Commons Sitting of 10 May 1819

ARMY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Goulburnbrought up the Report of the Committee of supply, to whom the Army Estimates were referred. On the motion, that the first resolution be agreed to,
Sir Henry Parnellrose and complained of the large military force which the government seemed, if possible, determined to maintain, in a time of general peace. There were, from the report, 29,000 men for Great Britain; 20,000 for Ireland; and 30,000 for the colonies. The noble lord opposite had as yet made out no case whatever to justify the maintenance of such a force. He had not shown that the country was able to support such a burthen, or how far it ought to be upheld, consistently with the public liberty. The report did not state how or where this large force was to be applied. It merely intimated that a reduction of 50,000 men had taken place since the year 1817. He contended for the necessity of showing some adequate justification for the enormous expense which so large a standing army must entail upon the country. It was not enough to say that the present grant was smaller than a preceding one; it must be also shown that it was just, and absolutely necessary. In looking at the report of the Committee of Finance, the estimate of the income and expenditure for the year 1819, would be fully seen. It appeared that the expenditure for this year would amount to 68,000,000 l. and the income only to 54,000,000 l. leaving a deficit of 14,000,000 l. Against this deficit was to be set off 16,000,000 l. the amount of the sinking fund, which would leave a balance of about 2,000,000 l. available only. Even in this calculation, the Committee of Finance admit, that they cannot reckon with precision upon the produce of a certain portion of the taxes upon exciseable articles, amounting to 3½ millions, unless the illicit trader shall be effectually

261
put down; neither was there any ground in the opinion of the Committee, to expect any immediate improvement in the state of the finances of the country.—They intimated no more than half a million for the improvement of the revenue in 1821. He repeated, that he was at a loss to see the necessity of such a standing army. England was in peace with her foreign relations: domestic tranquillity might be said to reign. Besides, in the discussion that had taken place upon this subject, no allusion had been made to the degree of protection the country had from the naval force which was kept up. It had been said that Ireland required a large army for internal purposes in aid of the civil power. Why not rather reform the state of the civil power in that country, and put it on a footing more resembling the same power in England? Why not diffuse more generally the blessings of a good government, and give the people an interest in the maintenance of the laws? The hon. baronet then reviewed the expenses of the various offices in the Irish government. The secretary at war, for instance, had an establishment kept up for him in the castle of Dublin, and another in the Phœnix Park. Why was such an office placed on a more extensive scale in Ireland than in England? There was also the office of army accounts in Iceland, the board of general officers and other departments, which he thought ought to be considerably economized. The staff in Ireland cost the country 19,000 l. and in Scotland it cost only 1,900 l. Surely such an expenditure ought to be inquired into, with a view to a suitable reduction to meet the exigencies of the country. He said, that if the system of government in Ireland was changed; if obnoxious laws were repealed; in short, if pains were taken to gain the confidence and the affections of the people, there would be no necessity for a standing army in that country, and a great saving in this branch of the public expenditure might be made. He next adverted to the different public military offices, many of which he considered as unnecessary, and each of which had a number of boards, clerks, and officers—the expenses of these offices amounted to 150,000 l. per year. There was the war office, the army account office, and controllers of army accounts. These simple and obvious modes of reduction had, however, escaped the observation of mi-
262
nisters. It was to be lamented that any fair subject of retrenchment should escape them at a time like the present; he trusted, however, that every member would make every effort to diminish the public expenditure. It was with that feeling, that he had trespassed upon their attention. He should now only express a hope, that the gentlemen who saw the thing in the same light that he did, would persevere in a constitutional opposition to the increase of the public burdens, and to the support of a large standing army.
Colonel Daviessaid, that even if he were to agree in all he had heard on this subject from ministers—that even if he were to take for granted the case made out for ministers, in order to justify the present extent of the military establishment—granting all this, he yet would prove, that without diminishing that force, there could be effected a saving in the army for England and the colonies of 120,000 l. a-year. To prove this, it would be necessary to go somewhat into a dry detail. In the course of last autumn it was pretty currently reported among the military circles, that it was in the contemplation of government to reduce three regiments of cavalry; but now, from the statement of the noble lord, he had to conclude, that such is not the intention of ministers. He would now only say that the report gave great satisfaction to the public. He would now proceed to show what saving might be effected in the cavalry department of the army, without impairing its strength. Here the hon. gentleman went into a minute calculation, to show, that if three regiments of cavalry were reduced on the one hand, and on the other, if the different cavalry corps, consisting now of 380 men, were increased to 450—which he contended might be commanded by precisely the same number of officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, as a corps of only 380—that, with the reduction of allowance, men, horses, forage, &c. there would, in the cavalry department, be effected a saving of 30,000 l. a-year. The saving on the infantry, he said, would proceed on the same principle. The present state of the infantry was seven battalions of foot guards, and 99 battalions of infantry. Of these he would confine himself to the number in Great Britain and her colonies, being 84 battalions, amounting to 54,600 rank and file. Now, if fifteen of these battalions were reduced,

