Commons Sitting of 1 March 1810

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. FULLER FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT
—The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, and stated, that he had been authorised by Mr. Fuller, now in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, to express the deepest regret on his part for the outrage of which he had been guilty, and to request, in Mr. Fuller's name that be might be discharged. As Mr. Fuller had thus expressed his regret for his conduct, and had thus apologized, he trusted the House would therefore think, considering all the circumstances of the disagreeable

645
occurrence, that it had expressed its sense of the impropriety of such conduct, in a manner sufficiently strong, and that enough had been done to support their dignity and authority. He concluded by moving, "That Mr. Fuller be now discharged out of custody."
Earl Templewas sure that the House must be aware how unpleasant it was to rise to speak in opposition to the most lenient proposal upon a personal question. But there were times and circumstances which required that those feelings should be surmounted, and which demanded that gentlemen should not shrink from a strict discharge of their duty, however unpleasant. It was hardly necessary for him, he trusted, to disclaim any personal hostility to the gentleman to whom this motion related; but after the extraordinary, outrageous and highly aggravated insult which had been experienced by the House: an outrage the more serious as it had been committed within their walls; and the more aggravated as it had been directed, not to the members alone, but to the person of the Speaker: after all these circumstances, he could not make up his mind to pass the matter over with so slight a punishment; no more indeed than what might be suffered by any of the members if a quarter of an hour behind his time on a call of the House. The House would, no doubt, recollect that a committal to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms often took place upon being a few minutes behind their time at election ballots. It was impossible for him, therefore, consistently with his sense of what was due to the House and the Speaker, to suffer such outrageous conduct to pass with so slight a mark of the resentment of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not at all feel upon the subject as the noble lord appeared to do. He agreed with him that the outrage was of the most extravagant nature: but even the very extravagance of it evinced that the gentleman who had committed it was in a state, which ought to prevent the House from inflicting any severe punishment. The noble lord mentioned, that what Mr. Fuller had already suffered was nothing more than what was often inflicted upon members who happened to be five minutes behind their proper time on a call of the House. But did the noble lord really think that there was any thing analogous in the two cases? The time of confinement was indeed the same; but here the
646
House had expressed the strongest sense of the misconduct of Mr. Fuller, and in this the great punishment consisted. If they should continue the confinement farther, the only satisfaction they could have, after all, would be an apology for the offence, and that had now been given. He could not help also adding, that to whatever extent the outrage had been carried, yet almost instantly, on that very night, the gentleman had repented, and had authorised a friend to make his apology. It could hardly have been expected, that the House would then have been satisfied with it. Now, however, the regret expressed, and the apology made, ought he thought, to induce the House to consent to his discharge. As to the alledged offence against the Chair, he really could not see that there was any personal offence to the Speaker, separate from the outrage which had been committed against the House. There was no offence against the Speaker, except what arose from his being in the Chair at the time, and being the leading person in the House. He was as anxious to support the dignity of the Chair as any man could be; but in agreeing to his motion he saw nothing by which that dignity would be in the least compromised. The House had now shewn, that it would not pass over such indignities without an expression of its resentment; but if the same offence should be repeated, the House would of course mark the next deviation from the rules of propriety, in a severer manner than it was necessary to do with respect to a first offence. He hoped, therefore that the House would feel, that it was perfectly consistent with its dignity to assent to the motion, that Mr. Fuller be discharged.
Mr. C. W. Wynnfelt exactly as his noble friend had described himself to feel, in rising to speak on a personal question of this nature. But he was convinced that the House would not discharge its duty to itself, if it agreed to the motion now proposed. It was said, that this was the first offence; but the House would recollect, that it was not one offence only. The House had, in the first place been insulted by the most improper and unparliamentary language; and when it expressed its sense of such conduct, Mr. Fuller had burst out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms; had rushed into the body of the House, and committed the most violent outrage. After such conduct as this it was proposed to discharge the

647
offender at the first sitting of the House— There was no precedent of any case similar to this; but even where members had been committed for improper language, the House had directed that they should be reprimanded. But if this motion was carried, the entry on the Journals would be, that, after the commission of this unprecedented outrage, Mr. Fuller was discharged at the next sitting of the House. The best apology, perhaps, for the conduct of Mr. Fuller, was the conduct of the House itself, which had allowed improper language to pass so often without notice, that its laxity had in some measure formed a snare for Mr. Fuller on this occasion. If the House had been more strict in enforcing its rules, such an outrage as this would, probably, never have taken place.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that it was rather too hard at this moment to allude to the former conduct of Mr. Fuller: if the hon. gent. who spoke last, really did mean to allude to him. The House not having noticed it, it ought not to be brought up against Mr. Fuller in his present situation. He knew how much Mr. Fuller regretted the outrage into which he had been betrayed in an unwary moment, and he knew that his regret was the more keen, on account of the misconception which he found to prevail both in and out of the House, as to his having meant any disrespect to the Speaker. He had done all that was in his power to counteract that impression. He had apologized for his offence, and expressed his regret that he should have been led into it. He hoped, therefore, the House would feel that its dignity would not be in the least compromised by assenting to the motion.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that he had sat for 20 years in the House and never witnessed such a gross outrage as had been committed the other night. He was present— he saw it all—he heard all—but would not quote the language used. Those who were present will recollect that it was only by an accidental circumstance that the outrage had been prevented from proceeding to the utmost excess of violence. After this Mr. Fuller sent the House a sort of an apology directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[The Chancellor of the Exchequerhere interrupted Mr. W. and said, that he understood the apology to be directed to the House, though it had been inclosed in a letter to him.]
Mr. Whitbreadin continuation, insisted that it was directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer only, and taking up the paper from the table, read "I beg you will inform the House that I am sorry for what I have done, and beg leave to apologize for my conduct." This was therefore incontestibly directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone. The paper itself shewed that such was the fact, and it was impossible they could deny it. Of the letter inclosing this apology the House knew nothing, as it was not on the table; but after all, the apology was far from being couched in very ample terms. Gentlemen had talked a great deal lately about their privileges. One man for a violation of them had lately been reprimanded at their bar, and another had been sent to Newgate, and was the House to suffer an outrage within its walls—the greatest outrage that had ever been committed, to pass with this slight mark of its sense of such conduct? when an hon. baronet, who was present at the time, thought that he who committed this outrage ought to be sent to the Tower, it would not perhaps be considered as harsh, that he (Mr. W.) expected a much more ample apology; and even supposing an ample apology to be made, he could not have thought it possible that the offending person should be dismissed without a reprimand from the chair. When gentlemen who saw the outrage, doubted, if it would be consistent with the dignity of the House to allow the man who had so insultingly violated its privileges and rules, ever to sit there again, it was proposed to dismiss the matter with this meagre apology and slight duration of confinement. Many gentlemen present had seen the outrage; all of them had heard of it; the whole public rung with it. He affirmed, that not the House alone, but the Speaker had been insulted; he had heard the language used and could not be mistaken as to its obvious import. He would not quote it, unless he was challenged to do so. But if he should be challenged to quote the words, he thought they were such as would leave no doubt of the correctness of his conclusion. He must therefore oppose the motion.
Sir R. Williamsthought he might move, as an amendment, "That Mr. Fuller be brought to the bar to apologize to the House, and that if the apology should be deemed sufficient, he might be discharged."
Sir E. Knatchbullwas not present at the time the outrage took place, but he had

