Commons Sitting of 8 July 1807

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S BONDS.
Mr. Grantpresented a petition from the Directors of the East India Company, praying for leave to bring in a bill to raise an additional sum on bonds, until the increase of their capital authorised by parliament took place. On his moving that the petition be referred to a committee of the whole house,
Mr. Creeveyrose and declared, that this was the first instance in which any public body had made such a request to parliament, without the production of the necessary documents on which it was founded. In 1772, an attempt was made by the ministry of the day to bring in a similar bill, but this attempt was defeated by general Burgoyne, who contended that an explicit account of the reasons which called for such a measure, ought first to be laid before the house. He trusted that the house would pursue a similar mode of conduct in the present instance, and that a complete disclosure of the state of the company's affairs would now take place; especially when it was recollected, that there were two India budgets in arrear.
Mr. R. Dundasobserved, that the hon. gent. was under a mistake in this business, and that the precedent of 1772, adduced by him, was not in point. The East India Company only wanted to raise by bond what they had been already authorised to raise in capital. With respect to the state of their affairs, that might be discussed in the committee of the whole house, to which his hon. friend had moved that the petition should be referred. As to the budget, it was his intention to-morrow to move for the papers which ought long ago to have been on the table of the house, and which it was not his fault were not so.
Mr. Peter Mooreobserved, that the company were precluded, under two acts of parliament, from extending their debt beyond a certain sum. An act, of 1793, bound them to extend it no farther than 1,500,000l: but an act of the very next year allowed them to increase it to 3,000,000l. That debt remained to this hour undiminished; and the act of parliament was as imperative against their extending their debt now, by the issue of bonds, as by any other mode. It was for the house to consider how far it was wise to extend the existing
744*
limitation; but certainly it ought not to be done without a full investigation of the company's affairs.—The petition was then referred to a committee of the whole house.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES—MR. GALWAY MILLS.
Mr. Rosebrought up the report of the Committee of Privileges, to Whom the letter addressed by George Galway Mills, esq. to the Speaker of the house of commons, and the petitions presented against the said G. G. Mills, esq. had been referred. The report stated, that the committee had examined and found that the said G. G. Mills, esq. was a member of the house of commons, and that he was then in the custody of the marshal of the King's Bench. The committee had consulted precedents, and had abstained from examining the allegations contained in the petitions which had been referred to them, conceiving that even had these allegations been proved, that would not have influenced their judgment, or prevented them from coming to the resolution which they had adopted, namely, that the said G. G. Mills, esq. was entitled to the privileges of parliament. He then moved that the house do agree with the committee in that resolution.
Mr. P. Mooreas a member of the committee, and as having himself presented a petition to the house against Mr. Mills, stated a few points, which in his opinion, the house, duly regarding its own honour and dignity, circumstances much more important than the privileges of an individual, ought deliberately to consider. The petition to which he alluded had been presented by him with the concurrence of the person against whom it was directed, and for whose interests he and others had exerted their utmost efforts; those efforts had been fruitless; because that hon. gent. did not chuse to abide by his own propositions. Mr. Mills's debts, of various descriptions, exceeded £30,000. Not one of his creditors wished to interfere with the privileges of parliament; but they thought, and certainly they were justified in thinking, that while the house of commons attended to the preservation of their privileges, they should also attend to the demands of justice, and to the preservation of their credit with the public. As far as time would allow, the committee had examined all the precedents which appeared to bear upon the present subject, but in his opinion, not one was found that met the case stated in the petitions. The petitions contained this allega-