263
sixty-nine would remain; and if these sixty-nine battalions had each 800 men, instead of 650 men, which was the present force, they would amount to more than 54,600 men; and he would appeal to every military man in the House, whether the same number of officers and non-commissioned officers which now commanded the battalions of 650 men each, would not be fully sufficient to regulate and to keep in order a battalion of 800 men. This plan would by no means impair, but, on the contrary, increase the strength of the army; and yet it would save the public no less a sum than 90,000 l. a-year. To this he knew it might be objected, that by thus reducing the number of battalions, a sufficient foundation would not be left for the army, should a state of war render it necessary to increase it; but he did not apprehend that such an objection could have any force, when the present enlarged scale of the army was considered—a scale much larger than any peace establishment hitherto, and three times as large as the peace establishment immediately after the American war. It was, he said, perfectly absurd to keep up the present enormous staff; it gave no strength to the army, whilst it greatly increased the public expenditure. Adverting to items of saving, so necessary at this period, he did not, he said, see any reason for the present enlarged establishment of the Military College; he thought that a saving might be made, particularly in the reduction of the junior branches of that establishment. In recommending the reductions in the army, he did so, he said, with considerable pain; it could not be without pain that he could propose to take from those brave officers one half of the pittance which they so well, so dearly, and so valiantly had earned; to many of them he had the honour of being known, and nothing but an imperative sense of public duty could induce him to make the proposal. When he looked at the state of the country, the extent of the public distress, and of public misfortune—when he saw petitions every day coming to that House from the agriculturists, praying for relief, and petitions from the manufacturers, praying for legislative protection, to save themselves and their families from starving—in such a melancholy and calamitous situation, if he could but save one thousand pounds to the nation, he felt that he would betray his duty if he did not suggest the mode of saving it. This
264
honest and painful sentiment would, he trusted, at once, justify him in the face of the country and of the army. The hon. colonel concluded by moving—"That, instead of the sum of 2,258,776 l. 11 s. 2d. to be granted for the land forces in Great Britain, and on the stations abroad, excepting the regiments employed in the East Indies, from the 24th December 1818, to the 24th December 1819, there be inserted the sum of 2, 38,776 l. 11 s. 2d. for the said purposes."
Lord Palmerstonhoped the House would give credit to his majesty's ministers for their wish, on all occasions, to save every expense which it was possible to spare. But in so doing, however anxious the House might be to exert the most rigid economy, it should consider whether it was better at once to adopt an ascertained and permanent establishment, of which the expenses were submitted to them; or by rejecting that, and endeavouring to reduce it to an impracticable scale, to find itself hereafter involved only in greater expenses and difficulties. The hon. gentleman opposite, he thought, had greatly over-rated the saving which the adoption even of his own plan could effect. In fixing the peace establishment of the country, the House would see that it was not only necessary to consider what was a fair and reasonable force, but that it was requisite to give to our army, in the event of a war, should that ever unfortunately happen, the means of its augmentation with promptness, vigour, and efficacy. In this view he really thought the proposed establishment combined as many advantages as it was possible to incorporate into any one. It was evident that, whatever was the establishment proposed, there would be many to dispute its eligibility—many who would contest even the hon. gentleman's arrangement. There would be a wish to make even his scale still lower. Certainly, he (lord P.) believed, that in some cases, it would be less expensive to have higher establishments than he proposed; but great inconvenience would inevitably result from that system, in the event of a war. Supposing the establishment of the regiments was fixed at 800 men, in what manner would they be able, on the breaking out of hostilities, to augment them? Why, they might propose to add 200 men to each, and so form an unmanageable, unwieldy establishment; and to effect that they must either resort to new battalions or to fresh recruits. It

