Commons Sitting of 3 March 1818

POOR LAWS.
Mr. Lushington having presented the returns of the sums of money levied throughout England and Wales for the maintenance of the poor,
Mr. Davits Gilbertsaid, he had been induced about three years ago to bring in a bill for the purpose of obtaining the information now laid before the House, in the hopes of drawing the public attention to the most important subject which ever perhaps came before parliament. Unless some limit could be set to the rapid progress of the poor-rates, the ruin of the country was inevitable. Since the period in question, he was happy to say, that a committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject; and this committee had excited more attention throughout the country, and more hopes of good was expected from it than from any thing which had come before the House for many years past. He hoped the committee
†
736
would not confine themselves to mere: matters of regulation, but that they would grapple with the main question itself. However numerous and useful the regulations the committee might suggest, this would not satisfy the country: by attacking the system itself they would eventually do infinitely more good. But as an opportunity would soon be afforded for entering into this subject, he should not take up the time of the House longer at present, but merely move, that the papers now laid before the House be printed.
Sir Charles Moncksaid, the country would not be satisfied unless government came forward and took under its charge some radical measure for the relief of the country from the intolerable evil of the poor laws.
Mr. Calcraftwas at a loss to know what gentlemen meant by some radical measure. If they meant that government ought to come forward and propose the abolition of the poor-rates, he, for one, would enter his protest against such a doctrine. No such measure ought to be proposed cither by the government or by any other body of men in that House. The poor-rates were an evil no doubt; and that evil was still greatly increased by the manner in which the poor laws were administered. But this great evil arose chiefly out of our enormous taxation; and if the hon. gentleman, who moved the printing of the papers would but lend his aid to diminish the amount of taxation—to check the extravagance of government,—he would contribute more effectually, perhaps, than he possibly could do in any other way to the reduction of the poor-rates. No majority of parliament could say that the poor-rates ought not to be continued beyond a given time. The mal-administration of the poor laws, which no man could more regret than he did, was no argument against a legal provision for the poor. But, he would ask, had not the poor-rates been gradually diminishing? From having seen the poor-rates so high, and from seeing them fall, he was convinced they would again have them low. Gentlemen would have their corn bill—they wanted to have a high price for corn, labour low, and moderate poor rates. But these three things they could not possibly have at the same time. If corn was high, labour could not be low, without there being heavy poor-rates. The labourers and their families must eat. Low labour was,

737
no doubt, a great advantage in agriculture and manufactures; but it ought never to be so low as not to afford subsistence for the labourer and his family, in a style suitable to his condition in life-Whether his wages were 10 s., 15 s., or 20 s. a week, he cared not, if it procured for him that degree of comfort to which he was entitled. If they wished to check the evils arising out of the system of the poor laws, no man would go farther than he was willing to go; but if it was intended to go against the principle of the act of Elizabeth, he, for one, should protest against such an innovation.
Sir C. Monckwished it to be understood that it was against the abuse of the poor-laws that he had spoken, and not against any part of the act of Elizabeth which provided support for the aged and infirm.
Mr. Frankland Lewisdeprecated all discussion on this subject, at the present moment, as premature. The subject was one of the very highest importance, being neither more nor less than the happiness or misery of a vast mass of the population. The committee had nothing so much at heart as to carry through the investigation of this matter in the most dispassionate manner, and to avoid coming to a hasty determination upon it. Perhaps, indeed, they would be blamed for their dilatory manner of proceeding; but it was better that they should err on the side of caution than on the side of precipitation. The hon. gentleman had asked, if by setting themselves against the system of the poor laws, it was meant suddenly to withdraw from the people relief from the poor rates? But it was utterly impossible that any man in his senses could entertain such a wish as to get rid of the poor-rates altogether. This was what was meant when it was said, that government and the House ought to set themselves against the system of the poor laws: the poor-rates, if they were allowed to go on in- creasing as they had done, would gradually absorb all the rents and produce of the country. When he said, therefore, that they ought to set themselves against the system, he said he hoped that they would take such steps as would prevent this ruin even to the paupers themselves. He should not, however, enter into the subject at present; but in the mean time he had no hesitation in saying, that the people of this country would have been incomparably happier, from the highest to the lowest, if the statute of Elizabeth had
738
never been enacted. When he said this, he did not mean to give an opinion that relief to the poor ought to be discontinued. With respect to what an hon. gentleman had said as to the country gentlemen wanting to have high prices for their corn, and low rates for labour, he wished to assure that hon. gentleman, that there was nothing they were less anxious to see than high prices for corn and low prices for labour. If there was any thing they were more anxious to do than another, it was to effect such a connexion between the price of food and the price of labour, as would enable the lower classes to maintain themselves without any assistance from the poor-rates. The committee had had but too many instances before them of the detestable system of paying the wages of labour out of the poor-rates. They had had instances before them of farmers paying sixpence a day to their labourers, and paying them ten shillings and upwards out of the poor-rates; thus taking from others nearly the whole of the wages of such labourers. A most mischievous trade existed in this country of manufacturing goods for exportation, at a lower rate than that at which they could be made for. This was done by charging part of the wages of the manufacturer on the land, which was reaping no benefit from a trade of which it paid the cost. He would not have said a word of taxes, had it not been a second time urged, that the increase of the poor-rates arose out of the increase of taxation. Nothing in his opinion was less satisfactorily made out than the position, that the amount of the taxation influenced the number of paupers, or the amount of the sums distributed to them. He denied that this position had ever been satisfactorily proved [Hear, hear!]. He had heard persons maintain that the country was so impoverished by taxation, that it was unable to pay for labour. But the effect of taxation was only to take from the pockets of one class of people, to give to another money already existing. It merely altered the channels of expenditure—it did not destroy the expenditure. That which was taken from the producer and went into the hands of government, was laid out in the employment of soldiers and sailors, of persons who manufactured gun-powder, or muskets, or other warlike stores. Taxation merely changed the form and shape of society. If they traced the money raised in taxes, through the

739
different channels through which it circulated, they would find government as large an employer of labourers as individuals would have been, if the sums paid by them in taxes had never been withdrawn from them. To take, for instance, the twenty-seven millions annually paid into the hands of stockholders: there could be no doubt that this interest of stock employed as much labour as if it had not been withdrawn from the agricultural and other classes. They all witnessed the distress felt throughout the country by the want of demand in many branches of industry, from government ceasing to be a purchaser. He said then, it ought not to be taken for granted that taxation was the cause of the great increase of the poor-rates. He did not mean to say, there would have been so great an increase in the poor-rates altogether, if the present accumulation of taxes had not existed; but that the mere consideration of the accumulation of taxes was by no means the principal cause of the increase of the poor-rates. Taxation rather changed the description of labourers and the description of employers, than the amount of employment.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had deprecated all premature discussion of a subject of such importance as the poor laws, and had promised to avoid imitating in that respect the example of those who had preceded him. In like manner he should begin by deprecating all premature discussion of this question, and promising to avoid entering himself into such a discussion. But there would be this difference between himself and the hon. gentleman, that he would keep his promise; whereas immediately after the deprecation of the hon. gentleman, it had seemed good to him to enter into a most delicate and difficult topic which had not any connexion with this important question. And having thus discussed the subject of the poor laws at considerable length, as if he had not sufficiently redeemed his pledge to the House, the hon. gentleman had then entered into another subject almost as important as the poor laws, namely that of taxation. The discovery which the hon. gentleman had made on this occasion, was not indeed so self evident as that which he lately made that the country banks issued paper. The last discovery, however, though not so self evident, was certainly highly curi-
§
740
ous; namely, that taxation had no effect whatever in increasing the number of paupers, or the sums necessary to be distributed among them; that is—it was of no consequence whether 1,000 l. was laid out in the employment of productive labour, or whether this 1,000 l. should be withdrawn from productive labour, and given to a sinecure lord of the Admiralty, who did no work whatever. He had taken this instance, which might serve as a specimen of the doctrines of the hon. gentleman on this subject. But he would keep to his promise, and not enter into any discussion of this subject. He begged, however, to protest in the first instance—for this was the first time he had heard this doctrine maintained in that House—against all and every part of it: and he would undertake to show, when the time came for entering into such a discussion,—that there never was a proposition maintained, more fallacious or more dangerous to the country.
Mr. F. Lewisexplained. He had never said that taxation had no effect in increasing the poor rates. What he had said was, that the number of paupers was not occasioned by taxation alone.
Mr. Curwenwas convinced that taxation clearly entered into the condition of the labouring poorer classes, and believed they did not pay less than 25 per cent to the government in the shape of taxes.
The papers were ordered to be printed, and referred to the committee on the poor laws.