745*
tion, that the petitioner had obtained his seat in parliament as a temporary protection, in order to evade the demands of his creditors, and ultimately, he was compelled to say so, to defraud them. He was sorry to be obliged to use such language when speaking of one with whom he had been in the habits of intimacy; but in a case so glaring, which so strongly excited the public attention, in times like these, it would be well for the house to pause before they granted to any man under such circumstances, the benefit of the privilege by which the ends of public justice would be defeated.
Mr. C. Wynneagreed most cordially to the report of the committee. The house was bound to support their privileges, which were given to them, not for their advantage, but for that of the country at large. The privileges which members of parliament enjoyed of freedom from arrest, was as good for the electors as for the elected; were it not so, many of the former might be unrepresented. There was not a single instance on the Journals of the house, refusing the privilege when clearly defined.
Mr. Cochrane Johnstonethought that a special report ought to have been made by the committee on an inspection of the petitions which contained so strong a charge on the character of one of the members of that house: they stated that he had procured a seat in that house for the express purpose of enabling him to evade the payment of his debts and to escape to the West Indies. He understood that four or five persons now in the King's Bench were anxiously waiting the decision of the house, in order that if that decision were favourable to Mr. Mills, they might avail themselves of his example, and take similar steps in order to relieve themselves from similar embarrassments. He entreated the house, for their credit's sake, before they ordered liberation of this gentleman, either to refer the petitions back to the committee, or to take the subject into their grave and serious consideration.
Mr. Ellisondeclared, that the committee had entered upon this subject with feelings as allied to the foulness of the case, as could possibly be entertained. If the allegations of the petitions were proved against Mr. Mills, he thought that no hon. member ought to sit in the house with him; but he also thought, that, circumstanced as they were, the committee could do no more than they had done. Although he was of opinion that it would be better to consider this subject
746*
generally, yet if it was deemed adviseable to take it up particularly, he would go as far as any man to rescue the house from the imputations that might otherwise be cast upon it.
Mr. Barhamdeprecated any interference with the privileges of the house on this single case. If it could be proved that Mr. Mills had procured his election for fraudulent purposes, that would be a fit subject for the consideration of an election committee. He thought that Mr. Mills had been rather hardly treated, in having such grave accusations urged against him in his absence, when he was unable to reply to them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared, that it was impossible not to approve the conduct of the committee, in refraining from entering into the allegations of the petitions. Mr. Mills's letter had been referred to them to ascertain the facts which it contained, and not to consider the law dependant on those facts which had never been questioned. Even had such a special report been made, as was wished for by an hon. gent.., and had the allegations been found proved, still the house must have granted the privilege. What the law was, and what it ought to be on revision, were too very different considerations. On this subject he would at present say, that it would require some very strong arguments to induce him to believe that the public convenience and advantage would be promoted by the abandonment of this privilege of parliament, although he was aware that in some cases it was productive of private injury. Neither could he agree with the hon. gent. (Mr. Barham) that, if it could be proved that an election was procured for fraudulent purposes, such election must become void. If the charge against Mr. Mills, with the aggravating circumstances attending, could be substantiated (which, in justice to that gentleman, he must remark had not hitherto been done), it might amount to a question of expulsion; but even in that case, it would be proper that the accused should be within the walls to defend himself and his seat.
Mr. Herbertspoke on the same side. He said the privileges of the house were the privileges of the people. Some of the most illustrious members of that house had been known to be in very poor circumstances; and if it were not for this privilege of freedom from arrest in civil suits, it would be in the power of any administration, by buying up the debts of a person who was so unfortunate as to be in that predicament, to

747*
immure any man of the first rate talents, and deprive the country of his abilities in that house.
Mr. W. Smithobserved that this was not a law, but a privilege of parliament, which it might dispense with or not, as it thought proper. Therefore, though the house should give it up in this case, it by no means followed that it must do so in other cases. If fraud was proved, the guilty person ought not to be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The committee were perfectly right in their report, but it was for the house to consider allegations. These, indeed, were not proved, but there was a prayer in the petitions for permission to prove them. The privileges of the house existed only for the benefit of the public, and rested on no other foundation. The only question, therefore, was, whether a greater general mischief would result from giving up this privilege in particular instances, than from maintaining it in its full extent.—The motion for agreeing with the committee in their resolution was then carried, as was also a motion by Mr. Rose, that the said G. G. Mills, esq. be discharged out of the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.

SIR H. MILDMAY'S MEMORIAL.
Sir H. Mildmayrose pursuant to notice, to move that there be laid before the house a Supplement to his Memorial which was already upon the table. He took that occasion to state that he owed considerable acknowledgments to lord Sidmouth's government, for the fairness and liberality which he had experienced from it. His first offer had been made to the Barrack Office during that administration, but the whole of the business respecting the letting of his house, had taken place after that administration had gone out of office. His principal object in rising had been to move that there be laid before the house, certain letters which he had received from some individual of the Jury, that had awarded him the compensation for the injury his property had sustained. Of the whole of those who composed the Jury, he was not acquainted with the addresses of more than four, one of whom was the foreman. They were amongst the most respectable persons in the county. The hon. baronet then read extracts from these letters, which explicitly stated, that the 16 acres, with the house, were not included in the estimate of compensation; that the award did not preclude the hon. baronet from residing in, or disposing of the house; that of the 1300l. awarded by the
748*
Jury, 700l. was for the injury done to the ground by the works, and to defray the expence of restoring it to the state in which it was before the construction of the works; and that the Jury were aware at the time of making their award, of his being in treaty with government for the house. And here he begged to call the attention of the house to the situation in which he stood, with respect to this transaction. In June next he should be obliged to return to that house, with a barrack within half a-mile of it on one side and on the other. The sums he had received as compensation for a house that had cost 70,000l. to build, were very inconsiderable, though that house had been destroyed, at least as a residence for his family. If he had been upon the Jury, he had no difficulty in saying, that he should have awarded considerably more than had been awarded to him. However, whether the Jury had awarded him 50l. or 500l. he thought himself equally bound to abide by their judgment. He only wished that the house should be able fully to judge of his conduct in the Whole of this transaction, and with that view he moved, that the letters he alluded to, should be laid before the house.
Lord Howickhad no objection to the production of this paper, and he hoped it would prove as satisfactory as the statement just made by the hon. baronet, though he lamented that it did not appear to him yet as satisfactory as could be desired. There seemed to be some strange mistake in the case, because the hon. baronet had stated in his examination before the committee, that the 400l. a year was to procure him another residence; and now it was said to have been granted, on the general ground of enabling him to restore the land from the injury done by the works. If the sum had been awarded for the rent, it would have been an exorbitant allowance to make an award at the rate of 20l. per acre; and if for the land, the whole of the compensation ought to go to the tenants. But the hon. baronet in his examination had stated, that the 4001. per annum was to provide another residence for him; in this view, therefore, the statement did not appear to him to be satisfactory.
Mr. Secretary Canningwas surprised at so complete a misunderstanding in so plain a point. The fault he found with his hon. friend, was, that he had carried his delicacy too far in the steps he had taken to justify himself; unless it could be made out that he had had a corrupt understanding with the Jury, he was not more responsible for their