265
might be said, that that was the case with the regiments in the West Indies; but what would be the consequence, he repeated, of such an arrangement in case of war? The result of keeping up too low an establishment would be equally disadvantageous; for, supposing the regiments to consist of 400 men each, and say that 600 shall be added in war time, making their full complement 1,000 men, on the war breaking out, they would beat a most enormous expense in filling them up. The hon. gentleman had said, that the saving to be effected by reducing three regiments of cavalry and fifteen battalions of infantry would amount to 120,000 l. This appeared to be greatly exaggerated, He had understood the hon. gentleman on a former occasion to say five regiments of cavalry; and therefore the advantage, in the calculation which he (lord P.) had made on the subject, was all on the hon. gentleman's side. Now, he believed it would be found, that even upon the hon. gentleman's own arrangement, the saving would not exceed 31,958 l. The total saving indeed, upon that plan, would be 175,000 l. But against this last amount were to be placed the unattached pay of general officers, the half-pay of the reduced officers, military allowances, allowances for clothing of officers and men, and also for out pensioners, to Serjeants, staff-serjeants, private soldiers, and other men belonging to the different regiments; besides 41,958 l. for remaining miscellaneous services, making altogether a total of 143,042 l., which would reduce the saving to 31,958 l. They would have, besides, to disband their regiments for the purpose of reducing them, and be at the additional expense of raising fresh men, in case of war, to complete them; so that allowing the amount, after these additional deductions, to be 13,802 l. the utmost at which it could be estimated, it would not be worth while accomplishing. Now, taking the establishment proposed at 28 regiments of cavalry, and 18 battalions of infantry, by the addition in the cavalry of only one captain, one Serjeant, and one private; and in the infantry, of one lieutenant, two Serjeants, and one Corporal, to each company, they could at any time raise the cavalry to 5,880, infantry 26,705, or 32,585 additional men; by which means, on any emergency, they might have their regiments almost as effective as at any period during the war. The expense of recruiting would be almost a trifle; but the dif-
266
ference of expence between keeping up this establishment, and raising new regiments, would not be less than 303,000 l. per annum—that is, including the whole staff, which it would be necessary to raise also. He trusted, therefore, chat the House would not agree to the hon. gentleman's motion, seeing that the proposed establishment combined all the advantages of efficacy, with the most guarded economy, both as to present and future arrangements; and that it afforded the means, whenever it might become necessary, to raise an army; of doing so with infinitely more vigour, and economy too, than a higher establishment could offer. The hon. baronet seemed to think that the offices of secretary at war, comptroller general, and paymaster-general, were not necessary to be held by separate individuals. He would not now enter at length into any argument, to prove that the office of secretary at war was one of the most indispensible which could well have been mentioned; his duties and his responsibility were of the most important character. The paymaster-general was a public accountant, responsible for all the monies that passed through his hands. Now, the idea of making an accountant-general audit his own accounts, by amalgamating his office with another, was quite inadmissible. It was the duty of the comptroller-general to examine the extraordinary expenses of the army; and to them the treasury referred the consideration of every measure connected with military expenses. It was, therefore, most important to consider them at all times as quite distinct and separate from each other.—The noble lord proceeded to remark upon the estimate for the military college; and was very happy to hear the hon. gentleman bear testimony to its merit. It was very necessary there should be at its head, a person so eminently qualified as the present governor (sir A. Hope). The hon. gentleman had stated, that our whole peace establishment in 1787 (including Ireland) cost us only 1,039,000 l., which he had appeared to consider sufficient at the present time; whereas his own estimate, exclusive of Ireland, was upwards of 2,000,000 l. Now, when it was considered that the present establishment included not only Ireland, but the whole force necessary for our additional colonies in the East and West Indies, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, he put it to the House, whether it was higher than might be expected.
Mr. J. P. Grantconceived that the arguments of the noble lord, however well they might apply to a very low establishment, were not at all relevant to the one in question. They could only apply to such a one as that settled by Mr. Pitt, in 1792. That suggested by his hon. and gallant friend, was 25 regiments of cavalry, and 91 battalions of infantry. Now, when he heard the noble lord propose, as the permanent peace establishment of the country, 18 battalions of infantry, which 18 were to be more numerous than the 91, he really could not see why the noble lord's reasoning was to be made equally applicable to high as to low establishments. He could not hear it proposed to keep up such an enormous establishment now, looking at what it was in 1792, when the prospect of peace was much less promising without entering his protest against it. There were gentlemen who heard him now, he believed, who were upon the committee of finance of 1792, and voted for that establishment: he called upon them to come forward and "state upon what grounds they could give so inconsistent a vote as should support the one at present proposed. The establishment in 1792 was 11,000 men in all, while 30,000 and upwards were now proposed for Great Britain alone. It was, no doubt, very disagreeable for gentlemen to hear these arguments so often repeated; but let it be remembered they had never been replied to. They had, however, had their effect: some reductions at different times had taken place. Those reductions were not owing to government. They had told the House, year after year, that the estimates were as low as it was possible to fix them at; and yet they had been reduced. The noble lord had said, that this was to be the permanent peace establishment; yet he (Mr. Grant) had no doubt, that although the noble lord might be as little disposed to reduce expenses as any of his majesty's ministers, he would have to submit his estimates on a diminished scale [The cries of "question" here became loud and continued]. He contended, that this was a question of the very first importance; if there was one man in that House who thought it was not, he entreated him to return to his constituents and account to them for his conduct [A laugh, from the ministerial benches]. Notwithstanding the ridicule which came from certain gentlemen on the other side, year after year, he would oppose such establishments as
268
these. He implored gentlemen to revere the principles upon which their ancestors had acted, and to consider what were the peace establishments they would have voted for. Among the estimates he found an item relative to an Ophthalmic establishment. He should not now oppose any motion upon it; but if the noble lord had no objection to furnish him with the necessary papers, he would hereafter bring the matter before the House. His principal object in rising that night, was to enter his protest against the noble lord's establishment.
Mr. Goulburnbelieved that these establishments had been very nearly the same in principle for a great number of consecutive years. All the points alluded to by the hon. gentleman had been fully explained and discussed by his noble friend on introducing the estimates, and he thought it too much for the House to be called on to acquiesce in the views of the hon. member, who had not thought proper to go into any details, nor inquire into the necessity of any one branch of the service. The peace establishment of 1792 had been represented as the true standard; and he fully admitted that reference should be had to it, whenever a material change of circumstances, or the increased number of our foreign possessions, did not make such a comparison altogether inapplicable. In forming a fair judgment on this subject, it was essential to revert to the policy which we found it expedient to adopt at the commencement of the last war, for the purpose of suddenly raising a force which should be equal to our defence at home, whilst it was also disposable for foreign operations.
The original resolution was put and carried; the amendment was consequently lost.
It was then moved, that a sum not exceeding 118,021 l. Is. 3d. be granted to his majesty, for the support of the Staff, exclusive of India.
Mr. Humesaid, he could not allow the resolution to grant 118,021 l. in part for the staff of the army at home and abroad to be read without bringing to the notice of the House the charge therein for staff to the new colonies, viz. for Ceylon 6,486 l. The Mauritius 3,785 l., the Cape 2,979 l., Malta and the Ionian islands 7,853 l., amounting to 21,103 l. The hon. secretary to the colonial department had stated, that a great proportion of the increased military expenses of the present year beyond

269
those of 1792, arose from the colonies acquired in the late war, and chiefly those he had named. It behoved this House, therefore, to consider well the circumstances to which those colonies were as to expenses, and the means possessed of defraying them. He did not call the attention of the House to these points on his own opinion alone, but being supported by the authority of a committee on their Report in 1817, he begged leave to read what they had stated to this House: "Your committee cannot leave the subject of governments abroad thus incidentally brought before them without expressing a wish that some means may be devised for rendering the foreign possessions of the British empire more efficient towards defraying the expenses of their own military protection, since their value to the parent state must be greatly diminished by their continuing a lasting drain on its resources. The subject here adverted to may well deserve the attention of the House hereafter, but the papers and information before your committee are not at present sufficiently ample to afford the means of pursuing such an inquiry during the present session to any useful result. They content themselves therefore with giving a very short general summary of the documents which the colonial office at present affords, so far as relates to the dependencies during the war. He concurred with the committee, that it was a subject that well deserved the attention of this House, and regretted that the finance committee had neither in their Report for 1818 or 1819 brought these foreign colonies under their consideration or to the attention of the House. At that period the papers and information before the committee were not sufficient to enable them to make proper inquiry. But he would ask why two years had been allowed by his majesty's government and by the finance committee, to pass away without the requisite papers being produced and the inquiry followed up? The committee at that time suggested that it was desirable these new colonies should pay for the military protection afforded them. On the vote now proposed, the sum of 21,101 l. was included as a charge for their staffalone, and no information had been afforded to this House as to the practicability, or impracticability of carrying that suggestion into effect. The House had now before them the Reports of their finance committee for 1918 and 1819, and not a word was to be
270
found respecting them. When such professions of economy had been made, it did appear most extraordinary that no means had been taken, as far as parliament knows, to relieve the nation from the expense of these colonies, which he could assure the House, if properly administered, were capable of defraying every expense civil and military. He did not say so inadvisedly, but assured the House that from the information he had received, such was the deliberate opinions of men who had been resident in, were well acquainted with, and qualified to judge of both the finances and expenditure of those possessions: and if his majesty's ministers had been so disposed, they might easily satisfy themselves on this subject. He had no doubt that the committee of 1817, had had evidence before them to the same effect; and he submitted, whether there was not culpable neglect in some quarter, in not following up inquiry into these matters, important at all times, but particularly at this time of unexampled great financial difficulty. The House would recollect, that these new colonies were not like Jamaica, or any of the old colonies which had councils and assemblies to watch over taxation and expenditure. But his majesty's minister for the colonies (lord Bathurst) and the governors, had the sole direction and disposal of these large revenues. It was a subject that ought to excite the jealousy of parliament both in a constitutional and pecuniary point of view, and he was confident the House was not aware of the extent of power, which the colonial minister possessed and exercised in these colonies, or it would, ere this, have taken the subject into their consideration. When the expenditure of a few thousands, or even of a few hundreds of pounds, required the sanction of this House, and often very properly engaged their attention to a considerable degree, it did appear to him very extraordinary, that the government should have the power of disposing of millions in these new colonies without the sanction or even the knowledge of parliament. It could scarcely be believed, that the annual revenues of the new colonies which he had named exceeded 1,200,000 l. and that the whole of these had been, and now were, at the disposal of ministers. There were no documents before parliament, to show the expenditure of any part of that immense revenue! Was that, he would submit to the House, a state of

