It has been suggested that a different conclusion may be inferred from the tenth paragraph of the prefatory matter to these statutes, in which the following words occur:— “To the due distribution of rewards amongst such of our faithful subjects as are now or shall hereafter become eminently distinguished by their loyalty and merit in the military or civil service of us, our heirs, and successors, or _shall otherwise have merited our favour_.” These latter words are certainly placed with some skill, to furnish a loophole for escape, if public opinion should scout the limited range to which the gratitude of the country would thus be confined by a party, who differ only from the Tories in affecting an admiration for knowledge which they do not feel. It must, however, be observed that this is a mere statement, and that no such words occur in any _statute_. Besides, those who maintain that the party in power when these statutes were issued, intended that science or any other kind of unpaid civil merit, should be susceptible of reward by the Order of the Bath, except it also received pay from the country, must at the same time admit that during the four years in which that party has distributed those honours, England has not furnished one single instance of any other than a paid official having been thought sufficiently distinguished to deserve the honour. The public recollect with sufficient disgust the professions of both parties respecting science and literature, when the “pension list” was revised in 1838. The claims of science and of literature were then with affected generosity put forward by party, while the true object was to save for their own advantage as large a pension list as they could. That object once attained, a different view of those claims was taken, as we see by its results, of which a searching analysis must at no distant day be made. The statements uttered in both Houses even during the last session, by members of the present administration, have been so _extraordinary_, that the public are compelled to look beyond the plain English meaning of words, and to withhold their confidence until they have examined them with the scrutiny of a casuist. It is not therefore surprising that those who interpret statutes issued by such parties, should suspect the existence of latent meanings. Dismissing this point, however, the obvious interpretation of the _statutes_ of the Bath is that no one is qualified to become a member who has not been actually in the _service_ of the country, that is, who has not already been paid for his labours.