Peeresses, and their children ? This act would be con- sistent with the dignity of the Peerage, of which so much is said; and it seems to us to be perfectly feasible. The noble pensioners would then owe their subsistence to their own noble order, instead of living upon the contributions of unwashed citizens,—for no plebeian should be permitted to subscribe to so distinguished a charity ; and the Peerage would then become " exclusive " in the only proper meaning of the word. According to the Pension-list, the necessitous Peers, Peeresses, and their families, receive altogether something under 38,0001. per annum. The Peers of Great Britain and Ireland are 670; so that an annual subscription from each of only 601. would be sufficient to re- lieve the Peerage from the stigma under which it now labours. It is true that many Peers cannot afford to subscribe 50!.; but there are numbers among them who, like the Dukes of NORFOLK, NORTHUMBEII: LAND, BUCCLEUCH, NEWCASTLE, and the Marquis of WESTMINSTER, could easily supply the deficiency. There is not, however, any necessity that the burden should fall only on the Peers. As the junior members of their families would be eligible to the fund in the event of becoming distressed, they could subscribe to any amount they pleased; and it would be an insult to imagine that there would be any difficulty in raising :Al/ a year, on the average, from all the noble houses in the empire, when the money was to be solely applied to the support of their order, of their relations, and possibly of themselves. No act could be more calculated to raise the aristocracy in the opinion of the people—to maintain their independ. mice of the Crown, on which the proper performance of their public functions absolutely depends—or to secure their own esteem and re-

spectability. As the Baronets have lately manifested a strong desire to rank with the nobility, it would be discourteous if their share of the public plunder were to pass unnoticed. Here at least their pretensions shall not be disputed ; while, in justice to the class out of which they sprung,

and of which they are in fact merely an hereditary species—the Kniglits, we shall on this occasion class them together. Besides the two or three persons of " this estate" who are in any way distinguished, Baronets, Knights, and their wives, receive 11,9181.; and though the nobility deny their right to rank among the aristocracy, popular opinion justifies us in adding that sum to the 37,264/. i& ceived by titled

persons and their families; making altogether 49,1S2/. o the Baronets we also recommend the creation of a fund for the decayed members of their order. We know some cases of lamentalsle distress to which it might be most properly applied. Of the disposition of the remainder, the best idea will be formed from carefully inspecting the list and the notes.' Some illustrative remarks

may nevertheless be acceptable. Though excluded from the preceding calculations of pensions to the aristocracy, there are one or two families, bearing aristocratic names, who have purtuketi largely of the spoil. Six female COCKBURNS divide 1800/. atnong them. The DRUMMONDS- the richest house perhaps in Eulope—share 1093/. among three male and four female scions. The DUNDASES—a name formerly as synony- mous with place and jobbing as that of Essior has become at the present day—have only 82891. ; of which sum Cueasorre Lady Dux- DAS receives WO/.

But the most objectionable of all the pensions, in a n oral view, are those bestowed upon the illegitimate children of the late King, and next to them the pensions to Court favourites. All the FiTzesstastsess, we believe, enjoy a pension of 500/. each, notwithstanding the males held other valuable sinecures during Wistiasi the Fourth's lifetime, some of which they still retain. The Earl of MuNsTisi is a Colonel in the Army, one of the Queen's Aides-dc-Camp, and Governor of

the Round rower of Windsor. Lord FREDERICK FITZCLARENCE IS a Colonel in the Army, and Queen's Aide-de-Camp. Lord ADOLPHUS is a Post Captain; and, to the reproach of the Naval adminiAratiun, has for three sears been and still is the Captain of one of the Royal yachts—a complete sinecure of above 7001. per annum, and which in modern times has always been given to one of the eldest Captains in the Navy. The Reverend Lord AUGUSTUS holds a vide- able living. Two facts connected with these illegitimate pensions show the rigid adherence to economy and uncompromising integrity for which the Whig Government is renowned. In October 1830, Lord UNSTER, in a fit of virtuous shame, resigned his pension it was Im- mediately transferred to his wife, who still enjoys it,—an ingenious lesson bow to be patriotic at the least possible cost to oneself. A few months • A classified analysis of the names in these Returns, and notes upon the most re. makable persons. %ere prepare I for publication in the present number, but were found to be too voluminous. Thry viii appear to a Supplement, which we have been requested to publish. containing a revised and corrected edition of the expototoes ue the Civil List, Pensions in general. and Military Espenditure. 4