271
things to be permitted to continue?—He would not state to the House, the amount of those revenues from private information, lest any hon. member should think the authority insufficient; but he would state it as ascertained and reported to the House, by the finance committee of 1817.

The Revenues in Ceylon in 1815

£. 640,444

The Cape of Good Hope in same year

229,495

The Mauritius, and Bourbon for 1814

206,860

Malta for 1815

114,426

£. 1,191,225

To which the Revenues of the Ionian Islands may be added

120,000

£. 1,311,225

These amounts were certainly subject to some modification since that time by the cession of the Isle of Bourbon, and by the constitution given to the Ionian Islands; but he contended, that these great revenues were at the sole disposal of his majesty's ministers, without the check or control of this House, and that they were all expended by them. And farther, that by the vote of this night, they proposed to add 21,104 l. The House, he thought, ought to pause before they voted so large a sum to purposes, which a committee of the House had declared, should be discharged by the local revenues, and he therefore should propose to postpone the vote, until accounts should be laid before it, of the receipt and expenditure of each of these colonies. He would not take upon him to assert, that any part of the revenues were actually misapplied, though he had heard such statements; but he would say, that his majesty's ministers-had the power, if they chose, of misapplying them. It was in the power of the minister to provide for any persons, by sending them to these colonies, and creating officers for them, to be paid by the local revenues. It was in the power of government to grant pensions to individuals resident in this country, payable from these revenues, and he believed the accounts of their disposal would prove that. He should ask, whether that was a state of things proper to exist, consistent with the constitutional jealousy of the House of Commons? He had done his duty in bringing the subject before the House, and if it should refuse to enquire into the application of these frauds, in compliance with the suggestion
272
of the finance committee, he must say, that it would be liable to the charge of culpable negligence. He was not aware whether he should, in the present state of the House, submit a distinct motion, or content himself with the statement he had made [Cry of, Move, move!]. He should therefore move, as an amendment, to substitute the sum of 96,616 l., instead of 118,021 l., being a diminution equal to the amount of the staff for these new colonies.
Mr. Goulburnremarked, that the hon. gentleman had opened a wide field into which he was certainly not well prepared to follow him. His observations were not simply and exclusively connected with the vote under consideration, but applied to the principle upon which this country had hitherto regulated its colonial policy. The effect of that principle was, in compensation for a monopoly of commerce, to maintain the civil and military establishments of the colonies. Whenever this branch of the subject should be brought forward, he trusted he should be able to show, that this system of retaining in our own hands the sources of commercial profit, was justified by sound policy, and ought not rashly to be abandoned. Another important point to which the hon. gentleman had adverted was, a supposed misappropriation of certain colonial revenues in Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Ionian Islands. With regard to those belonging to the latter, the government of this country had no more control over them, than over those of a sovereign and independent state. The management of their finances had been secured to them by treaty, on condition only that the garrisons were to be supported. The reason why no deduction was made for the staff appointments in that quarter might be readily assigned. If there was any hon. member who had at all turned his attention to the recent history of those islands, to the political changes they had undergone, and the successive spoliations which had been inflicted upon them, he must be fully aware of the state of want and destitution to which the inhabitants were reduced. This distress had been much aggravated, by the want of integrity in the conduct of persons to whom the financial administration had been intrusted. Amidst these unfavourable circumstances, some delay in raising the necessary revenues had taken place; but it was the anxious desire of the government to extricate itself