649
heard of it, and he regretted that he was under the necessity of admitting, that this apology was hardly sufficient. Yet it would be allowed, he believed, that he was far from being indifferent as to the character and conduct of the unfortunate member who had incurred the displeasure of the House. He had taken the liberty of calling upon him, and had found that if it was conceived that he had offered any insult to the Speaker he was ready to come to the bar and make the most ample apology, and he trusted he would be allowed to come to the bar for that purpose.
Mr. Secretary Ryderdid not rise with a view to diminish the sense which the House appeared to entertain of the insult offered to it, nor to extenuate the offence committed. But at the same time, it was but fair to consider the situation in which the hon. member was when the outrage was committed;—it ought to have its weight in his favour;—that the insult was not a premeditated one. What the precise expressions were, he did not know, for he had not heard them; but he believed it to be admitted, that the hon. member was then in a situation in which he could not altogether appreciate the very improper nature of his conduct. With a view to example, however, he would propose an amendment to the motion of his right hon. friend. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. C. Wynn) would perceive that it would appear on the Journals, not only that the hon. member was discharged at the next sitting, but that the House did not sit the day immediately following the outrage. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That Mr. Fuller be called to the bar to be reprimanded by the Speaker, and then discharged."
The Speakerthought it right to state to the House, in justice to the individual whose conduct was now under discussion, that he had received a letter from Mr. Fuller, with an apology for expressions which he had not heard; and if he had heard them, the House would give him credit, he trusted, when he said that they would not have operated in the least on his mind, except as connected with the dignity and authority of the House.
Sir R. Williamssaid that he had moved an amendment.
The Speakerobserved, that he understood the hon. baronet only to have thrown out a suggestion, without embodying it into a formal amendment; but if he had misapprehended the hon. member he hoped
650
the House would give him leave to correct himself.
Sir R. Williamsthen said that he would second the amendment of the right hon. gent.—The question being put,
Sir John Anstrutherrose, amidst cries of "question, question," and said, that he did not mean to oppose the Amendment. His duty to the House (he was chairman to the Committee of Inquiry) had called upon him to pay particular attention to the outrage; and he was satisfied that it had proceeded in a great measure from a certain species of accidental misfortune. He, however, thought it necessary that a personal apology should be made to the Speaker. He now understood that apology had been made; but he also thought it proper that the apology should be entered on the Journals, if this was regular,
The Speakersaid, that nothing would appear on the Journals to shew that there was any personal insult to the Speaker, and this superseded the necessity of entering the apology on the Journals.
Mr. G. Vansittartasked, whether it would appear on the Journals that any apology at all had been made?
The Speakeranswered in the affirmative, and mentioned the precedent of a person who had offended by words, some years ago, in whose case it was stated, that the regret he expressed for his conduct was the ground on which the House admitted him to his seat again.
The question was then put, and the amendment carried without a dissenting voice.
The Speakerthen ordered the Serjeant at Arms to bring Mr. Fuller to the bar.
The Serjeant, with his mace, went accordingly to Mr. Fuller, and brought him to the bar; whereupon the Speaker, sitting in the chair covered, reprimanded the said Mr. Fuller, and he was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The Reprimand was as follows:
"Mr. Fuller; You now stand at that bar, in the presence of the Commons of this United Kingdom, to receive the declaration of their displeasure.
"During the progress of a Committee of this House, employed upon a solemn and important enquiry, your offensive language and disorderly conduct required an appeal to the authority of the whole House. Called upon by the House to excuse your misconduct, you aggravated your first offence, by insulting its dignity. And when committed to a custody which

651
ought to have been obligatory, alike upon your person and your honour, you forcibly broke from that restraint, and entered these walls with clamour and outrage unparalleled.
"This is the head and front of your offending. For my own part, I may state, with most perfect sincerity, that in no period of this transaction have I experienced any other sentiments than those of deep concern and regret, in common with the whole House, that any honourable member should have placed himself in your situation. And we are now willing to believe, from what was expressed in your behalf at the close of the same evening, when these events occurred, and from what has been represented again to us, during this day, that you feel a due sense of your own misconduct and errors.
"The moderation with which this House has visited your offence demands your most humble and most grateful acknowledgments. But let not this considerate forbearance lead you to mistake its motive, or to neglect its warning. For if, unhappily, you should at any future time relapse into the same or similar practices, there will probably remain but one step more to be taken, for rescuing the authority of this House from inevitable disgrace, and removing the possibility of your continuing so presumptuous a contest.
"For your past misconduct I am enjoined now to reprimand you, and you are hereby reprimanded accordingly; You are moreover discharged out of custody, paying your fees."
Ordered, nem. con. That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker, in reprimanding the said Mr. Fuller, be entered in the Journals of this House.

PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF WATERFORD.
Sir John Newportpresented a Petition of the catholics of the county and city of Waterford, setting forth, "That notwithstanding the several Petitions which had, on former occasions, been respectfully laid before the House, praying a repeal of the penal statutes affecting their body, have not hitherto been attended with success, they now conceive, from the extraordinary circumstances which have occurred, that they not only are warranted, but that it is become an imperative duty again to appeal to the tribunal of the House; and that the enjoyment of freedom, well understood, is the best security for national independence; from it alone can spring that enthusiasm, which, at the
652
present important and momentous crisis, is essential to the defence, perhaps to the existence, of the empire; and that the petitioners cannot be charged with any political delinquency, on the score of religious tenets no objection can be made to their claims; whereas foreigners of their persuasion, without connection or property in the country (of whose sincerity and loyalty the petitioners entertain no doubt), are admitted to posts of trust and honour, from which the petitioners are excluded; and that this political anomaly, this inversion of things, is unnatural as it is unaccountable; nor is it less so that catholics of the 19th century should be deemed unworthy to enjoy the great charter of liberty which those of the 13th obtained and secured, and which forms the pride and boast of Englishmen of the present day; and that, with glowing admiration, the petitioners beheld the names of their country shine conspicuous in the annals of glory in foreign climes; their valour can only be equalled by their fidelity; they cannot lament the hard fate that refused them protection and encouragement; under the banners of a British King they would emulate them in the field of fame, but would wish it to be in the service of the land of their birth and their affections; and that the loyalty and devotedness of such of their communion as have been admitted to fill inferior situations only in his Majesty's service stand unimpeached, and are not surpassed by any other denomination of his subjects; this consideration alone, as affording a pledge of what their conduct would be in the higher offices in the state, should silence the adversaries of their claims, and must, the, petitioners humbly conceive, have due weight with the House; and that they approve, in all its parts, of the Petition to be preferred by their brethren the catholics of Dublin, and pray the House, that they may be considered as united with them in their temperate and constitutional demands; and therefore praying the House, to take into their most serious consideration the nature, extent and operation of the aforesaid penal laws, and, by repealing the same altogether, to restore to the catholics of Ireland those liberties so long withheld, and their due share in that constitution which the petitioners, in common with their fellow-subjects of every description, contribute, by taxes, arms and industry, to sustain and defend."—Ordered, to lie upon the table.

DISTILLERIES OF IRELAND.
The House went into a Committee on the Irish distillery act.
Mr. Fostersaid, he would shortly state to the Committee, the object he had in view. Every gentleman, who was acquainted with the state of Ireland, knew that the increase of illicit distillation had become prodigiously great, ever since the prohibition of the distillation from grain; indeed, he imputed the alarming increase principally to that measure, as farmers encouraged the illicit trade in order to procure a market for their produce. So greatly had this private distilling trenched upon the lawful trade, that, in 1807, the quantity of spirits distilled by the open distilleries, was six millions of gallons, and the revenue 1,230,000 l. while, in the last year, it had scarcely been so much as one forth of that quantity. The inference that he drew from this was, that the vacuum, or intermediate quantity, between 1807 and 1809, was supplied by the illicit distillation. It was therefore necessary to look for remedy to a radical change in the system of Irish revenue, in so far as was connected with the distilleries. When he came into office, he found the system on which he had since acted in full force. It Was on a wise principle, and went to encourage large stills as the means of inducing parties possessed of extensive capitals to enter into the trade. However good the principle might be, it had failed in Ireland, and the illicit traffic was carried on by small stills to an almost incredible pitch. His first object, with a view to surmount this evil, would therefore be to promote the dispersion of legal small stills, all over the country. He did not mean to discourage the large stills, but merely to give an equal chance to the small ones, by discontinuing the bounties to the former. This had partly been done in 1806, and the reduction that then took place might fairly be considered, by the great distillers, as the notice to which they were entitled, after embarking in a speculation on the authority of government, to pursue, another system. His second object would be to do away the apprehension that existed in the minds of those ready to commence distillation on a limited plan, that they would be compelled to work off in a limited time. In this point, limitations similar to those which existed in Scotland would be adopted, and stills would be averaged at 150 gallons, unless their capacity exceeded that quantity. He ac-
654
knowledged that there were some grounds for the complaints of the Irish distiller on the fluctuation of the revenue laws, and would endeavour to obviate similar complaints, in the system he now proposed to have adopted, by granting licences for three years, which would give stability to speculation, instead of for one year, as had hitherto been the practice. There was another point which was deserving of all consideration, and which he had been induced to adopt, after the most minute investigation. It was at once, to reduce the duties from their present rate, 5s. 8d. per gallon, to 2s. 6d. He was satisfied that the revenue would not suffer by this; for though in the first year there might be a risk of diminution, yet, when the illicit trade was destroyed, which he was convinced would be the tendency of this measure, the sum paid to government by the legal distiller, would much more than counterbalance the lower rate of duty. Another of his objects would be to simplify the law. Those who now entered into the distillation trade could not be expected to be men of much education. The less complicated the revenue laws were, it would be the more advantageous; he would, therefore, abolish entirely the existing distinctions and drawbacks on the quantity of malt or spirits, and simply to charge 2s. 6d. per gallon on the quantity distilled. To avoid the increased expence of collecting the revenue, he proposed to have the collectors of hearth rates and assessed taxes employed also in collecting this branch of the revenue, without the intervention of the excise. His object was to pass a law beneficial to Ireland, and he would gladly listen to suggestions from every side of the House, without thinking of party, or difference of feelings on other points. He therefore invited gentlemen to communicate to him every idea that would tend to render the measure generally useful. Revenue, though from his situation it might be thought so, was not his sole object. By the proposed system, the morals of the people also, which were so injured by those illicit stills, would be improved, and the laws, now contemned, would, by being enforced, become more respected. A dangerous class of persons would be put down. He alluded to those, who without the cognizance of, and unknown to the magistrate, kept houses for the sale of spirits, illegally distilled, under whose roofs had originated many of the evils