POLICE REPORT—PETITION OF SURREY MAGISTRATES.
Mr. Sumnerpresented a petition from James Trotter, John Whitmore, and Thomas Reid, esquires, magistrates for the county of Surrey, complaining that they had been unjustly attacked, as having misconducted themselves in their duty as licensing magistrates of public houses. The depositions of Robert Whitburn a witness examined on the police committee, had formed the ground-work of that unwarrantable and calumnious attack. The petitioners prayed they might be afforded an opportunity of refuting the calumny,
Mr. Bennetsaid, that no part of the report was directed against the gentlemen alluded to. Though he thought it would be extremely difficult for them to explain every part of the transactions stated in the evidence in a satisfactory manner. He should certainly feel it his duty to

741
move for the revival of the committee, to allow them an opportunity of justifying themselves.
Lord Lascellesinstanced a case where the reason for withholding a licence was rnistated in the evidence taken by the police committee.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that in such a large body of evidence, notwithstanding the utmost pains, it was impossible that much that was incorrect should not find admittance.
Mr. D. Sumner bore testimony to the character of the magistrates whose petition he had presented. Mr. Serjeant Onslow and Mr. Thornton expressed themselves also in strong terms to the same effect.
The petition was ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS OF J. BUCKLEY MELLOR AND SAMUEL PILLING, COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT FOR THE SALE OF POLITICAL BOOKS.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he held in his hands a petition to which he wished to draw the attention of the House. It was from a person who had not been imprisoned under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. The act of which the petitioner complained was one of those measures, which the noble lord, the secretary of state for the home department as head of the high police of the country, had chosen to inflict on the country. The House would recollect the Circular Letter of the noble lord to the lords lieutenant of counties, directing magistrates to hold persons to bail charged with selling libellous publications. Whatever might be the intention of the noble lord as to the degree of mildness or severity with which persons so arrested should be treated, the petitioner had been treated with a degree of cruelty hitherto unknown in the practice of this country. The petition was from Jonathan Buckley Mellor, by trade a small bookseller, in the town of Warrington. The offence for which the petitioner was arrested, was the selling the well known Political Litany for which Mr. Hone was tried; but though the copies bought for the purpose of prosecution were obtained long previously, he was not taken up till after the quarter sessions in April, when he was dragged to a common gaol, and confined several days in irons. The petitioner was conveyed, loaded with irons, to the house of correction at Preston, where he was confined six weeks. He was altogether confined fifteen weeks in differ-
742
ent prisons, before he was removed, at 12 o'clock at night, in an open cart, in irons to the sessions at Ormskirk. He remained there two days and two nights in irons, in a dirty room, without even straw to lie on. The case was removed by the person who conducted the prosecution, by Certiorari to the court of King's-bench. The prisoner was re-conveyed to Preston in a cart, along with convicts sentenced to transportation. He remained there four weeks in prison, when he was discharged on his recognizance. During this time his wife and children were reduced to the most abject poverty, and obliged to apply for parochial aid. He trusted, however indifferent the House had hitherto shown themselves to the grievances of the people, that they would, on an occasion of this kind, show that they would not allow them to be made the victims of most wanton, and unjustifiable cruelty.
The Petition was read. It purported to be the petition of Jonathan Buckley Mellor, of Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, and set forth:
"That the Petitioner has for some time undertaken the sale of books, with a view to enable him to support himself and family in a more comfortable way than his wages as a servant would allow of; that, amongst the books and pamphlets which he received from his agent in the way of business, was a quantity of copies of a work styled "The Political Litany;" that, upon the publication of lord Sidmouth's circular, Mr. Thomas Lyon, jun., in February 1817, sent one Mary Scholeheld to purchase two copies of the Litany from the petitioner, for the purpose as it subsequently appeared, of having the petitioner arrested for the sale of this work; that Mr. Thomas Lyon jun. notwithstanding his pretended alarm for the interests of religion, instituted no proceedings until the quarter sessions in April had ended; his motive for this delay was solely to gratify his malice by subjecting his victim to a longer period of imprisonment; as soon as the sessions were over, he deputed Paul Caldwell, the constable, to arrest the petitioner; when taken into custody, the petitioner demanded to see the warrant upon which he was apprehended; the constable produced a pair of hand-cuffs, and with them securing the hands of the petitioner, replied they were his warrant; the constable took the petitioner to a public-house, and delivered him in charge to Mr. Thomas Lyon jun. who