273
from this difficulty, and its first object the maintenance of the Military Establishment. With respect to those other possessions referred to by the hon. gentleman, his official knowledge did not enable him to offer any material explanation, and he could not help feeling some surprise at the charges made against his majesty's ministers by the hon. gentleman, who had given him notice of a motion on the subject but a few hours before. He could assure the House that there was no disposition on the part of his majesty's government to withhold any information which might be deemed conducive to a clear understanding of the subject; and that whenever a motion for such information should be made, he should be ready not only to produce the documents required, but to enter into a detailed account of the whole system of our colonial administration. From those details, however, he should now cautiously abstain, and confine himself to this general reference to the principles on which its policy was founded.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he should trouble the House but for a few moments, the question having arisen in a manner still more unexpected to himself than to the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and had had some hours notice of it. But it was a most important question; and he thought the meaning of his hon. friend in relation to it, had been a little misconceived. He had not understood his hon. friend to object to that system of commercial policy with respect to our colonies, by which, for the sake of their trade, we exempted them from taxation for the support of their establishments: but to state that a surplus revenue was already derived, applicable to this branch of their military defence. If the statement were correct, and if the servants of the Crown were in receipt of a revenue for which they did not account to parliament, he could not conceive a graver case that could be offered to their consideration. In his opinion, a high constitutional duty devolved upon them, for the discharge of which all other questions should be postponed. The subject was introduced, not for the purpose of imputing blame, but of bringing under review a point intimately connected with the privileges of that House, and the practice of the constitution. He thought the ministers of the Crown were bound, however, to make it appear, that such revenues, if existing,
274
were not applicable to the purposes contemplated in the proposed grant. His hon. friend's observations and statement were in the nature of a question put for information; and if there were clandestine sources of revenue either in the possessions alluded to, in Gibraltar, or elsewhere, it was matter of immediate and urgent necessity that a full disclosure should be made.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, in explanation, that he had addressed his remarks to what he considered a charge against his majesty's government.
Mr. Humedenied that he had imputed blame to the government; he had merely asserted that it was in the power of the Crown to make an improper application of the funds in question. It appeared by a return before the House, that in 1815 the revenues of Malta were 114,000 l., and the whole charge upon them but 60,000 l.; that there was a clear balance of 20,000 l. in the Ionian islands; and that in the Mauritius the amount of revenue was 266,000 l.; that of the expenditure 219,000 l. He thought that these balances ought to be made applicable to the public service.
The original resolution was agreed to. On the resolution for granting 21,635 l. for the Medical Establishment, Mr. J. P. Grant gave notice, that it was his intention to move to-morrow for the production of papers relative to the Ophthalmic Establishment, in order to ascertain how far it was necessary that it should be continued.—The other resolutions were put and carried.

BARNSTAPLE BRIBERY BILL.
Lord Clive Lord Clive moved, that this bill be read a second time.
Mr. Bernalsaid, he was anxious to state to the House his reasons for opposing the bill. Those reasons appeared to him strong and convincing, and he was satisfied that the House would never pass such a bill without full inquiry and much deliberation. In the opinion he had formed upon the bill, he differed from many whose sentiments he much respected; but although he should be the last man to stand up for corruption, he would willingly be the first man to call for justice. In the three cases in which the interference of the House in a similar manner had been called for, the corruption proved was much greater than in the present case. He alluded to the cases of New Shoreham,

275
Cricklade, and Aylesbury. In New Shoreham a club had been established called the Christian Club. The meetings of this club were of a most secret nature. They had a committee who were proved to have put up the borough to sale. In this case not less than 60 or 70 electors had been declared incapable of being any longer electors. In Cricklade, a club called the Gridiron Club was established, and a person went about the streets with a gridiron, containing five bars, in his hand, intimating that such electors as voted in a particular way were to receive a certain sum for each bar. In 150 actions, 150 verdicts had been obtained; the whole number of voters having been 204. In Aylesbury similar abuses were detected, and the evidence of corruption was strong and satisfactory. But in the present case such strong evidence was wanting; and surely the House would never agree to such a bill as the present without the fullest evidence. He needed not to remind gentlemen conversant with the history of parliament, of the great antiquity of Barnstaple: it sent members in the time of the Saxons: its first charter was from Henry 1st. Would the House proceed to pass a bill affecting the character and rights of this ancient and distinguished borough without the most complete evidence? Now, there was no positive evidence that more than five voters had received money for their votes. If Mr. John Gribble's evidence was admitted in one view, it ought to be admitted as of equal force in another view. But Mr. Gribble swears that he had never given any voter reason to suppose that he had promised him money for his vote. It should be recollected, that many of the voters were out voters, and chiefly from London. It appeared in evidence, that every out voter from London was to receive 10 l. for a single vote, and 20 l. for a plumper. The distance from London to Barnstaple he might state at 200 miles. No statute or committee had ever declared a seat in a coach to be a bribe. What was the proof of corruption then? Why, it was no more than giving 1s. per mile for travelling expenses. Was there a Christian club? Was there a Gridiron club at Barnstaple? The evidence did not warrant the House in adopting measures of equal severity with those applied to New Shoreham, Cricklade, and Aylesbury. The House would, he trusted, exercise its most strict circumspection and its wisest prudence. The bill now before
276
the House went to disfranchise all the non-resident electors. Even in the three cases to which he had alluded, such severity had not been exercised. He therefore moved as an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time this day sis months."
Mr. N. Culvertopposed the amendment. He thought the bill only put the electors in a situation in which they had less power to injure the constitution and sell their own rights.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that the question for the House to consider, was, whether a majority of the electors had not sold themselves, and had been in the practice of selling themselves. In Mr. Gribble's evidence it appeared, that a majority of the resident voters had received bribes. Out of 61 who had voted for sir Masseh Lopes, 40 had received bribes. Owing to some compromise between the parties, the full details of bribery and corruption had not come to light. This was a great inconvenience, to which election committees were, exposed. Although the case might be manifestly strong, and fully made out, yet if parties choose to compromise, the committee would proceed no farther with the investigation. Mr. Bremridge, agent for Mr. Ommaney, was proved to have given money to the voters on loose grounds. The evidence was sufficient to convict the agent, but not sufficient to reach the principal. The committee took it so. But the electors at least were affected by this evidence. This, too, had been the system of the borough.. All who were not gentlemen got something for their vote. At this moment much canvassing was going on among them, and their resolution was, to wait till some rich turtles should come down from London to offer themselves [A laugh]. Mr. John Gribble, in his evidence, stated, that 5l. were to be given to each elector as before. It appeared that 10 l. had been offered by others. If the money paid had been confined to the expenses of travelling, the committee would not have passed any censure upon it. But all the electors in this case received money for their votes, except a few who were too proud, and a few—a very few indeed—who were too honest to take a bribe. He should therefore give his support to the bill.
Sir Robert wilsonwas sorry that he roust give his decided opposition to the amendment of his hon. friend. He now gave notice, that he would, move, in the