749*
award than any member of that house. The answer of the hon. baronet to the commissioners was one which he was not bound to give, nor the commissioners authorised to ask, because it was not for him to account for the award of the Jury. The 700l. were awarded to his hon. friend to replace the land in the state in which it was, previous to the construction of the works. But the noble lord forgot that his hon. friend could not get back into possession of his premises, till government should give up the lease.—The question was then put and agreed to.

SALE OF COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY.
Mr. Cochrane Johnstonein pursuance of his notice, rose to move, "that there be laid before the house, an account of all sums of money that had been received for the Sale of Commissions, which at any time became vacant by death, dismission, or in consequence of the promotion of officers, who were not allowed to sell out, from the year 1795 to the present time, specifying the names of the persons by whom paid and received, and the uses to which those sums were from time to time applied, together with receipts which had been given for the same."
The Secretary at War said, that although he had no objection to the substance of the motion, it must universally be allowed, that the sole disposal of commissions in the army was vested in his majesty, and he doubted whether it were quite proper for the house to inquire into the exercise of this prerogative; however, as he knew that the illustrious Commander in Chief was exceedingly desirous to give every information on this business, he should not object to the substance of the motion now made. The mode was for military commissions to be presented to his majesty, upon which his majesty's pleasure was taken, as to filling them up. The purposes for which any commissions were sold, were two-fold, and which shewed that the illustrious commander in chief both studied public economy and the private advantage of individuals, and that at the expence of his own private patronage. The first object in the sale of commissions was for the half-pay fund; and, secondly, for the relief of families of meritorious officers, who might fall in the service of their country. He particularly instanced the case of colonel Vassal's widow. The bulk of commissions was generally by purchase, particularly in time of peace; in time of war there generally remained a number of Vacant appointments, for which no purchasers were to be
750*
found. At the conclusion of the late war there were a number of vacancies for which no ensigns were to be found. It had been proposed to lieutenants upon half-pay to serve on the pay of effective ensigns, and that ensigns' places should be sold. The price of 300l. was fixed for the sale of such commissions; but if every commission had been sold as it became vacant, it would have proved injurious to many officer. The commander in chief, therefore, suffered promotion in many instances to go on in a regular course; but still, from time to time, commissions were sold, and the money was vested in the half-pay fund. Another source from which this fund received support, was, when an officer wished to quit the army, he was allowed to sell what he had purchased, although not to sell the rank which he already possessed; thus, the difference between the price of an ensigncy and of a majority went to the same fund. The illustrious person at the head of the army had done much for its benefit; for formerly great abuses had crept into the purchase and sale of commissions. In the year 1793, officers had been advanced from the lowest ranks of the army up as high as that of lieutenant-colonel. This system had been put a stop to, and a salutary regulation had been established, that an officer, under two years standing, could not be made a captain; nor a field officer under six years standing. The practice of giving exorbitant prices for commissions, the effect of which tended to the deterioration of the army, had also been checked by the commander in chief. From what he had stated, he thought an address the most proper mode of proceeding, and therefore concluded by moving an amendment to that effect.
Mr. Cochrane Johnstonehad no objection whatever to shape his motion in that form. He could assure the house, that in bringing it forward he had no other than a public object. He had never entertained the smallest suspicion, nor given the least credit to the malicious and unfounded reports which had been in circulation, against the illustrious personage at the head of the army. But he thought it his duty, as a representative of the people, to watch over the expenditure of the public money, and he looked upon these sums to be public money. The account he was persuaded ought to be laid annually before the house, especially if, as he understood, the sums received amounted to one million.—The motion was then agreed to.