743
was there waiting to know the success of his measures; the constable then returned to the petitioner's house, which he searched, and carried away from thence about seventy books and pamphlets in a sack, amongst which were Rollin's Antient History, Wynne's General History of America, Law's Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, the Evangelical magazine for two years, some numbers of the Liverpool Mercury, a few of Cobbett's Registers, and other miscellaneous publications; Law's Serious Call, with some Other books thus forcibly carried off have never been returned; not one parody was found in the House, the one sold to Scholefield was the last sold by the petitioner, for, on learning that the Political Litany was considered by his majesty's ministers to be blasphemous, he declined to sell any more, although strongly urged to do so by persons who, he has reason to believe, were emissaries of Mr. Thomas Lyon jun.; soon afterwards, the petitioner destroyed every copy which remained; the petitioner was confined all night in the Bridewell, a dirty loathsome dungeon; he was then taken before the magistrates, Richard Gwyllym and Isaac Blackburne esqrs. and by them ordered to be confined in the workhouse, where he continued all night chained by the leg to a 60 pound weight, without either bed or straw; the next day he was again examined before the same magistrates, who offered to liberate him on his procuring two sureties, in the penalty of 50 l. each, and himself in 100 l.; the petitioner, not being provided with sureties, was again removed to his former situation for two nights more, with a similar appendage to his leg, and again without bed or straw; he was then conveyed in irons to the house of correction at Preston; here he was, for six weeks, denied pen, ink, and paper; he was confined at Preston fifteen weeks, from whence he was conveyed in irons, at twelve o'clock on a very wet night, in an open cart, to the quarter sessions then holding at Ormskirk; there he was confined two days and nights, all the time in irons, in a dirty room crowded with prisoners, without any convenience to ease themselves from the burthens of nature except an open leaky tub in a corner, and without even straw to lie upon; on being brought into court, Mr. Peter Nicholson, the attorney for the prosecution, said he had a writ of certiorari to remove the business to the King's-bench; the petitioner was then conveyed back to
744
Preston, handcuffed and ironed, along with convicts sentenced to transportation; about four weeks, more he was, in consequence of a letter from Mr. Nicholson to the governor of the house of correction, discharged on his own recognizance to appear at the court of King's-bench, incompliance with which, not having received any notice to the contrary, he went to London at a considerable expense of time and money, and having appeared in court, he was ordered to appear at Lancaster at the March assizes 1818; the petitioner, unconscious of having infringed upon any existing law, has by these cruel and illegal proceedings been imprisoned upwards of nineteen weeks, been conveyed like a criminal seventy miles from Preston, he had to return home, to travel to and from London at great expense, whilst his wife and family have been dependent on the scanty aids of parochial relief and the contributions of the benevolent, and he has lost a situation which before his arrest contributed materially to his support; the petitioner humbly prays that the House will take into their consideration the statement now submitted, and that they will adopt measures best calculated to secure the liberty of the subject, and to prevent a recurrence of the arbitrary, unjustifiable, and severe sufferings endured by the petitioner, from the magistracy, or any their inferior officers and agents."
Mr. Bennet also presented a petition from Samuel Pilling, of Warrington, setting forth:
"That on the 23rd of April 1817, Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable of Warrington, along with other persons, entered the petitioner's dwelling-house, and told him they were were come to search for Cobbett's Books, and though the petitioner did not in the least resist the search of his drawers and boxes, but offered to find them the key of one box which was locked, the deputy constable ordered him away with one of the persons who accompanied; this person took the petitioner to the work-house, adjoining to which is the prison of the town, a damp unwholesome place; the petitioner was not thrust into this hole, but was permitted to sit on a wooden sofa by the kitchen fire, with a chain locked round his leg, to which was fastened a 60lbs. weight; in this situation the petitioner was kept till the following day, and he was then taken before Richard Gwyllym and Isaac Blackburne, esqs., two magistrates for the county

745
of Lancaster, before whom he was charged with selling to one John Scholefield, on the 8th of February, 1817, a seditious and blasphemous pamphlet called "The Political Litany; John Scholefield not being present, the petitioner was ordered back to the workhouse, where he was chained to the 60lbs. weight as before, and was taken the next day before the aforesaid magistrates, where John Scholefild's wife deposed, that she bought the Political Litany from the petitioner on the 8th of February 1817; John Scholefield deposed that he received the said pamphlet from his wife, and delivered it to Thomas Lyon jun.; Thomas Lyon jun. deposed that he received the pamphlet so purchased from John Scholefield; on these depositions the petitioner was committed to the House of correction at Preston, by the warrant of the aforesaid magistrates, there to lie till delivered by due course of law; that on the 26th of April the petitioner was taken like a felon with chains round his legs, fastened to the bottom of a caravan, and conveyed to the house of correction at Preston, and was there put into confinement a long with felons and kept to hard labour, till the quarter sessions held at Ormskirk on the 4th of August; to that place, a distance of. 18 miles, the petitioner was removed during the night in an open cart, exposed to incessant rain, with chains on his legs, locked to persons charged with felonious acts; when the petitioner arrived at Ormskirk he was put into a room, and was kept there three days, locked to felons, and had nothing to lie on but the room floor, though he was at that time in a bad state of health, and he was there informed, that a writ of Certiorari was come from the court of King's-bench, and that he was to be tried at Lancaster, the spring assizes; the petitioner was removed from Ormskirk to the house of correction at Preston, in the same manner he had been conveyed thither, where he was kept five weeks longer in prison, during which time, being unwell with a stoppage of urine, and not being able to go to his daily work, he was severely treated by one of the turnkeys named Anderson, who threw him down, kicked him, and otherwise very much abused him, giving him two black eyes, because forsooth he was unable to work through illness; after being detained a prisoner at Preston for nineteen weeks, the petitioner was liberated on his own recognizance to ap-
746
pear at the court of King's-bench, to be held at Westminster on the 6th of November, 1817; there he appeared and pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him, upon which he was bound over to make his appearance at the next assizes, to be held at Lancaster, where he will have to appear, a distance of about fifty two miles; that the petitioner, on his return from Preston, found that Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable on the day of his apprehension, had seized the greatest part of his books and papers, many of them not of a political nature, carrying them off in a large basket belonging to the petitioner; and although the petitioner has applied to Isaac Blackburne, esquire, one of the aforesaid magistrates, who promised to speak to Mr. Peter Nicholson, the solicitor who managed the prosecution against the petitioner, to deiver them up, and although the petitioner has repeatedly applied to the said Mr. Nicholson, and to Paul Caldwell, the deputy constable, they have not been returned to him; and the petitioner humbly conceives the first seizure of his books to be illegal, as well as the present detention of them; that the petitioner suffered very much from anxiety of mind, on account of a wife and two helpless children, who were left in a great measure destitute by his imprisonment; and he humbly prays the House will take into their serious consideration the cruel, unjust, and illegal treatment which he has received, and that they will adopt such measures as they in their wisdom may judge the best calculated to secure the liberty of the subject, and prevent a recurrence of the same cruel, unjust, and arbitrary treatment, which has been received by the petitioner from the magistrates and their subordinate agents, in consequence of lord Sidmouth's Circular."
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.
Mr. Bennetwished to know whether it was the intention of the attorney-general to bring these men to trial, after the three acquittals of Mr. Hone, the principal publisher of the parodies; or whether he did not feel it his duty to discharge the recognisances under which they were bound to appear at the next assizes?
The Attorney Generalapprehended there was a mistake in the supposition that the recognizances bound these men to appear at the next assizes. The recognizances, he believed, bound them to