#1115.1MMIIIIN/

before the late King died, he lost his eldest daughter, Lad/ DE LISLE;

but it appears from this return, that instead of her pension of 5001. per annum reverting to the public, it was immediately given to her three younger children, infants a few years old, with benefit of survivorship. Bad as this is, still worse remains to be told. Sir HERBERT TAYLOR, the late King's Private Secretary, the most favoured of rill favourites, is well known to be glutted with rich pluralitiee. Without ever having distinguished himself as a soldier, he is a Lieutenant. General, Colonel of a Regiment, First and Principal Aide-de-Camp to the Queen ; and be hes always, with very short intervals held other valuable situations at the Horse Guards or at Court, the last being the influential but uncon- stitutional one of PrivateSecretary to the Kite', the salary of which was

per annum. Added to all this, he has long enjoyed the lucrative sinecure of Master of St. Katherine's Hospital, with the elegant house and grounds Surely this catalogue of offices affords proof that he has been amply rewarded for whatever services he can have performed; but, as if there were no limits to the extravagance of the Crown or the rapacity of its favourite, a pension of 930/. per annum was granted to Sir HERBERT TAYLOR and Ids wife, in 1832, inlicu °feriae which had

been granted to him in 1819 !

In November 1831, " DAVID DAVIES" is stated to have received a perelon of 938/. a year. The public are not prepared to learn that this fortunate son of St. David was then merely the Apothecary to the

Royal Household. who had generously condescended to give his ser-

vices to the late King's family for so trifling a consideration. He has, however, since become enlarged into Dr. Sir DAVID DAvtES, K. C. H.; and having obtained celebrity, that great ohject of medical ambition, from his connexion with the Court, will now, it loll aws, enjoy

an extensive and lucrative practice, quietly pocketing the small annuity of 938/.

Another equally fortunate dependent on Court favour is Sir FEE. DERICK BEILBY WATSON, the Master of the Household to King GEORGE the Fourth, and to the late King; who has enjoyed a pension of 936/. for the last ten years. What the services were for which he was thus so extravagantly rewarded, we confess ourselves unable even to guess.