277
committee upon the bill, that Barnstaple be disfranchised, and that the elective franchise be bestowed on one of the unrepresented large cities.
Mr. Barkamsaid, that the House ought to act upon an uniform principle. Nothing could be less becoming its dignity, or Jess effectual in correcting abuse, than to be at one time rigid, and at another time lax. He wished to know upon what principle the House were bound to act in such a case. If there was any proportion of voters, however small, who had been convicted of bribery, were they bound to disfranchise the borough? If out of 100 voters, only one had accepted a bribe, would the act of that individual be a sufficient ground for depriving the remaining 99 of their elective franchise? Such a supposition would be ridiculous. Supposing, again, that the numbers of the innocent and of the guilty were equal, how were the House to draw a line of distinction? He apprehended that they should decide on the disfranchisement of a borough only in cases where a majority of the voters had accepted bribes. Another question was, whether a borough was to be disfranchised for its own immediate act? Or, as was the case in the present instance, was the conduct of those who had voted many years ago to be urged as a ground of criminality against those who at present exercised the elective franchise? It was also necessary to consider on what sort of evidence the House were to build; whether on evidence given before an election committee, or evidence given at the bar of the House; and also what other species of evidence should be admissible. It was the duty of every man to ascertain the principle on which he ought to act; and as he could not perceive the principle on which the House was bound to decide in the present case, he should not vote at all upon the subject.
Mr. Bathurstspoke in favour of the bill. It was impossible, he said, to establish any precise principle that should be applicable to all cases of corruption; the utmost the House could do on such occasions was, to act on a principle broad enough to embrace every degree of corruption. In the present instance it was known that an immoral practice had been systematically pursued. Mr. Gribble, the banker, admitted in his evidence before the committee, that the electors—it was not said a majority, or a minority of
278
them—but, "the doctors," having received money formerly, naturally looked to receiving the same again; and that he did not indeed promise them any particular sums, but merely informed them that they should get the same as they usually received. It was stated broadly, that this system was usually practised, and that it was complied with in the present instance; nay, the very express sums laid out appeared in evidence. The act could not be brought home to A, B, or C, and therefore it was impossible to go with the case to a court of law. The fact, however, of the general practice of the borough was sufficiently established, and to look to a remedy or a prevention from, any other quarter than from that House was vain. The privileges of the present electors would not be completely taken away by this bill, although they no doubt would be diminished by the right of voting being extended to the adjoining hundred; but that such an extension had produced the desired effect, in all similar cases, was a strong instance in favour of adopting the same course in the case of Barnstaple. The hon. gentleman who opposed the bill had talked of travelling expenses incurred by out-voters. It appeared, however, that a sum paid to a resident voter, was entered in Mr. Gribble's book as travelling expenses. The money, in fact, had not been paid to discharge travelling expenses but to purchase votes. On the whole, he thought the case was made out so far as to justify the House in adopting the measure which the bill proposed. He would not say that the present case was the same in every respect as any former one, and he cared not so long as there was sufficient evidence to warrant the adoption of a course which had in former instances been productive of so much good.
Sir John Newportread an extract from the evidence, to show, that the bribery oath was not tendered at the election to any of the voters. This coupled with the statement, that at several elections sums of money had been given to the electors for their votes, showed that a regular system of corruption, which called for the intervention of the House, was constantly acted on.
Mr. Bernalsaid, it appeared that, at the last election, the bribery oath had been administered to Mr. Catton, one of the electors.
Sir John Newportsaid, he drew his in-

279
formation from the documents before the House.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, thought, the House should not resort to this extraordinary measure, until it had been shown that legal means had failed. The right hon. baronet's reason for thinking that the borough ought to be disfranchised, was the very reason why he (Mr. Martin) thought otherwise. If they had been guilty of bribery because the bribery oath had not been tendered, it followed, that if the dark of the peace had administered the oath, they would not have acted as they had done. He was not disposed to go farther than to disfranchise those persons who had accepted bribes, because he thought it the very essense of injustice to punish the innocent for the guilty. He remembered a case in the Irish House of, Peers, in which it was proved, that some members had prostituted their votes; but it never entered into the head of the legislature to disfranchise the whole peerage on that account. For himself, he must say, that such a proposition was unjust, and therefore he felt it his duty to support the amendment.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last was in error, in supposing that it was intended to disfranchise the electors of Barnstaple, as the object of the bill was only to multiply the voters for that borough. Such a measure could not then be deemed disfranchisement, unless it were concluded that the franchise of an elector for. Westminster, where the electors were comparatively so numerous, was of less value than that of an elector for Grampound. An hon. gentleman had suggested the propriety of laying down some specific rule to guide their decisions as to the disfranchisement of boroughs that came under their cognisance. The hon. gentleman, however, must be aware that it was difficult to settle a priori the grounds on which they were to decide, the House must act on the case as it came before them, and must be guided by the general practice, and the nature of the particular instances of corruption proved against a borough, rather than by any fixed and definite principle. If the House took the advice of those who opposed the bill, it might be alleged, that however ready they were to inquire into other abuses, they were unwilling to remedy any abuse that existed among themselves. He could not conceive that the giving the elective franchise to the
280
hundreds would take any of their power from the present electors of the borough; it would only have the effect, by increasing their numbers, to prevent the recurrence of that system of bribery which was complained of. It should be remembered, that the elective franchise was not given for the personal benefit of the electors themselves. It was a trust given for the good of the public, and like the vote given by a member of that House, the vote of an elector was supposed to be given, not for particular but general good. Holding a favourable opinion generally of such measures as those embraced by the bill before the House, he regretted that occasions for them so seldom occurred [A laugh]. He would repeat the expression—he regretted that occasions for such measures so seldom presented themselves, because he thought there were many instances where the same principle was prevalent, and which the parties concerned so managed as to keep from the view of the House. There were several flagrant cases, of which the House could know nothing, and where, as was notoriously the case in the Grampound election in the present session, a compromise between the parties prevented the disclosure of facts upon which it might have been necessary for the House to have taken strong measures. There were, he had no doubt, many cases, where the compromise, as in the instance just mentioned, secured impunity, and the parties went on in the same career of corruption as before. It was on this ground he regretted that occasions like the present were not afforded to the House of detecting and providing against corruption. But, concurring in the general principle of the bill, as he did, he saw no particular claim which the neighbouring hundreds had to the elective franchise more than persons in other parts of the country. The principle of extending the right of voting might be good in such cases, and he had no doubt it was, but then the claim of many other portions of the community were as strong, and in some instances stronger, than those of the next hundreds. There were, for example, a vast portion of the public who did not enjoy the elective franchise at all, and who had a right to it from property and situation in life. He alluded to the copyholders and householders, so many of whom were scattered over the face of the country. Of the latter he would admit that a

