Mr BRADLAUGH ON PERPETUAL PENSIONS.

Patea Mail, 5 March 1881, Page 3

Mr BRADLAUGH ON PERPETUAL PENSIONS.

It is believed that the recent attempt to assassinate the advanced freethinker, Charles Bradlaugh, in England, arose from no religious or political motive, hut was in consequence of his efforts to obtain the abolition of the “ perpetual pensions,” under which large sums of money arc annually paid from the Exchequer. Mr Bradlaugh has given notice for the appointment of a committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the whole question, and the following observations on his action in this matter are by the London correspondent of the Manchester Times : “ The member for Northampton does not intend to impugn the system of granting pensions for services actually rendered to the State, nor does he even ask that hereditary pensions should be stopped at once. All be desires is a commission of inquiry into the whole subject, and it is difficult to see bow any members, except those pecuniarily interested, could refuse to support such a demand. The present sj'stem is certainly so absurd that one can hardly believe anybody would seriously defend it. Take the case of the Dukes of Marlborough, for instance. The ancestor of (lie family 170 years ago was granted a pension of £4OOO a year for gaining a victory at Blenheim, after he had deliberately prolonged the war in order to put money in bis own pocket. For the duke’s services, which would have been amply paid by a pension for bis own life, the nation lias had to pay him and his descendants no less than £680,000. Another instance is that of Sir Thomas Charges and his posterity, who for 206 \'ears have had £BOO a year, the whole amount paid being nearly £IBO,OOO, though the services which were rendered are quite unknown. The nation undoubtedly owes a great deal to the first Earl Nelson ; but now that we have paid his descendants £260,000 it may reasonably be said that the debt has been acquitted ; and the most generous dispenser of the public money could hardly deny that the services of Earl Amherst have been well paid by the sum of £230,000; nor could he help admitting that Earl Rodney and his heirs, having received over £170,000, ought not to be allowed to dip their hands in the national purse any longer. Mr Bradlaugh calulates that, if the sums paid to the illegitimate sons of Charles 11. had been invested at 34 per cent, compound interest, the amount of money realised would be more than the gigantic total of the national debt; so that we have the startling fact that we have actually paid to the posterity of one of the most scandalous monarchs that ever sat on the English throne nearly £800,000,000 without having received a single service in return.