747
await the judgment of the court of King's-bench. Unless they had notice of trial, they would not be bound to appear.
Mr. Bennetsaid, the learned gentleman had not answered the question, whether he did not feel it his duty to discharge the recognizances? He certainly had no right to demand this answer.
The Attorney Generalreplied, that he had no hesitation in saying, that because a person had been acquitted for the publication of certain libels, he did not feel it therefore his duty to discharge the recognizance of persons under prosecution for publishing transcripts of those same libels, whether he should proceed in the prosecution of these men would be determined by a variety of other considerations; but he did not feel it his duty to forego the prosecution of what appeared to him to be a libel, because a person had been acquitted for publishing a similar libel in another place. He knew it had happened, that in one place a person had been acquitted of a libel on the publication of a paper, which had at another time and place been declared to be a libel by another jury, to the satisfaction of those who heard the trial. It was not for him to say on what grounds the jury acquitted Mr. Hone. He wished to cast no reflection on that verdict: it was fit the defendant should have the full benefit of it. But he would take leave to say, that it did not satisfy him, that ever after these publications should be allowed to circulate with impunity. There were many circumstances which might have weighed on the mind of the jury in the case of Mr. Hone. Mr. Hone had proved that after a certain time, when he found those publications were disapproved of by many persons, he ceased to sell them. He thought it extremely likely that, considering this, and considering how in former times, similar publications had passed without reprehension, they might have acquitted Mr. Hone though they thought his publications mischievous. But did it follow that men vending this publication, which if not a libel was literally poison, through the country, should be suffered to proceed—to circulate it at the corner of every street? Did it follow that the law officers were to let this pass without animadversion? Since Mr. Hone had ceased to publish, other persons had republished them, nearly at the same place where they were first vended. They professed that they had a right to do so, and
748
desired that the subject should be brought before a court of justice; and so valuable did they conceive these publications to be, that they talked of bringing actions for the copyright. Whether in these individual cases he should think it his duty to prosecute, would depend upon other considerations than the acquittal of Mr. Hone. They had been indicted at the Ormskirk quarter sessions, and he had thought fit to remove the cause to the court of King's-bench, because, while the case of Mr. Hone was depending before a superior court, he did not think it fit to bring on a similar case before an inferior court.
Mr. Lytteltonsaid, he was glad he had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on these detestable libels, for so, notwithstanding the acquittal of Hone and verdicts of the juries, he should call them. He did not think those verdicts however conscientiously given, could or ought to alter the opinion of any man in the country. He should have been glad to have had an earlier opportunity of expressing his feelings on the subject; but he thought it his duty, however unimportant his individual opinion, to contribute his mite to do away the mischief which the verdict, however well meant, had indirectly occasioned. The petitions before the House, however, stated matters which were very fit for inquiry. It was not for him to give an opinion whether these persons should be prosecuted, but he thought it likely that a verdict might be obtained against these publications, when there was nothing in the individual case in favour of the person prosecuted. But it was doubtful to him, whether farther prosecutions might not aggravate the evils of these publications. It was fit for the House to consider what cause had led to these acquittals—whether the minds of the juries had not been indisposed towards any state prosecutions, by the unconstitutional law which had been passed, and by the manner in which other state prosecutions had been conducted. This he threw out for the consideration of the House, and he hoped they would bear it in mind when the bill of indemnity demanded by ministers should be brought forward [Hear, hear!].
Mr. Broughamwas pleased that an opportunity was offered to him of expressing his opinion on what formed a principal subject of the petitions they had lately heard. He agreed with his hon. friend in regarding with feelings of unqualified dis-

749
approbation the very repugnant, and, if he might so say, in every point of view, the very disgusting publications that had been issued; and he agreed with him in not making any remark in disparagement of the verdict of those juries. Indeed, had he been upon the juries himself, under all the circumstances of the case—considering the impunity of former libels of the same nature, and the general conduct of the prosecution, he should have felt it his duty to return the same verdict. The juries were justified in their conduct. They might, and no doubt did, wholly disagree with the tenour of the libels; but they considered that they were political prosecutions, and if they had had ten times as much blasphemy in them—if it were possible that ten times as much blasphemy could have been crammed into such a space—if they had been on the side of government they would not have been called on to give a verdict of blasphemy against them. They acted as British jurymen; they thought that by acting as they did they served the cause of religion, better than if they had given verdicts for those who served it only when it suited the side to which they belonged. They saw that the intention was to make religion a cloke for political purposes. He spoke not lightly when he spoke of things of the same nature from another quarter. There were publications which appeared more disgusting and more disgraceful even than these; parodies not merely of the liturgy, but of large portions of scripture; parodies produced with other views than the objects of the prosecutions. He alluded to those which had been published when the noble lord and the bulk of his present colleagues entered upon their offices. At that time parodies were in the course of publication, not by a few obscure individuals, or by a few dozen copies at a time, but circulated in great numbers under the special protection of those very persons who had carried on the recent prosecutions. Had they prosecuted those parodies? No. Because they were against their own political adversaries, and to serve their own political ends. He would say, that nothing could do so much harm to religion as to make it a handle for political convenience; and that he was the worst enemy of religion who made a show of dealing out justice for its protection, but who, in reality, acted on political grounds, and to nerve political interests. But it seemed a
750
man might blaspheme—he might send forth as much irreligion as he thought proper—as long as he meddled not with the conduct of government—he might abuse the ministers of religion with Impunity, so long as he refrained from speaking ill of the ministers of the king—he might say or publish what he chose, so long as he was of the right stamp—lie might take what liberties he pleased with the affairs of the church, so long as he left temporal subjects unprofaned. He had a most complete dislike of such publications themselves; but religion, he thought for its own sake, ought never to furnish means for the expression of political displeasure.
Lord Castlereaghthought the doctrine of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken open to much animadversion, particularly as it came from a professional gentleman. There never could be a doctrine maintained more fatal to the laws, and to the fair and impartial administration of justice, or its purity and tranquillity, than that a jury, on their oaths, bound to decide on the particular case before them, should be allowed to travel out of the record, and erect themselves into a sort of political tribunal to adjudge, by comparison, different matters and different persons. This was contrary to the spirit and principle of jurisprudence, and he trusted the House and the country would never tolerate, that their judicial tribunals should be elected into places for political disquisitions. It was in vain to defend these offensive publications, on the ground that other parodies had been previously suffered to pass with impunity. He was at the same time ready to admit, that whenever the scriptures were so parodied, the act was highly reprehensible, no matter in what way the parody was intended to be applied. Offences of this kind, however, were open to different views. He knew not to what parodies the hon. and learned gentleman alluded, but there was a great difference between the effect of publications circulated at a cheap rate, and couched in language calculated to diffuse poison throughout the country, and those which were circulated at a dearer rate in a higher circle of society, and, in fact, intended but for literary classes. His object, however, was not to defend by comparison such publications; he merely rose to protest against the doctrine so broadly laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman, that a jury, solemnly trying a

751
particular fact, should be allowed to travel out of the record, and neutralize that fact, because other parties had previously acted with impunity. In this manner the jury might be said more to try the attorney-general for his prosecution, than the defendant who was really committed to their inquiry.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the doctrine which the noble lord had been reprobating was no doctrine of his. What he had said was this, that the jury were so placed that they were called on to single out one man for conviction on a particular offence, which had been committed with impunity, nay, with encouragement, by others for a course of years. To make such a distinction to suit political views, would have been any thing but that even-handed justice which they were sworn to administer.
Lord Castlereaghappealed to the House, whether the hon. and learned gentleman had not re-laid down the doctrine he had complained of.
Mr. Wilberforcewas very glad indeed to find that the hon. member for Worcestershire, and the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, had so decidedly expressed their opinions against these parodies. He was himself entirely ignorant of the libel of which the hon. and learned gentleman had spoken. It ought, in his opinion, to be considered, whether or not, without prosecuting, the libel would be likely to have a great degree of circulation, or would do a great degree of mischief. He remembered a case of prosecution, in which a noble lord (L. Erskine) had been particularly engaged. In that case, the question of prosecution and not prosecution was fully considered. It was, he believed, on the second part of Paine's Age of Reason; and that time he recollected it was found, that the circulation was such amongst all orders and classes of society, that it could not be brought into more notice or greater publicity. Before the prosecution of the present productions, he had thought, and he thought so in common with a great part of the nation, that such productions which were so industriously circulated, called for reprehension. He wished to have caused them to have been prosecuted in such a manner as would have avoided the imputation of political feelings. He did not think, however, that those who were charged with the defence of the national religion, if that religion was to be pro-
752
tected by law, could retire to their closets with the consciousness of having done their duty, while such publications remained unchecked. The possibility that political motives might be imputed to them, should not deter them; and the hon. and learned attorney-general, with whom he had not the honour of a personal acquaintance, was the least likely to be deterred by such an apprehension. The real question was, whether such publications had not a tendency to desecrate those things which a man ought to conceal in his bosom, and venerate in secret. And if such was the conclusion, it might be recollected that it was the office of the law, it was part and parcel of the law of the land, that religion should be defended. Sir Matthew Hale, a great and excellent lawyer, had established that principle, and he was very glad to see that it was still maintained. He could not but feel grateful to his honourable friends that they had expressed such sentiments on the subject as he had heard from them, and he could not but express it as his opinion that the officers of the Crown would not have done their duty if they had not exercised the authority of the law against the wicked and blasphemous publications that had been mentioned.
Lord Cochranehoped the ministers, if they wished, as it had been expressed, to retire to their closets with a good conscience, would not confine their care of religion and morality to the prosecution of parodies, but would turn their attention to those who had incited innocent men to commit acts which would draw on them punishment. The true motive for the acquittal of Mr. Hone was, that he had been tried for offences against religion, when his real offence was political. He should shortly have to present a petition, which, when read, would, he hoped, induce the House to inquire into a subject which they had hitherto avoided.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Sir S. Romillysaid, he had 46 petitions to present from the city of Bristol, signed by 20 persons, each praying for a reform in parliament, viz. annual elections and universal suffrage. The persons who signed these petitions, and others of the same nature, laboured under a great mistake. They imagined that there was a law which prevented petitions from being presented by the people to their representatives signed by more than twenty names. This