655
which had lately so much distressed Ireland. With these objects in view, he moved, "That the chairman be instructed to ask leave to bring in a hill to alter and amend the laws in force respecting the distillation in Ireland."
Sir J. Newportexpressed his satisfaction at the measure proposed by the right hon. gent. and his readiness to co-operate with him as far as lay in his power, in carrying it into execution. He accorded most cordially with the proposition, which went to do what he had for the last four years pressed upon the consideration of the House.—He had ever wished to impress upon them the necessity of dispersing small stills over the country; and he had twice taken the sense of the House upon the question of withdrawing the bounties from the large stills. On one or two points of minor importance, however, he differed from the right hon. gent. He could not impute the increase of the illicit trade so much to the prohibition of distillation from grain, as it was known to exist to a very great extent before passing of that measure. Neither could he accord with the principle of survey, as necessary or beneficial to the revenue. It gave rise to frauds on the part of the trader, and corrupt connivance on the part of the excise officer. His view would be that, which, on best attention to the subject, he had ever thought the best, namely, to adopt the system of license; that was, to charge a certain duty monthly in proportion to the capacity of the still, and leave it open to the trader by his exertions to make more of it if he could. The right hon. gent. thought he had got quit of the extra expence of collecting, and the danger of frauds, &c. by taking it from the excise and entrusting it to the collectors of hearth rates and assessed taxes; but he was convinced this would never answer. Even these taxes were not too well collected now, and by adding another duty to the collectors, the revenue would suffer still more. This was the only radical point of difference between him and the right hon. gent. and this he hoped would be overcome in the Committee. The observations too of the right hon. gent. had anticipated much he bad to offer, though he would still wish certain resolutions he had previously prepared to be received, and entered on the journals, as shewing his deliberate view of this important question to a country, from which he had the honour to be sent to that House.
Mr. Fosternoticed, that the collectors of Assessed Taxes, &c. were released from that part of their duty, during the 6 winter months, when the distilleries were most employed, and would consequently be enabled to attend to them without inconvenience or loss to the revenue. He defended the system of survey, in opposition to that of license; and trusted the present measure would be unanimously supported by Irish gentlemen, which would convince the people of that country it was for their good, and that it would be fully enforced. The charge from surveys had arisen from 30 s. to 3l. 6s. 9d. 18 l. 54 l. and up to 164 l.—This was a proof how much it surpassed the license system.— The latter system was also rendered impossible by the Union, for the allowance of countervailing duties between England and Ireland, could never be carried into effect, when it could not be ascertained what was the incumbrance on the spirits of Ireland.
Mr. Beresfordwished to know if any compensation would be made to the holders of spirits, in consequence of the reduction of the duty?
Mr. Fostersaid it was impossible to do so, as there would be an endless recurrence of retailer to wholesale dealer, and wholesale dealer to distiller, &c. He had also looked for precedents, and found, in the commutation of the tea tax, that no compensation had been made to the holders of tea.
Mr. Parnellsaid, that he could not do otherwise than concur with the plan proposed by the right hon. gent. he having in the last session repeatedly pressed upon the House the policy of adopting the regulations which were now proposed. He must, however, make an exception in respect to the way in which the duty was to be collected, because he considered the system of survey wholly unfit for the system of distilling in very small stills. The expence to be incurred by excise officers would be immense, and persons having made capitals would be afraid to place themselves under the severe regulations attending the mode of collecting an actual survey. The license system had been tried with great success in Scotland, and though of late departed from, it was not given up until it had succeeded in putting down illicit trade. He wished to suggest a preferable mode of making an allowance to the distiller using turf, to that proposed by the right hon. gent. and

657
that was to allow a still of a flatter shape to be worked, in place of the proposed allowance in the number of charges. This plan would be less detrimental to the revenue, and enable the distiller to work at a smaller expence in fuel; at the same time the advantage, in point of his general profit, would only be such as he ought to have, in competition with the distiller making use of coal.
Mr. Fosterrebutted the arguments on the latter point.
Mr. Hutchinsonremarked on the variation between the sentiments of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Foster,) this session and the last, and accused him of disordering the revenue, enterprise, and trade of Ireland by the vacciliations of his politics. He called on him to make up his mind fully and firmly, before he introduced a system so diametrically opposite to that which he had, only one year ago, pledged himself to support, and thereby induced many persons, on the faith of gentlemen, to embark large capitals in distilleries from large stills. He noticed in particular the house of Browne, Stein, and Co. in Limerick, which had launched into great speculations on the strength of the encouragement held out by the right hon. gent. He then went into a view of the proposed alteration, and contended that large stills were preferable to small ones.—This was proved by the system of distillation in England, where there were none but large stills, and illicit trade was unknown. It was farther corroborated by Scotland, where distillation from small stills was encouraged, and there was a very great proportion of illegal traffic carried on.—He concluded, by imputing the blame of the great degree of illicit trade in Ireland to Mr. Foster, whose system, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with all his power, must have been bad to permit it.
Mr. D. Brownespoke in favour of the smaller stills, which would be universally beneficial to Ireland; though they might not answer the city which the hon. gent. represented (Cork.)
The Resolution was agreed to: the House was resumed, and the Chairman of the Committee obtained leave to bring in a Bill to the effect stated by Mr. Foster.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
Lord Palmerstonmoved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the Army Estimates. On the question being put, That the report be now taken into further consideration,
Mr. Maurice Fitzgeraldrose for the purpose of impressing the House with the importance of ascertaining whether the expenditure contained in the estimates was absolutely necessary. This was a duty the more incumbent upon Parliament, after the various admissions they had heard of the propriety of retrenchment, but more particularly after the speech of an hon. gent. (Mr. Huskisson) on a former night, adoping all the views thrown out with respect to retrenchment by an hon. member behind him (Mr. Wardle), towards the close of the last session. But the chief importance of the statement of that hon. gent. on the former night was, that it contained the best evidence of the necessity of retrenchment, as coming from a man the best informed of any in Great Britain upon that subject. With respect to the statement made by the noble lord in opening the army estimates, as to the amount of the military force of the country being 600,000, so far from creating confidence in the country, he was convinced it would produce the contrary impression of alarm, when it was considered, that out of such a force so small a proportion could be brought into action against the enemy as had been employed in the late campaigns. It was now admitted that the taxation had reached its maximum; that the struggle would become every day more serious, and consequently the country be called upon for greater exertions. With a view to such exertions, he should not object to a large establishment, if that could be maintained efficiently; but when out of such an establishment so small a force could be actively employed, he thought that there must be something radically bad in its composition. It appeared, by the estimates, compared with the returns of effectives, that the House was to be called on to pay for at least 20,000 men more than were in the ranks of the army. The foreign corps on the establishment amounted to 23,955; to which it was to be proposed to-morrow to add above 30,000 Portuguese, making a total of nearly 60,000 foreign troops—a greater force of that description than had ever been employed in the service of any nation. To keep up the native force there was no prospect by the ordinary recruiting, nor by any other means than breaking up other establishments. The recruiting produced 11,000 last year; the draughts from the militia 8,043; making in the whole about 30,000 men, from which was