We have said that this list of 1058 pensioners contains some names

of scientific or literary celebrity. To this branch of the Pension-list we shall pay particular attention ; not because the recipients belong to oar Order, but because they form the chevaux de Walls of the Govern- ment whenever the propriety of a pension is discussed in the House of Commons. " Pensions provide," they say, " for men of science and literature." Let us see how. Of the whole body of scientific and literary men in England, Scothind, and Ireland, the names of only twenty-six are to be found on the Pension-list. In Science, there are DO more than Ass—viz. Sir Davits BREWSTER, S971.; Dr. DALTON, an ' • IvonY, 8001.; FARADAY, 3004 ; Sir JAMES SOUTH, 3001 ; and Mrs.SOMERVILLE, 300/. In Literature, ten,—viz. the poetCameemst, 1841.; Dr. JAMIESON, 1001. • :MILLINGEN, 100/. • SOUTHEY, z1351. ; JAMES MONTGOMERY, 150/. 'SHARON TURNER, 2001. • Tom MOORE, 8001.; BANIM, L501.; Sir WILLIAM OUSELEY, 1001. • PMiSS MITFORD, 1001. ; and the widow and descendants of PAI.EY, (ciy'lit persons) 2001., or WA each.* The total sum bestowed upon the literature and science of Great Britain and Ireland is therefore about 4,0001., in a Pension- list of 13-2,5551., or less than one-thirtieth of the whole. Compared with the pensions to courtiers, it would seem that it requires more than three DALTON% or three BREWSTERS, to equal, in the eyes of the Sovereign and his Ministers, the merits of one Apothecary to the Royal Household ; that three SOUTIIEYS or Moonus are only equal to one Sir HERBERT TAYLOR; and that the combined -talents of two SHARON TURNERS, one Miss Miereoan, one Sir Wis. LIAM OUSELEY, one MONTGOMERY' and of PALEY (as represented by his widow and seven descendants) have nut benefited the country so much as one Master of the Household. Measured by another standard, the country would seem to owe more to one illegitimate child of Royalty, than to the discoverer of the atomic theory ; while the illustrious Lord Mossreowr is superior to any two, Lord BLOOMFIELD to any three, the young Lord GIFFORD to any two and a half, and the Irish Earl of TYRcoNNELL to any three and a half, of the most distinguished Irbil°. -Gophers of Great Britain. Old ladies' in the opinion of the Govern- ment, have nearly as high a value : Lady Musonave's merits and .claims are superior to those of SOUTHEY, r.'llARON TURNER, and Miss MITEORD united,- Tom MOORE ranks with the Dowager Countess of HUNTINGDON; MONTGOMERY IS almost on a par with Lady EUBANK and Ludy NAIRNE; Sir WILLIAM OUSELEY, the Persian scholar, pairs off with Lady Somme, but he is twelve pounds worthier than the old Countess of ROSCOMMON.

To be serious, however : the amount of the pensions granted to the eminent individuals in question clearly shows the place which the aris- tocracy assign to them. When they have exhausted their resources and spent their best days in the put suit of knowledge, and are compelled to owe their future support to their country, their pensions are the smallest. If they wish to dignify their poverty by " honours," the very lowest distinction which it is in the power of the Crown to bestow, which it would be deemed an insult to offer to any member of it noble family, and which even Court phys:cians despise, is considered more than good enough for them.

-Something more still remains to be ssid about these scientific ant/ lite- rary pensions. GEORGE the Fourth founded ten Associates of Lite- rature, with a salary of 100/. each ; but on his death the late King .(whose generosity iind goodness of heart it is the fashion to praise) refused to continue the pigments. The Govermnent withheld its assistance for some time; and in the interval, COLERIDGE, the most • celebrated among them, died under pecuniary privations which the trumpery 100/. a year, so meanly withdrawn, would have removed. The dying poet felt the cruel affront keenly ; and the fact will ever • remain a disgraceful montimeitt of the conductail the Monarch and the Government towards suffering genius, in a country which expends nearly 50,00(4. per million on the support of the decayed members of the aria. tocraey, and which pensions the Royal Apothecary, the King's Private `Secretary, mid the Master of the Household, with ten times the .amoulit denied to a light of the world. Of the ten literary persons • Lady ?lemma:a, we ma: estautl, has slues received a peneion of 3001. • year, but Jae: nese, is cot In the list. now on the list, four were the LiteraryAssociates appointed by GEORGH the Fourth : all the others, we believe, ale dead ; but their pensions were not restored until Ministers were shamed into the restitution.

When the present Administration came into office, the millennium of science and literature was supposed to have arrived ;—what a mistake ! the lowest of all " honours" have been conferred on some dozen persons, and small pensions have been given to perhaps as many more. Voi/el tout. The real feelings of the head of the Government broke out on the memorable discussion with FARADAY. " Pensions to men of science and literature," exclaimed the Liberal Prime Minis- ter in 1835, "are all humbug." Except the few who worship in the temple of Holland House, none are encouraged or benefited by the Whig Government ; and the public may one day learn that the coterie alluded to has protected more charlatans, fostered more jobs, and pro- duced more mischief, both political and literary, than any similar sect of modern times.