753
was an error; there was no such law; and it would surprise those who had seen petitions presented heretofore signed by hundreds and thousands. There was an act of parliament, indeed, passed soon after the Restoration, which declared it an offence "to solicit and go about to procure" petitions to be signed by more than 20 persons; but the House of Commons would never venture to pass a law to prevent the people from presenting Petitions, however numerously signed. Indeed, such a law, combined with the rejection of printed petitions, would make it hardly possible that the sense of the people should be taken. The gentlemen who had signed the petitions he held in his hand, had done him the honour to entrust him with the petitions, on the supposition that he would fairly present them, for he had formerly fully declared that though he considered some reform to be absolutely necessary, his sentiments were not in unison with the plan of reform here proposed.
The petitions were laid on the table, and the first was ordered to be printed. It sat forth, "That defective representation being the nation's bane, the petitioners pray, that all male subjects (infants, insanes, and criminals excepted) might equally share in annually electing representatives to serve in parliament."
Lord Cochranesaid, he had several hundred petitions to present to the House on the subject of parliamentary reform, a few of which he would now bring up. He had four from St. Margaret's, Westminster, 99 from Leeds, five from Bristol, several from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Ashton-under-Line, and a number of other places.
The petitions were then presented by the noble lord. They were signed by twenty persons each, and were couched in the same terms as those presented by sir S. Romilly. They were ordered to lie on the table.

PETITION OF ROBERT THOM, COMPLAINING OF THE OPERATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION ACT.
Lord Cochranepresented a petition from Robert Thorn, a weaver of Glasgow, who had been taken up under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. The noble lord maintained that the statements embodied in the petition deserved the most serious inquiry, as, if they were true, acts of more flagrant injustice had not been committed under any go-
754
vernment in Europe. A simple denial of the facts ought not to satisfy the House. The case ought to be fully investigated, that if the gaoler had been guilty of the oppression imputed to him, public indignation might fall on the right head.
The Petition was then read; setting forth,
"That the Petitioner, on the 22d of February 1817, was most unexpectedly arrested by certain sheriffs officers, and committed instantaneously to prison, without the exhibition of any warrant to that effect or any preceding examination; for a period of five days did the petitioner remain cooped up in a close cell, without being allowed any aliment, exposed to all the horrors of famine, and the most imminent danger of perishing from the extreme inclemency of the season, reduced, as he was, to solicit some relief to his sufferings by an attempt at repose on the rusty bars of the iron bedstead, without bed-clothes or covering of any description; when at length lie procured a few coals the vent was so foul that, amidst the smoke which then prevailed in the cell both night and day, the health of the petitioner was seriously affected, and at intervals his existence endangered, and even posterior to his liberation the petitioner was for upwards of two months utterly incapable of pursuing his usual occupation, and in consequence his family of a wife and four children reduced to a state of absolute mendicity; for upwards of eight days the petitioner was interdicted from any communication with his kindred, nor was the attendance of the gaol surgeon permitted; his constitution of course suffered severely, and subjected him to the disease called the bleeding piles, which apparently will adhere to him through life; the sole sources of support which were furnished the petitioner on the fifth day of his imprisonment was the insignificant sum of eight pence per day, from which after the indispensable deductions for fuel and other necessaries, there remained only one shilling and five pence weekly to support existence; that the petitioner's humble situation precluded the possibility of his being in any respect accessary to the treasonable practices erroneously laid to his charge; there was not only no species of evidence adduced against the petitioner by his wanton oppressors in vindication of their proceedings, but he was eventually released on the 15th of April

755
last, in consequence of bail being found, but this recognizance has never been acted on, or the petitioner called to appear in court: from these circumstances, so replete with calamity and distress to the petitioner, he perceives himself involved in ruin, and from his debilitated state of body rendered incompetent to provide for the sustenance of his family, who depend solely on his exertions to preserve them from the keen sufferings of chilling penury, or the degrading resource of precarious mendacity; on that philanthropy and generosity of character which even the most inveterate foes of England have been compelled to venerate as the brightest attraction of a British senate, the petitioner reposes with confidence an appeal against the undisguised persecution to which he has been exposed; and as his case presents no tale of simulated distress, he awaits, with deference and submission, that corresponding redress and indemnity which the House may adjudge it in their wisdom expedient to award; and praying the House to undertake the consideration of the preceding statement, and afford such redress as may be deemed commensurate to the distress which the petitioner has so long undergone."
Mr. Finlayhoped the House would not rely on the truth of the statements made in this petition. It stated that the petitioner had been taken up under the Suspension act: but the fact was, that in Scotland none were detained under the operation of that act. With respect to the alleged harsh treatment, he had made inquiry, and satisfied himself that the complaint was groundless. Two or three, who had been confined under similar charges, had expressed themselves perfectly satisfied, and had even expressed their thanks for the attention paid to their wants. For his part, he wished inquiry being made into the circumstances of the case, because he knew the result would show the exaggerated nature of some statements made in this petition, and the utter falsehoods of others.
Lord Cochrane said, he had two other petitions, from W. Irvin and J. Buchanan, who had been arrested at the same time, one of whom referred to J. P. Grant, esq. a member of the House, as the person who had saved his life, and who could bear witness to his sufferings. They were then read, and ordered to lie on the table.