659
to be deducted, desertions 3,387, leaving an actual accession to the army of 26,000 men only. The casualties at home, on the increased establishment, he estimated at 20,000 men; the casualties and extraordinary deaths in Spain, Portugal, and Walcheren, at the same number; so that the army had been diminished nearly 20,000, notwithstanding the accession from recruiting and the militia. The House was bound therefore to consider, whether it would not increase that class of men from which soldiers were to be procured. When retrenchments were talked of, he was surprised to find nothing in contemplation but a reduction of 20 horses per troop, and the reduction of the Manx fencibles, a corps consisting of only 347 men. He could see no reason, why so large a force of cavalry as 27,000 should be kept up, whéen we never had sent out more than 1,800 to Spain in the campaign under sir John Moore, and cavalry could be of no use in this country or Ireland, in the event of invasion. What he said of the regular cavalry applied equally to the volunteer cavalry. The volunterr infantry might be of some use; but he had never heard any reason assigned for keeping up such a force of volunteer cavalry.—The hon. member then proceeded to comment upon the expence and arrangements at the military college, complaining that the professor of fortifications had no more, or little more salary, than the teacher of arithmetic or fencing.—Alter dwelling some time on these points, and on the amount of force absorbed in the colonial service, the hon. member expressed his opinion, that the effective should be increased, by reducing the ineffective force.
General Tarletonfelt called upon, by an imperious sense of duty, to offer a few observations to the House, after what had fallen from the hon. member, and undertook to prove to the satisfaction of the House, that no reduction ought to be made in the cavalry force, which was our most useful arm. If there had been a cavalry force in Ireland at the time, gen. Humbert, with 800 men, could never have advanced 15 days march into that country. He had surveyed Ireland with a military eye, and could assert that it was peculiarly favourable for a body of cavalry to act in. Where ever gentlemen could hunt, there could cavalry act. It had been Buonaparté's uniform practice to employ large bodies of cavalry; and it was to the pressure of the French cavalry that was to be
660
ascribed the great loss sustained in the precipitate retreat to Corunna. An effective cavalry was a most useful, but an ineffective cavalry was a most dangerous force to employ; he thought, of course that efficient horses only should be purchased for that service. He implored his Majesty's ministers, therefore, not to suffer themselves to be persuaded, by any arguments, to make a reduction in a force so necessary to the present security and ultimate defence of the country.
Mr. Lambexpressed disapprobation of certain items in the estimates respecting foreign corps and temporary barracks in Ireland. But what he wished particularly to press upon the attention of the House was the enormous amount of the staff in this country, all of whom being absent from their regiments, performed no service. He could not perceive the reason why seven generals should be necessary in the home district. In the county of Herts, which formed a part of that district, some volunteers corps had been reviewed in 1805 by the duke of Cambridge, but since that period they had seen no general in that county. He did not mean to impute any blame to any of the generals, for the duty was perfectly well performed by the inspecting field officers. It certainly did appear somewhat strange that a staff of 20 persons should be necessary for one district. As to what had fallen from the hon. gent. respecting the military college, he had only to observe, that he entertained great hopes that it would prove beneficial to the army. When he considered the moderate expence of the college, he could not but think that this expence would be amply compensated by the benefits that would result to the army from that establishment.
Mr. Parnellconsidered it a great defect in the estimates, and a great error in preparing them, that an addition of 7,000 l. was to be made to the establishment of the war office, for the purpose of bringing up the arrears of the regimental accounts. He had also to complain, that the Report of the commissioners of military inquiry upon the subject of these arrears of accounts, had been suffered to lie on the table for two years, without having been acted upon.
Mr. Whitbread,perceiving no disposition in the right hon. gent. opposite to say any thing upon the subject under consideration, and feeling that it must be the wish of the noble lord (Palmerston) to