281
considerable portion enjoyed the elective franchise, but where this occurred it was only in large towns; but the householders, who were resident in small hamlets, or scattered over the country, were excepted from the elective franchise as such. He should wish to see the elective franchise in such cases as the present extended to such a description of men, and their claim was greater than that of the inhabitants of the neighbouring hundreds, inasmuch as many of the latter were already freeholders. On the whole, he gave his hearty concurrence to the bill, the passing of which would prevent the belief on the part of the country, that the House were lax in the support of those principles which concerned its own honour and the general interest of the nation.
Mr. Waithmansaid, he fully concurred in almost every sentiment expressed by the noble lord. He could not see why the House should not prosecute such a measure as the present for the sake of its own honour and character with the country. The worthy alderman proceeded, but was for a short time rendered inaudible by loud coughing in several parts of the House. He paused for a moment, and when silence was in a great degree restored, he thus continued. If he pressed unnecessarily on the time of the House—if he occupied its attention for any time, however short, with any remarks which he did not conceive tended to the point in debate, he should be the last to forgive himself; but when he only rose to express his honest feeling, however humbly he might be able to give it utterance, he did not see why he should be met in the way he just now had been. He could not see why on every occasion several members in that House should exert themselves to cry him down [Hear hear]. If that system were to be continued, what ever might be his feelings as an individual, and however little weight might attach to his opinions, in the humble way in which he expressed them, yet he could not by silent submission compromise the trust he held from his constituents, or his own privilege as a member of that House. "I remember, Sir," continued the hon. member, turning towards the Speaker, "when I heard you, and heard you with delight, a short time back at the bar of the House of Lords, beg the unrestricted liberty of speech for yourself, and every member of this House. That freedom of expressing our opinions we all possess, as representatives of the people;
282
but it will be worse than mockery to boast of it, if, however humbly we may acquit ourselves, we are liable on any occasion to be put down by clamour." For his part he was determined not to surrender up the privilege which he enjoyed, or in any way to compromise the rights of his constituents. If there was any one subject more than another which called for particular attention, it was that which concerned the principle of election; and therefore he felt the less inclined to yield to the attempts which were made against his being heard. He would repeat it, that however humbly he might express his opinions, he would not suffer them to be stifled by clamour; and if that clamour should again be raised, he should appeal for protection where he knew the appeal would not be in vain—he should seek for protection from the Chair [Hear]. These observations were heard with considerable attention, and for the remainder of the worthy alderman's speech, not the slightest symptom of impatience was evinced in any part of the House. He then continued—Having made this digression, which was forced upon him, he begged to say a few words upon the question before the House. He was a sincere and warm advocate for parliamentary reform, though not, as some members, might imagine, a supporter of the wild principles of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He wished for a reform which was practical, and which would be effectual. He therefore thought the present question one of great importance; one in which the House ought to interfere. He agreed with the noble lord in his opinion respecting copyholders and householders. They were too little attended to: the householders were in many cases excluded from the elective franchise, though men in trade and of considerable property; while the outvoters were, on every occasion of election, sent down in large numbers to give their votes. He would, if there was no other, vote for the bill, though he conceived the time was come when the House were called upon to do a great deal more. There were householders and freeholders in many of the great trading towns with the enjoyment of the elective franchise; and in London it was remarkable, that no freeholder had a vote as such. He would recommend that the franchise should be extended to these.
Mr. V. Blakespoke against that part of the bill, which admitted non-resident householders to the right of voting.
Sir J. Mackintoshobserved, that the opinions of the noble lord and the worthy alderman would come better at another stage of the bill. It should be recollected, that the present was not a penal bill: it was not to punish particular individuals—that could be obtained by the courts of law; but the object of the bill was a general one, and done to guard the House against a gross invasion of its privileges—to prevent, by enlargement of the number of voters, a corrupt body of men from again bartering their rights, and sending their purchaser to take a seat in that House. The hon. member then went on to show the impropriety of looking at the present bill as a penal law against a particular body of men, and maintained that it should only be viewed as a law in support of a general principle—a principle which the House was bound to support. As to the question of general reform, he should not say more than that he would consent to no reform where a great practical evil did not exist, and to which a probable remedy could be applied. The House, he contended, were bound, for the sake of their own character—for the sake of that respect which it was essential they should be held in by the country, to pass the present measure. The great mischief which the country was likely to sustain from violent declaimers on the subject of reform, arose from those single instances of corruption being suffered to pass unnoticed, or with impunity. Such tales passed from mouth to mouth, and from generation to generation, and contributed more to alienate men's minds from the constitution than any other which could be devised. They were used by incendiaries for their own purposes, and were always productive of a lasting impression against the government. A single instance of such a case was calculated to do more mischief than many of perhaps better-founded objections. The hon. gentleman went on to show the bad effects of such practices being suffered to pass with impunity, when they were urged by political incendiaries; and after a few comments on the argument of extending the franchise to some great towns instead of the neighbouring hundreds, which he thought would be inconvenient, concluded by expressing his concurrence in the general principle of the bill.
Mr. Forbesspoke in favour of instituting prosecutions against the guilty.
Lord Clivesaid, that in forming this
284
bill, he had no other object in view than that of preventing the recurrence of those disgraceful scenes, which, it was proved in evidence, had been prevalent at the last election. If there were any objectionable points, they could be amended in the committee.
The gallery was cleared for a division, which, however, did not take place. The bill was then read a second time; and the Speaker was ordered, not to issue his warrant for a new writ till the 1st of June.

SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR BILL.
Mr. Sturges Bourne having moved the order of the, day for the farther consideration of the report of this bill,
General Gascoynesaid, that he had several objections to make to this bill, for which reason he should move as an amendment, that it be recommitted. The, provision in it which he would chiefly oppose was that relating to the length of time necessary for gaining a settlement. This, in his opinion, ought to be extended from three years, as proposed by the bill, to five years, in the case of native subjects, and to seven in the case of foreigners. This and other points could be discussed only in a committee, for which reason he should move, that the bill be re-committed.
Mr. Mildmayseconded the motion, although his objection went rather to the principle of the bill than to its provisions. But of the provisions, he would principally oppose that which related to domestic servitude. The bill was supported on the ground that it would put a stop to much litigation, but in this he thought there was a fallacy. The claims to settlement under the existing law, though depending on many circumstances, were not liable to so much difficulties in their details as those which were proposed to be substituted.
Mr. Phillipsobjected generally to the bill, and said, that if the hon. general would consent to withdraw his amendment, he would propose instead of it that the report be taken into consideration on this day six months. He argued at some length to show the injustice and impolicy of compelling parishes where an individual had resided for three years, to support them in their necessities. He supposed the case of a labourer in a manufacturing town, wherein the manufactures had failed—in such a case it would

285
be not only a hardship to the parish, but a cruelty to the man himself, to compel him to remain in the place of his usual residence.
Mr. FranklandLewis spoke at some length in favour of the measure. He was supported in the opinion he entertained of it by one whose sentiments had always been listened to with attention, and whose loss would for ever be deplored by the House; he meant the late sir Samuel Romilly. By him it was said, that such a system as was now proposed to be introduced was one of the greatest improvements in the laws regarding the poor he had heard of. But this was not a solitary opinion; men whose knowledge and experience on these matters rendered their sentiments valuable had also expressed their approbation of the system. Supported and strengthened by these opinions, he had no difficulty in declaring, that the system which at present existed brought ten times more injustice upon the pauper, and ten times more hardship upon the parish, than the system which was proposed to be introduced by this bill. He strenuously supported original settlements—settlements in that parish where the child was bred and born, under the parental roof where it had received its education, and where it had given the benefit of its labours. How often was it the case at present, that a man worn down by age an infirmity was sent from the spot where he had spent the greater part of his life, to that parish where he might have obtained a settlement by the labour of a single year, but where he was perhaps unknown, and where he was unlikely to obtain a subsistence! This was hard indeed upon the parish, but doubly hard upon the unfortunate pauper, to be removed from his friends and connexions, at a moment, perhaps, when he was afflicted with illness, to a place where he might expire without regret to a single individual in the parish. He remarked upon the facility with which settlements were gained by labour, and earnestly recommended the adoption of a system which would prove a comfort and a blessing to the pauper. He saw no reason why towns as well as country parishes should not bear a proportion of the burthen of supporting these paupers. He was sensible of the inconvenience of charging the manufacturing districts with paupers, but still they ought to support their share of the burthen. He was also sorry to ob-
286
serve, that the poor laws were not strictly observed—a circumstance which greatly aggravated all their evils. He hoped that he had said enough to support the opinion which he had originally expressed on this question. It was not, perhaps, desirable to press it upon the country under the present clamour which had been raised against it, but still it was due to those who had recommended the proposed alterations to show that they had not adopted them upon light or inconsiderate reasons.
Mr. Allanobjected to the bill, principally on the ground of its tendency to increase parochial burthens.
Colonel Woodobjected to the notion of uniting two of the parishes in Wales in the manner alluded to. He rather thought the bill would work more harm than good. The only way to get rid of the difficulties respecting the poor laws, which caused such endless litigation, was to retread the steps that had been passed, and abolish settlements altogether. Labour was the property of the poor man, and he should be at liberty to exercise it wherever he pleased.
Mr. Huskissonadmitted, that the removal of the cruel and unfeeling restraint which the old laws put on the poor man's labour ought to be removed, but he could not see how the law of settlement could be removed, unless the poor laws were altogether repealed. An amendment was necessary in the existing law—to make it was, in fact, a choice of evils, and he thought this bill would answer every purpose. He complained of the moral evils which were produced by the old law upon the agricultural population, and contended it was most desirable to amend a system so productive of injurious effects. Not the least of the merits of this bill was, that it would prevent the great expense and litigation now so common in asserting rights of settlement.
Mr. G. Lambdenied that the effect of the bill would be to prevent litigation. To give the lawyers a new act of parliament, was rather a strange way of diminishing their practice. He enumerated in detail the provisions of the bill, and thought that it was most injudicious to prevent a man from obtaining a variety of settlements in the course of his occupations.
Lord Miltonsupported the bill. He thought it was a considerable improvement upon the old law, which was too compli-

287
cated to be useful. He attributed the augmentation of the poor-rates to the anxiety to reduce the price of agricultural labour. The great manufacturing towns were no doubt desirous of getting rid of their poor who had spent their lives in the workshops of Manchester or Birmingham.
Sir G. Clerksuggested to his gallant friend who had moved the amendment, to withdraw it, and allow the bill to go through another stage.
Mr. Canningapproved of the bill in general, though he admitted that there were some objections to it. The amendment was important, as tending to raise the character of the poor. A great number of Irish were annually imported into Liverpool, and he thought the residence in large towns ought to be five years. The simplification of the law was a great gain, although in the present generation it might be attended by inconveniences. It would be ungracious to object too strongly to this first-fruits of the committee on the poor laws. The task it had to perform was complicated and difficult; and if it were not encouraged, gentlemen would be very reluctant to undertake the duties, He was in favour of the re-commitment, that the amendment might be introduced.
Mr. A. Wrightopposed the bill, on the ground that it was fertile of litigation.
Mr. S. Bournereplied briefly, and said he had no objection to the recommittal of the bill.
Mr. W. Smith, though originally a friend to the motion, felt it a duty he owed to a very large body of his constituents to oppose it.
The question being put, "That the Bill be recommitted," the House divided. Ayes, 62; Noes, 92. The question, that the farther consideration of the report be put off for six months, was then put and agreed to.