COPY-RIGHT BILL.
Sir Egerton Brydgessaid, he would not detain the House long in moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Copy-right Act, of the 54th of the king, c. 156, as he understood no objection would be made to the course he was about to pursue. He would, therefore, only detain the House while he said that the grievances under this act appeared so great and so severe, not only as affecting authors and publishers, but the best interests of literature, itself, that he saw no remedy but its repeal, and he could anticipate no fair objection to it. He concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 54th of his present Majesty, intituled,' An Act to amend the several Acts for the Encouragemen of Learning, by securing the Copies and Copy-right of printed Books to the Authors of such Books, or their Assigns."'
Lord A. Hamiltonhoped that his silence on the present occasion would not be construed into any assent to the proposed measure; on the contrary, his sentiments in opposition to it remained as strong as ever.
Mr. Peelbegged also to make a similar reservation of his opposition until the proper stage of discussion, the second reading.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he had to put in the same claim for his opposition in. due time to the measure.
Mr. Forbessaid, he would also, in a future stage, oppose the bill.
Leave was given to bring in the bill;

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, being read,
Mr. Lytteltontook occasion to call the attention of the House to a subject which he had, in the course of the last session, felt it his duty to bring into discussion,* and against which he thought the secretary at war had adduced very inadequate grounds of objection—he meant with regard to the affidavit which an half-pay officer was compelled to make, to entitle him to receive his half-pay, namely, that he had no other emolument from, or employment under the Crown. This he could not help considering as a restriction, equally inconsistent with liberality and justice. To the half-pay he thought all
*See Vol. 36, p. 523,

757
officers entitled as a matter of right, in remuneration for their services; and, considering the inadequacy of that remuneration for the maintenance of a gentleman, he deemed it peculiarly ungenerous that an officer should be deprived of it, unless he swore that he had no civil employment whatever under the Crown, from which he could derive any additional means of subsistence. These were the grounds upon which he had felt himself called upon to resist this restriction in the course of the last session; and if he remembered correctly the objections of the secretary at war to the removal of that restriction, they were extremely imperfect. The noble lord, if he recollected rightly, had observed, that this regulation was necessary, in order to keep up the military character, and to prevent officers from engaging in civil pursuits, which might unfit or indispose them for the resumption of military habits; so that, according to the noble lord, the return of a soldier to the habits of a citizen, or the engagement of an officer in any civil office, was so likely to degrade his mind, or to estrange him from the feelings of the military profession, that in the event of a new war, it would be difficult to bring him back to the military character. Without dwelling upon the principle of an opinion so novel, and as lie apprehended so unconstitutional, he should only say, that it was unfounded in practice, and that it formed no valid ground for excluding half-pay officers from any employment which the government might think proper to confer upon them; for after all, it would depend upon the government to decide whether any such officer should be appointed to a civil office; and he apprehended, that unless it were thought that the possession of a civil office was calculated totally to corrupt a soldier's mind, there could be no good ground of objection to the making of such appointments. He could not, indeed, imagine any principle of justice or expediency that should wholly disqualify half-pay officers from the acceptance of such appointments. Therefore he objected to this affidavit, and the extraordinary restriction to which it referred. The removal of such a restriction would, indeed, in his judgment, be rather a measure of wisdom; because the more a military man was allowed to partake of the bounty of his country, the more he was likely to feel an interest in its fate, and the more he must be disposed to contend for its
758
security. It was, besides, to be considered, that many, very many, of these officers were quite unable to support themselves upon the small pittance of their half-pay. He appealed, therefore, to the liberality of the House, and to that of the government itself, in favour of a body of gallant men who had served their country amidst so much danger, and with so little profit; and he appealed with the more confidence of success, because the removal of the restriction to which he objected would be attended with no additional expense to the country, while the government would still have the discretion of appointing any military man to a civil office. But it was quite unjust that the discretion of the government to make such an appointment should be fettered by the restriction to which he referred.—There was another point to which he also felt it his duty to call the attention of the House. He understood that a circular was issued, or about to be issued, from the War-office, stating, that no widow of any officer who had died since December last, should be entitled to the pension of an officer's widow, if it appeared that, from any source whatever, she derived an annuity equal to double the amount of such pension. This arrangement he thought peculiarly unjust, because it might happen, that the annuity, which was thus to deprive a widow of her pension, might be the effect of an insurance upon her husband's life, which insurance was paid for, perhaps, by a material sacrifice of the means of subsistence by both husband and wife. Would that House then consent, upon the ground of such an annuity, to exclud'e an officer's widow from her pension? Yet the circular alluded to would have that effect. The whole charge for widow's pension's amounted, he observed, only to 90,000 l., and possibly the result of the circular referred to might possibly produce a saving of 20,000 l. But would the House, for such an object, acquiesce in an act of obvious injustice? He was among the warmest advocates for retrenchment and economy; but such retrenchment as that which he had mentioned was not the kind of economy for which he looked, or which the country desired. On the contrary, he believed that the people unanimously wished that the widows of their gallant defenders should be liberally provided for. Ministers could not therefore calculate upon gratifying any class of the community by the

759
arrangement to which he objected; on the contrary, such an arrangement was likely to give rise to invidious comparisons between the treatment of those poor widows, and the extraordinary gratuities afforded to others who happened to be nearer the source of favour—to the commissary-in-chief for instance [Hear, hear!]. He felt that it was the duty, and lie hoped it was the inclination of the House, to interpose its authority upon such an occasion, in order to prevent a profusion of character under the pretence of some economy—to guard against a sacrifice of justice with a view to produce an insignificant saving.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that as the affidavit alluded to was provided for by a section in the Appropriation act, the case did not apply on the present occasion. He denied the justice of the hon. gentleman's statement, that the half-pay belonged to an officer as a matter of right, as that half-pay was in fact granted merely for the subsistence of officers during the cessation of their services, and as a retaining fee for their future services, when it should become necessary to call upon them for the defence of the country. But if officers were allowed to accept civil apointments, it was felt, and justly felt, that it would be difficult to recall them to military duties when occasion should require it. There was indeed reason to believe that if officers were so appointed, they might be come so much engaged in civil pursuits as to be disqualified for, or indisposed to, the resumption of military habits. On those grounds, then, the affidavit objected! to by the hon. gentleman was deemed necessary; but this affidavit was, in fact; nothing more than persons connected with other departments of the public service were called upon to make; for those who enjoyed superannuation or retired pensions, were obliged to make the same affidavit, namely, that they had no other emolument under the Crown. It was also to be recollected, that the requisition of this affidavit was not an innovation, but the old established system. Then as to the circular letter alluded to by the hon. gentleman, the regulation to which it referred did not originate with government, but was recommended by the finance committee, which was of opinion, that the same rule which prevailed in the other departments of the public service should be applied to the army.
Mr. Lytteltonasked, in what part of
760
the reports of the finance committee the recommendation alluded to by the noble lord was to be found, for he had not seen any such recommendation? As to the noble lord's reference to other services, he thought it only an aggravation of the principle to which he objected, that it should be extended to the army; and as to the alleged antiquity of the practice, with respect to half-pay officers, he could not admit that that antiquity afforded any defence for such practice.
The Report of the Committee was brought up. Upon the first Resolution being put,
Sir W. Burroughsrose, and urged with additional force the objections which he pressed last night against the amount of the proposed establishment. Compared with the peace establishment of 1792, this amount was peculiarly objectionable, unless it was shown that there was something in the internal condition of the foreign relations of the country which called for a greater force at present than in the year 1792. But what was the fact? Why, that while we were at present in a state of profound tranquillity, at peace with all the world, and without the slightest apprehension, as ministers themselves assured parliament, of any breach with foreign powers, we were in 1792 in very different circumstances; for at that period the French Revolution was in its vigour, while its poison was spreading throughout the world. That poison was perhaps no where more widely diffused than in this country, through the medium of the Jacobin Clubs. Insurrections had, indeed, actually taken place, and Ireland was on the eve of rebellion. France was also in a state of extraordinary strength, and obviously preparing to make war upon this country. But what was the contrast at present? The Revolution extinguished—Great Britain and Ireland in a state of tranquillity—and France not only indisposed and unable to make war upon us, but depending for the preservation of its peace upon an army of 22,000 Englishmen, under the command of the celebrated Wellington. Was not this contrast, then, an additional reason for a reduced establishment at home, in this the third year of peace, and without the remotest probability of the disturbance of that peace especially by any foreign power? Now, the whole of our force in Great Britain, in 1792, was only 15,000, and in Ireland only 12,000. Thus the total force for