661
hear first all that could be urged against the estimates, in order that he might know to what he was to reply, begged to offer a few observations to the House upon the subject. This he felt it his duty to do, however reluctant he might be to occupy the attention of the House on that occasion. And here he could not help expressing the great satisfaction he felt at the ability with which the army estimates had been opened, in the perspicuous speech of the noble lord. It was the more gratifying to him to pay this tribute to the talents of that noble lord, becuase his latter speech in reply was even more creditable to him than the first on his opening. But he had risen chiefly for the purpose of calling for explanation upon some points in the estimates, which, notwithstanding the luminous speech of the noble lord, still required to be explained. The House was indebted to an hon. friend of his for having the estimates printed; and he was sure that no gentleman could look through them, and not be convinced that several points required explanation. There was one item for various contingencies amounting to 32,000 l. without any specification of the contingencies thus provided for, which particularly required explanation. Many jobs might be introduced under this head of contingencies; and he was therefore desirous to know whether there would be any objection to giving a detailed account of these contingencies? This was rendered the more necessary, as on the night before the last the House had come to a vote, that no account was to be produced of the application of the sums voted last year. When such a vote had been given respecting past expenditure, it became his duty, and that of the House, to be the more cautious how they voted money now, without knowing in what manner it was to be applied. It was, therefore, his intention to move an amendment to the motion put from the chair, by proposing to leave out the word "now," for the purpose of inserting the words, "this day se'nnight." The right hon. gent. had a vote on which he could ground the Mutiny bill; no mischief could consequently result from that short delay; and as the various accounts in the estimates required to be maturely considered before they should be voted, he did not think it too much to expect that his amendment should be acceded to. Every item of the public expenditure ought to be scrupulously ex-
662
amined, but more particularly, after the speeches of the right hon. and hon. gentlemen opposite (Messrs. Rose and Huskisson) on a former night.—As to the question of the mounting of the cavalry, much difference of opinion seemed to prevail, and consequently some time might be necessary in order, upon due and deliberate consideration, to reconcile such differences. For his own part, he thought it much better to purchase efficient horses at 75 l. than to purchase horses not fit to work at 25 l. each. Most of the horses sent out to Spain would never be fit for use; because the mode of training horses for the cavalry was likely to render them unfit for service, unless they were of the proper age when taken into training. He was of opinion that none ought to be purchased under the age of four or five years, in which case their immediate fitness for service would compensate for the difference of price, which could in no case be equal to the expence of keeping and training young horses.—The arrangement respecting the Manx fencibles drew a laugh from the noble lord himself, whilst stating it. The Manx fencibles were said to be intended to act against smugglers, whilst, according to every account, they were themselves the greatest smugglers in the island. He next came to the head respecting the local militia, which it was proposed to reduce in point of expenditure. Both he and an hon. friend, when the proposition for establishing the local militia was brought forward, had foretold all that had since happened. They had said that the expence would be enormous; they were told, no, it would be moderate; they had said that the establishment would interfere with the agriculture of the country; they were told, no, the farmers would be glad of it. They had said that the measure in its progress would unsettle the occupations and habits of the people: the answer was, no, the men would return cheerfully from their training to their former occupations and ordinary business. But what was the case now? Why, the House was told that the expence was so enormous, that unless it could be reduced, the establishment should be given up; that the number of days of exercise should he reduced; and that the habits acquired on duty tended to unsettle the occupations of the country. He was willing to attempt to make the local militia an efficient body, without the expence of

663
the staff. But he was apprehensive, that the sum proposed this year would not be sufficient. The sum voted last year was one million; the sum to be voted this year was 000,000 l. The local militia was to amount to six times the number of the regular militia. In his county, not one half of the local militia had been out on duty, or received their clothing. In other counties, they had not been called out at all. He should be glad, therefore, to know whether the whole of the money voted last year had been spent. This the right hon. gent. had refused to let the House know, and on this ground he was cautious, of voting more money till he should know how it was to be applied. He was well assured that not a man could take the field that did not cost government eight pounds for his clothing, and not a man could be trained at a less expence than eight pounds more; so that in the year of clothing each local militia-man would cost the country 16 l. All he wanted to know then, was, what portion of the local militia had been furnished with clothing last year, and what part was to be clad during the present. He wished to be informed of the expenditure of the past year, in order that he might judge of the correctness of the estimates for the present year. If in a man's private concerns, he were to be asked for the expences of this week, would he not call for an account of the expenditure of the last week? He was confident on this subject that the whole of the local militia had not either been clothed, trained, or armed last year, and as a member of that House, he felt that he had a right to call for information how far the money granted last session for that service had been expended upon it. The noble lord had stated that the expence was to be reduced in the present year. Perhaps it might not be the intention of the right hon. gent. to call out the whole of that force, or to furnish it with clothing this year. It had been said, indeed that this force could not be rendered efficient, but he was not one of those who thought it might not be rendered an efficient force even without the staff, by the attention of the country gentlemen commanding the corps and connected with its formation. He was confident, that if the regiments of local militia were to be sent out on duty for a month, they would acquire, if not a perfect knowledge of discipline, considerable dexterity in the use of arms,—Much had
664
been done in many cases by individual exertion; though, in several other instances, he feared that little had been done, because scarcely any thing was attempted. Upon the subject of the waggon train, he had but one observation to make. Either it was a good corps to be kept up, or it was not; if it was good, why reduce it? and if not good, why not do it away altogether? Five troops, it appeared, were to be reduced, and seven kept up, on the ground that five were serving advantageously with lord Wellington's army. It had been said, indeed, that lord Wellington thought well of the services of this corps; but this was the authority of that noble person against his own authority on a former occasion; for it was well known that lord Wellington had given that corps a far different character in a former instance. But though it might be desirable to keep up the part of the corps serving with lord Wellington's army for the present, he would ask, why measures had not been taken for its reduction whenever that army should return, if ever, as he sincerely hoped it should return, to this country? The enormous expence of the staff he considered so glaring, that he could not think it necesary to employ any argument to impress the House with the propriety as well as the necessity of very extensive retrenchment in that department. There was another item also in these estimates which deserved the particular attention of the House; that which regarded the establishment of a new army medical board. A noble lord (Temple) had given notice of a motion on this subject; but though he was not disposed to anticipate the discussion, still he must offer a few words on it. The old medical board had fairly run itselfout:— it no longer existed. It stood exposed in all its nakedness, and was at length actually dismissed.—But was the army likely to gain by the change? Was the new establishment to be more efficient? He had heard that the members of it were to receive increased salaries, because they had consented to give up their private practice—It was certainly but fair, if gentlemen, for public services, were taken from situations or professions of great emolument, that they should be indemnified for any loss they might sustain by the change; but was this the case with the members of the new board? So far from it, that he understood that two, if not the whole three of them, had retired