761
Great Britain was only 27,000, in 1702, while for the present year it amounted to no less than 57,270:—thus creating an excess of 29,526, or forming more than double our peace establishment in 1792. But, in addition to this excess, we had at present a yeomanry force of 23,809 for Great Britain, and 41,000 for Ireland. Thus we had in the aggregate an excess of force, at present, beyond that of 1792, amounting to no less than 94,335 men. What, he would ask, could be the reason for such an enormous excess? But it had been said, that as 1792 was the last year of rather a long peace, the comparison with our present circumstances was not so admissible. He would take, then, the next year, 1793, which was the first year of the war, in which we were engaged with France, and how stood the account? In 1793 the force voted for Great Britain was only 17,000 men, and that for Ireland was 16,000, which, with the volunteers in both countries, formed a total of about 70,526 men. This force, then, compared with the proposition for the present year, would leave an excess of 11,121. Such being the excess between a year of actual war, and the third year of universal peace both internal and external, he could not imagine how the noble lord and his colleagues could account for the difference. It might be said that the militia of Great Britain and Ireland were called out in 1793, and their total amount exceeded 53,000 men. Thus the total amount of force at that period might be estimated at about 123,000 men; but even this number compared with the regular army and the yeomanry of both countries for the present year, would leave an excess of no less than 23,307. Such was the difference between the extent of our military establishment in this the third year of peace, beyond that of the first year of the most extraordinary war in which the country had ever been engaged. But what was the difference between our force in the present and the last year? Why, only 1959 men. Yet the difference between the circumstances of the country in those years was extremely critical, according to the authority of ministers themselves; for at the beginning of the last year, those ministers alleged the state of the country to be so very alarming from the existence of plots, conspiracies, and insurrectionary movements, that they thought it necessary to call for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. The history of that year
762
was, however, pregnant with evidence to show, that a large military force was not necessary to preserve the peace of the country. For even the so much talked of rebellion at Derby was suppressed by one magistrate, one officer, and eighteen dragoons. Yet this was the only insurrection in the country in the course of that year, to quell which any recourse was had to the aid of the regular army; for the rebellion at Huddersfield was put down by the yeomanry. It appeared, indeed, that on that occasion, one yeoman was fired at when he was seen alone, but the corps to which this yeoman belonged had scarcely presented itself when the whole of the Huddersfield insurgents or rioters immediately fled. But what was the case with respect to the insurrection in London? Why, that the lord mayor, seconded by one alderman, took possession of the baggage and standard of the insurgents before any military force had appeared—nay, the Royal Exchange, of which the insurgents, it seemed, took possession, was surrendered to these two municipal officers, unsupported by any military force whatever. The hon. baronet farther illustrated the contrast between the circumstances of the country at present, and at those periods to which he had referred, expressing his astonishment at the system of military expenditure which ministers appeared disposed to pursue, and his desire to know how it was proposed to maintain such an expenditure, especially in the present melancholy condition and prospects of our financial resources, which resources those ministers held out no hope of relieving by any probable reduction of that expenditure, or by any attention to the essential principles of public economy. The hon. baronet concluded by moving to leave out, "113,640" men, and inserting "103,640 men."
Mr. Curwenexpressed his astonishment that the hon. gentlemen opposite did not consider it their duty to make any reply to the convincing arguments that had been so eloquently advanced by his hon. and learned friend. If on a question of such constitutional and financial importance, that was to be the mode of discussion adopted by the House, it was high time for a reform of parliament.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that if what had passed that night in the House was calculated to show the necessity of a reform in parliament, he presumed it was from the very scanty attendance which

763
the opposite benches testified on the discussion of so important a subject. If reproach was applicable any where, it was to those whom some persons considered as the great defenders of the public purse, and who, it appeared, had no time to employ in an investigation of the army estimates. He should think himself fully justified were he to abstain from making any reply to the so often repeated arguments of the hon. baronet. He meant him no personal disrespect, but he could see in his observations no one point, which had not been already stated and discussed. The speech of the hon. baronet was entirely made up of thread-bare references to the establishments of 1792, and it really appeared to him that an allusion to the period of the Saxon heptarchy would be as applicable to the present circumstances of the country. To retrace a comparative view of this nature, would be an idle waste of the time of the House. He considered it sufficient to recall to their attention generally the prodigious changes which the events of war and the operation of various causes had introduced into the internal situation of the country. Let them look at the increase of our population, and the consequent increase of turbulent spirits. [Hear, hear, and a laugh from the opposition.] He could recognise no one point by which any identity could be established between the circumstances of the two periods. The additional charge upon the revenue was created by the increased pay and allowances, and he had not understood that any hon. member was prepared to recommend a reduction in those branches of expenditure.
Mr. Calcraftregretted as much as the noble lord the thin attendance which was given on all sides on a question of so much public interest as the Army Estimates. The reproach applied generally, and he should be sorry were a division to exhibit their scanty numbers to the observation of the country. He must contend that no satisfactory answer had been made to the objections to the amount of the estimates for the service of England and Ireland, and he had no hesitation in declaring his belief that the reduction of 10,000 men was practicable. When measuring the extent of an establishment, how could they proceed without adopting some basis, and what better one could they select than the peace establishment of 1792—unfortunately the last year of general peace
764
winch could be adverted to? But to this the noble lord replied in a declamatory way, that the year 1792 was not the year 1818, and that, therefore there could be no similarity or point of comparison between the two periods. This was extraordinary logic for the representative of the University of Cambridge. The only cause assigned for not making larger reductions was the present system of reliefs; but against this, it was but fair to set the operation of the recruiting service. With regard to the increase of pay and allowances, the charge thus created was only an additional reason for scrutinizing the establishment, which could not be separated from the consideration of our finances. He observed, too, that the security we derived from the army of occupation in France was never adverted to, and yet he apprehended that this force would gradually return, and that it could not be disbanded immediately upon its return. The situation of Ireland was now one of complete tranquillity; but in 1792 a large body of united Irishmen were in correspondence with the French government. He had himself proposed reductions in a former year, which had not been assented to. In one instance, he had recommended a diminution of 3,000 men on a foreign station, and he was described as an ignorant prejudiced person, who entirely misconceived the matter, although, a short time after, his counsel was adopted, and the reduction actually took place. What he had then urged, applied only to the service of the year; and he trusted, therefore, that similar recommendations of retrenchment, although opposed in the House, would be attended to out of it. He was not one of those who felt any despondency with respect to the financial resources of the country, but he put it to the noble lord (Castlereagh), whether he and his cabinet conclave of fourteen were not bound to press down the expenditure to the lowest point that was consistent with public security. When the House considered the great number of battalions of infantry, and of regiments of dragoons, and dragoon guards, of which the establishment consisted, it would be seen that the reduction proposed by his hon. friend when applied equally to the whole force, would occasion but a small diminution of numbers in any particular corps. It should be recollected, that our present system of finance was, as it were, living from day to day; that the chancellor of the exchequer, the great

765
stock-jobber for the country, was, in the ordinary course of gambling, taking advantage of every little variation in the interest of the paper which he was enabled to throw into the market. That paper, consisting of unfunded exchequer-bills, amounted to fifty six millions; and although he did not wish to speak harshly of the transactions of the stock exchange, they formed but an inglorious pursuit for the government of a great country. All the success, however, of which the right hon. gentleman could boast in his dealings, was the reduction of three millions upon eight hundred millions of debt, a boast which he apprehended would but little mitigate the pain that a right hon. gentleman who sat beside him (Mr. Huskisson) must feel, after the solemn appeals which he had once made to him on the urgent necessity of bringing the expenditure within the income.
Mr. Peelaccused the hon. gentleman of misrepresenting what he had last night said respecting the state of Ireland. For although he had stated it to be a source of satisfaction to the House that the internal state of Ireland was much improved, yet he had given it as his decided opinion that no force of a less amount than that proposed was compatible with the safety of Ireland. This was his opinion: the opinion of others might be different. But certainly he was more confirmed in his opinion when he considered that the only two members who differed from it were the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and the hon. baronet—the former had no personal knowledge, and the latter had not set his foot in the country since his return from India. It would be agreed on all hands that nothing could be more injurious or unsafe than a sudden reduction in the military force on Ireland; and he was sure that the House would be of opinion that a reduction beyond that made in the present estimate was consistent with the internal security of that country.
Sir John Newportfelt himself bound to express his sense of the obligations which were due to the right hon. gentleman for the course of policy which he had pursued with respect to Ireland, in substituting the civil for the military authority in the preservation of the peace of that country. The reduction of the military force in that country should be gradual and progressive, for it could not be doubted that any sudden abandonment of the policy hitherto acted upon would be productive of very
766
bad consequences. He thought that with respect to the colonies, they should be made to contribute at least in some degree to the support of the force maintained for their protection.
Mr. Marryatobserved, with reference to the colonics, that they were not in a situation of contributing to the maintenance of the troops, with the exception of Jamaica. He did not think that a smaller force could be voted for their protection and safety.
Mr. Broughamsaid, it became the Commons of England—as many, at least, as were then assembled there—to insist, that the number of troops to be maintained, especially in this country, should not exceed what it was in 1792. In a year of profound peace, and when all danger of internal commotion was allowed to have ceased, it was for ministers, and not for those who sat on his side of the House, to show why the force should be increased beyond what it was at that period. The people of England had a right to be governed at the smallest possible expense; and if he showed that the state of the country did not require any extraordinary measures, the onus was on ministers, to establish, step by step, the necessity of maintaining every battalion, and every troop of the line, which they now proposed to the House. The noble secretary at war had said, that there was a great increase of population, and, of consequence, a great increase of turbulent spirits in the country; but did he mean to say, that because the population was increased to the amount of five or six hundred thousand, that the army must be kept up to the present numbers? In that case, allowing his position to be true, instead of an increase in the army of ten per cent., it would be increased to at least one hundred per cent. What was there in the state of the country so different from what it was in 1792, as to justify the necessity of augmenting the army in this degree? Was the year 1792 more particularly tranquil than the other years which had succeeded it? He would maintain, that if ever there was a period in which the constitution of this country was exposed to danger, it was in the year 1792. France was then threatening to sow discord and sedition in the country, and great apprehensions were entertained for our external and internal welfare. But the terrors which the French revolution had excited were now passed. That revolution, indeed, had long fallen into

767
disrepute among the nations of Europe, and the danger which it was said to have inspired was now on the other side. The danger which now existed was not a danger to be apprehended from the people—it was a danger that arose out of the doctrine of legitimate governments, to be maintained and supported by military force—it was a danger that the governments would go too far in trampling on the rights and liberties of their subjects. And yet this was the time in which the ministers of the Crown thought proper to desire so considerable an increase of the standing army, compared with what it was in the year 1792. It was admitted, that Ireland was the most disturbed part of our dominions, and that England was the most tranquil; but, in framing the estimates, this view of the empire was entirely overlooked, and the increase of the army in England was much greater than the augmentation which ministers had made for the sister country. If they wished to remove the discontent which unfortunately existed in that part of the empire; if they were desirous of governing Ireland, not by the sword, but by the laws; they would turn their attention to those subjects which formed the principal grounds of murmur. The noble lord and his colleagues would readily understand that he alluded to the Catholic claims; which, if granted, would have the effect of restoring tranquillity in every part of the kingdom. It was scarcely necessary, at that time of day, to observe, that standing armies were utterly inconsistent with the spirit of our free constitution; but he would venture to say, that it was one of the most calamitous signs of the times, that, in every country, armies were kept up for the purpose of spoliation, and of exciting terror in the minds of the people. If any change in the affairs of the world had rendered it necessary for England to deviate from her ancient policy with respect to a standing army, that change took place previous to 1792; and, therefore, he again placed his foot on that year, as the standard which ought to govern our proceedings, and he called on the noble lord to show what there was in the state of Europe which could warrant him to propose the present enormous establishment. He was persuaded that it was quite preposterous and unnecessary; and he lamented that so little attention had been paid to the discussion of the estimates this year. He would freely admit, and he
768
regretted to be forced to observe, that the little attention which had been devoted to them, did as little credit to those who sat on his side of the House as to those who sat on the other; but he hoped it might arise from some accidental circumstance. Having stated thus much, he should merely add that he felt it his duty to oppose so large a standing army, and most heartily approved of the amendment.
Lord Castlereaghcould not allow the question to go to a division without saying a few words. It was not from not feeling the great importance of the question that he had not sooner offered himself to the attention of the House, but because he had heard nothing urged in the course of the debate which was an argument against the proposed establishment; and he referred to the thinness of the House on the present occasion as evincing a feeling, that after the previous discussions, the opinions of members were settled as to the necessity of the amount of force proposed. The hon. and learned gentleman wished to take the year 1792 as the standard, according to which the estimates of the present year should be regulated. Now, with respect to the establishment of 1792, he begged the House to recollect that Mr. Pitt, in that year, when he proposed the estimates, stated, that he had framed them on the prospect of a long period of profound peace. In this it unhappily proved that Mr. Pitt was mistaken, for the war broke out the very next year; and the consequence of the lowness of the establishment, in the year 1792 was, that this country suffered very much from an extreme degree of military feebleness during the first years of the war. The hon. and learned baronet thought that we could do at present with a force of 10,000 men less than that in the estimates, but then he forgot to state the particular quarter in which the reduction was to be made. Was it seriously said, that any reduction could be made in the 26,000 men to be kept up for the home service? In which part of the home establishment would the hon. and learned baronet make his reduction? Not less than 11,000 men were required for the service of the metropolis and the dockyards; and could 16,000 be thought sufficient for that of all England? He assured the House that ministers intended to make every possible reduction which would not be inconsistent with the interests and safety of the country.
Mr. Bankesthought that the present vote was larger than the necessity of the case required. Last year, from the agitated state of the country, he had not thought any reduction could safely be made in the force proposed for England; but now that order and tranquillity once more prevailed, he was of a different opinion. As to the army in Ireland, he wished it to be reduced gradually.
The question being put, that "113,610 men" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 21.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Brougham, Henry

Monck, sir C.

Bankes, Henry

Newport, sir John

Babington, Thomas

Ord, Wm.

Curwen, J. C.

Sharp, Richard

Duncannon, visc.

Smyth, J. H.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Smith, W.

Fazakerley, Nic.

Symonds, T. P.

Gordon, Robert

Warre, J. A.

Grenfell, Pascoe

TELLERS.

Hurst, Robert

Burroughs, sir W.

Lemon, sir W.

Calcraft, J.