665
from practice for several years. He had felt it his duty to make some enquiry into the history of these gentlemen. One of them he learned was upwards of 70, almost as old, indeed, as sir Lucas Pepys, who was so old, in fact, that he was not capable of discharging his duty. The person he meant was Dr. Weir, who was a surgeon's mate in 1761, 49 years ago. Him they put at the head of the new medical board, having broken up the former for inefficiency. Dr. Ker was between 50 and 60 years old, was an hospital mate in 1766, and took a degree some years ago in Edinburgh. He, as well as the head of the board, had retired. Dr. Gordon, he understood, had also retired into the country. What practice, he would ask, had these people given up to entitle them to increased salaries? He could not but consider the increase of salary to them, therefore, as a most wanton and censurable waste of the public money. It was singular, too, that the whole of these gentlemen had come from the north of the Tweed, He did not mean to throw any imputation on that part of the empire, for many natives of which he had the highest respect. The selection, however, might be easily accounted for: the Commander in Chief was of the same country, between 70 and 80; and it was very natural that he should have a partiality for persons nearly of his own age and of his own nation.
But whatever the decision of the House might be, for the present, respecting the new establishment, he trusted the old medical board would not escape inquiry; that they would not be dismissed retaining their salaries. If it should be found they had done injury to the medical service of the army, they deserved to be punished. Two out of the three of these accused their colleague of having killed some thousands of the army by the error and insufficiency of his practice and arrangements. Was not this a subject for inquiry? If one of them was so old that he could not do his business—if he knew nothing of camps, and the diseases incident to a campaign, the knowledge of which was essential to the situation he filled, would the House agree to vote such a man remuneration? Before he would vote a shilling for the new establishment, he would insist on a thorough investigation into the old. They might all deserve punishment, but none could meritremuneration. He could not, therefore, as he had
666
before stated, consent to vote the Estimates, without knowing how the money was spent. He regretted that a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) who was always so prominent on questions relating to military affairs, was not in the House to deliver his opinion on these estimates. He considered it very extraordinary too, that he should have vacated his seat on the very day they were proposed. He recollected well that in a deoate on the same subject last session, that honourable member had felt it his duty to criticize the army estimates. He put some very pointed questions to the then secretary at war relating to the measures taken for the defence of the coast. He asked whether they were in that formidable condition that if Buonaparté by chance should sail by, he would pull off his hat, and say, "gentlemen, your humble servants, I see I cannot attack you." The right hon. member might have made a similar observation when he vacated his seat, and secured a snug sinecure. He might have said to the abolitionists, "Gentlemen, your humble servant, you may now do what you please with your bill, it won't affect me." —He recollected to have heard an observation of an hon. member of that House, who had shared the fate of many administrations. "Good God!" says he, "how different a man feels in and out of office!" There was another hon. gent. in his eye (Mr. Huskisson,) whose conduct in a late debate shewed, that a man might not only feel, but speak very differently in and out office.
The speech of that hon. gent. on that occasion, was directly the reverse of what he had urged in answer last session to the propositions submitted to the House by his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle) behind him. For the hon. gent. confirmed in perfect sobriety a great deal of that which his hon. friend had perhaps indiscreetly declared in a convivial moment. His hon. friend had declared, that it was possible to save ten millions, or to the amount of the income tax, out of the annual expenditure of the country. Now the time he selected for making this declaration, was the worst he could choose, namely, after a taverndinner; and, probably, at a time when the best financier in the company was not in a condition to divide the dinner-bill. And yet it was upon an inconsiderate declaration of this kind, and the applause that it excited, that his hon. friend chose to found a statement which tended to

667
render every suggestion of public economy ridiculous. Save ten millions! why his hon. friend reflected so little on what he was pledging himself to, that one glass more might have made it seventy millions. It was natural enough that his hon. friend, who was at that time in the high tide of his well-deserved popularity, should have thrown out in the gaiety of the moment so extravagant an expectation; but it was most extraordinary that he should come down to the House, and endeavour to establish such a statement. And how did he propose to effect this vast saving? Why, by wholly abolishing some of the most necessary branches of the public expenditure, by reforming others, by driblets cabbaged from this office and that department. Such inconsiderate proposals might be productive of great danger and detriment to the country. They tended to bring all plans of reform and economy into disrepute, to render them ridiculous, and to make those who proposed them, pass for extravagant and visionary speculators. But when the hon. gent. (Mr. Huskisson) came forward with suggestions of economical reform, he was entitled to greater respect. No one could suspect him of making inconsiderate and ill-digested propositions. For himself, he could not, entertaining, as he did, the highest opinion of the talents of that hon. gent. and his perfect acquaintance with every branch of the public expenditure, he considered his secession from the administration as by far the greatest loss it had sustained. A successor indeed (Mr. Wharton) had been found, but the House could already judge of the difference between them. The place, no doubt was filled, but it was not supplied. That a great saving, however, could be effected, they had the assurance of the hon. gent. in the late debate. His speech on that occasion was a counterpart of that of his hon. friend last session (Mr. Wardle) and the most complete answer that could be given to the reply which he then made, and which reply was published as a pamphlet.—But, whatever the saving might be, or to what extent it might be carried, it was impossible it could have much effect, constituted as the government now was—a government made up of jarring and discordant parts subject to no superior controul. The first lord of the treasury had no controul over the admiralty, and yet they were called on by him to vote money for the use of the admiralty. The first lord of the treasury had no controul over the ordnance,
668
for the master general of the ordnance denied his authority. The first lord of the treasury had no command over the army at all, for that was exclusively in the commander in chief. Was this the way in which things were to be carried on? Independent departments all pulling different ways, but all drawing on the first -lord of the treasury, without estimate, plan, or calculation of any sort! Nothing could more fully prove the mischief and confusion likely to arise from this system, than the speech of one of the right hon. gent.'s former colleagues. The necessity of a great and comprehensive system of national economy was becoming more evident every day. If they did not curtail, they could not go on long, said the hon. gent. (Mr. Huskisson) on the floor, and so should he say too. But he had been frequently himself reminded of the imprudence of any disclosures respecting the weakness or probable exhaustion of our finances. He was told that his speeches would go to America, and that they would encourage that country to exact greater terms, than she otherwise might. It was said they might go to France and encourage that power to insist on higher conditions than she might have been disposed to accept. Buonaparté, it was said, was directing the whole of his attention to the ruin of our finances; and would, he had been asked, he be the first to assure him, that his plan must prove ultimately successful? He did not suppose he would believe him if he did. He would perhaps rather consider him as a person, who wanted to get a place, and who would stick at no assertion that might contribute to turn the person out of it, by whom it was occupied. But when this avowal came from a person who had been a member of administration, it would have a hundred times the weight. What would the Moniteur say when it was avowed that the chief, if not only vectigal of England, was parsimonia? When the same lavish grants were called for, and it was declared that we were ruined if they did not go on, would not the Frenchmen toss their caps in the air, and cry, "Aye, now the thing is done. Don't you hear the enemy say they have no hopes but from economy? and yet they are going on in their usual career of extravagance." Ministers, in fact, were going on as if the national resources were infinite. At the very moment that they were burthening the people with a pension of 2,000 l. per

669
annum to lord Wellington, they bestowed a sinecure office of 4,000 l. a year.—(No, no, from the Treasury Bench, it is only 2,700 l.)—Well then, 2,700 l. a year (the amount of the sum made no difference in the argument) on a person that quitted no profession, who incurred no dangers, who subjected himself to no hardships or privations, and who rendered no services to the country, that he had ever heard of: these were the circumstances which excited and fed the general indignation and suspicion that were too apt to be entertained against public men. Those things, as well as others, were at length unmasked, but now the secret was disclosed. It was let out by the person who had been behind the curtain.— If we continued in this career of extravagance, how could we maintain war? How could we procure peace? He deprecated that impious and execrable doctrine, that we were to be engaged in perpetual war with France, or at least during the life-time of Buonaparté. He trusted the day would come, even during the life of that extraordinary man, that we could obtain peace on terms becoming our honour; but he would not, by voting for these estimates, put it out of his power to retrench. He would reserve the means of seeking for peace, as peace should be sought. If we did not retrench, it was possible that we might at last be obliged to seek for peace on our knees. He wished for peace, and therefore he wished to be put in a condition to make peace respectably. For these reasons he felt himself compelled to say, that he would not vote for the army estimates on that day. There were many of the items that were extremely objectionable. He would mention one; that which proposed a remuneration to the medical board. It was one, he was persuaded, which would create great dissatisfaction in the army and in the country. Such was the public opinion of the misconduct of that board, that any proposition for rewarding them must be heard with displeasure. However inconsiderable the sum might be in the great scale of national expenditure, in taking it off, they took off thousands of pounds of disgust. He could not consent to receive the report now. He wished for further time; he was not master of the subject. He wished to know how the money had been last year spent. He could not agree, without full and ample enquiry, to vote a shilling to such a lord of the treasury, surrounded by rapacious
670
colleagues, he meant in their departments, tearing him to pieces, like a parcel of prodigal sons, exclaiming, "Pay my debts, pay my debts," to a father who had no controul over them. The hon. member concluded amost able and animated speech, by moving, That the report be read on that day se'nnight; and observed, that if he carried the question, he should move, that certain items in the estimates be referred to a select committee.
Lord Palmerston,in reply, re-stated, and justified different items in the proposed reduction. The new medical board was composed of members, who, whether they came from the north or from the south, whether they were old or young, were perfectly efficient, and had every one of them been recommended by a board of general officers.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that inquiry had been made into the conduct of the late medical board, by a board of general officers, at the head of which was general Fox, who reported that they had not neglected their duty. The noble lord also stated, that notwithstanding the losses of the two last campaigns, the number of the regular army was greater now by 34,000, than it was on the 24th of March, 1807, when the former administration quitted office. The ordinary recruiting was found to nearly supply the ordinary waste. What stronger proof could there be of the efficiency of the system?
Mr. Whitbreaddid not mean to impute blame to the government for the conduct of the medical board. With respect to the estimates, he did not know whether it would not be more prudent to refer them to a select committee, before the House were called on to vote.
Mr. Huskissoncomplained of having been misconceived, and consequently misrepresented by the hon. gent. He denied that the speech to which the hon. gent. had alluded was a counterpart of the other hon. gentleman's (Mr. Wardle). He defended himself from the imputation of throwing indiscriminate censure upon his Majesty's ministers, but admitted that he had some doubts as to the policy of continuing the excess of expenditure referred to in his speech on a former night.
Lord Folkestonedefended Mr. Edmund Knight, who had been alluded to in terms of harshness in the course of the debate, from the imputation of blame cast upon his conduct in the medical department of the late expedition.
Sir J. Newportobjected entirely to the estimate relating to the barrack department in Ireland.
Mr. W. Polereplied at considerable length to the hon. baronet, and warmly supported the estimate of which he complained.
Mr. Wardleasked the noble secretary for the war department, who the barrack-master-general was, who, it appeared on the face of the estimates, had retired on a pension of 691 l. per annum.
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that to the best of his recollection the gentleman alluded to was general De Lancey.
Mr. Huskissonspoke in favour of the mode adopted by government of rewarding that officer.
Mr. W. Smithdeprecated the appointment as an unnecessary piece of extravagance, and an additional burthen upon the country.
The. Chancellor of the Exchequerdisagreed with the hon. gent. in the view he had taken upon the subject, thinking as he did, that the services of so meritorious an officer ought to meet with an adequate reward. The right hon. gent. entered into a defence of all the items of estimates in the account before the House, except that relating to the Home Staff, which he confessed ought to undergo some revision; and entertaining such an opinion, he de-
672
clared that he would not divide the House upon that point.
Mr. Bankes, Mr. H. Thornton, and Mr. Giles, and Sir C. Burrard, declared their determination to vote in favour of the amendment—and Mr. Dundas opposed it.
Mr. Whitbread,in reply, said he should not divide the House upon his Amendment, but he did hope that some of the items he should name would be reserved for further consideration. He particularly mentioned those relating to the Home Staff, the Medical Department, and the Local Militia, all of which he moved should be taken into further consideration on this day fortnight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerprofessed his willingness to agree with the hon. gentleman's proposition, of deferring the consideration of the Home staff subject; but to the others he felt it his duty, gave his positive dissent.
The question on Mr. Whitbread's Amendment was then put from the Chair, and negatived without a division; and the original question for taking the report of the Committee of Supply 'now' into consideration was carried in the affirmative. The House then agreed to all the resolutions of its Committee, excepting that relating to the Home Staff, the further consideration of which was postponed until this day fortnight.