§ The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Miscellaneous Services were referred, Mr. Arbuthnot moved "That 476,294l. be granted to his Majesty, for defraying the expense of the Commissariat Department for the year. 1820."
§ Mr. Humewished for some explanation of the reason, why the estimate of the present year was nearly 100,000l. greater than the estimate of the last. The estimate of the last year was 380,300l.; that of the present 476,294l. Why was this? Adverting also to the way in which the commissariat, the storekeeper's department, &c. were air comprehended in one estimate, he strongly objected to this practice, and recommended that the estimates for the various branches of the public service should be stated singly; by which means they would be rendered more clear and intelligible. What he principally rose for, however, was to ask why there had been such an increase? He was certainly aware that there could not be an increase of troops, without an in crease of expense; but here was the difficulty, which met the, House in every quarter, and which proved the inexpediency of augmenting our military establishments.
§ Mr. Arbuthnot,in reference to the mode in which the present estimates were framed, said they had been drawn up by a very accurate and intelligent individual, with whose merits, he believed, the hon. gentleman was well acquainted. Next year they would be presented separately. As to the cause of the, extension of these estimates, he agreed with the hon. gentleman, that was the consequence of the additional number of troops which it had been found necessary to embody. one item of increase, to the amount of 25,000l. had been occasioned by the clothing for the veteran battalions and the militia; the latter of which had been called out this. Year. In former years there had been a. considerable balance in hand, perhaps to, the amount of 40,000l., which had not existed in the last year.
The resolution was agreed to. On the motion, "That 241,000l. be granted for the service of the Barrack Department in Great Britain for the year 1820,"
Mr. Bennetdeemed it right to call the attention of the committee to the amount of this vote, and the circumstances attending By the new schedule presented 1113 in these estimates, an addition of 88,150l. to the expense of last year under this head was proposed to them. The objections, how every which he had to urge were rather to the-system than to the immediate alteration. He sincerely believed that this additional expense might be dispensed with, and could hardly conceive any evil in a Free country greater than that of keeping a large number of soldiers assembled in a body during a period Of peace. Such* a state of things must continually endanger, and place in a state of risk, the true exercise arid administration of a constitutional government it. He could not view without alarm the collection of great bodies of men with arms in their hands, residing Under the same roof. He might be speaking strongly, but it was an evident sign of a bad government it Whenever it appeared, to rely on the support of an armed force. He Had known, indeed, instances of actual inconvenience arising from the5" present system; but what he meant chiefly to maintain was, that the liberties of no country could be considered safe whilst it continued. It how appeared, that two new barracks Were the erected in or about London. There had been two before, and now there were to be four Was it possible that his majesty's ministers meant to convert London into a garrison town? What ground of necessity had been, urged for; establishing any thing of this kind at the King's-mews? He found in the estimates a proposed vote of 3,500l. for a new barrack in the City road A large one was to be erected at Manchester, there being one already of considerable, magnitude [Here it was intimated across the table, that the new London barrack was to be erected on the other side of Waterloo-bridge] Well, then, let that be as it might, he round that a new barrack was to be erected at Stockport; and really he must say, that no government could stand in a more discreditable light than that of appearing dependent for their means of support upon measures or arrangements of this kind. Tie did not believe that any other country in Europe was regulated in this manner, or that any system of augmented military force, of increasing barracks, was to be found, except among this heavily burthen-: ed people. For his own part, he never would reconcile his views to the consideration of London as a military station, like Potsdam, brother towns upon the continent. He thought the increase of the mi- 1114 litary insulting to the country, and dangerous to its permanent peace. Soldiers might put down an incidental disturbance; but who could say what evils might eventually arise from having eight or ten thou sand men in arms, permanently established in barracks in the heart of the British metropolis? It was not merely the expense of the establishment that was objectionable; although when the general poverty of the nation—when the statement which had been that night made by the right hon. gentleman himself of the condition of Ireland—when the complaints which were made, day after day, of the distresses of the various interests of the country—when the petitions which were poured irit;6 the House from almost every farmer, every trader, and every artizan, describing their absolute ruin—when all these things were considered, it was rather too much to find that the only answer of parliament to such representations, after civilly receiving them, was to raise additional troops, to impose additional charges on the people, and to keep perpetually going round that miserable and calamitous circle in. which fresh distresses^ were productive only of fresh expenses, and those of course, in their turn, of fresh distresses. He should certainly feel it his duty to take the sense of the committee on that branch of the estimate under consideration, to which he had particularly adverted.
§ Mr. R. Wardorder to show the necessity of erecting the barracks which had, been recently built in the country, adverted to several places, and particularly Chester arid carlisle, where such precautions had been taken in consequence of those places having been reconnoitred by the radicals, and declared so vulnerable that they might be taken in half an hour. With reference especially to the latter city he had lately witnessed a scene there which sufficiently proved the necessity of military protection; and he was persuaded that the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, who was present at that scene, if he were in the House, would corroborate his statement: he had seen a number of respectable individuals—ladies, and gentlemen—who were going to a public entertainment in Carlisle, grossly insulted by the populace, and told that it was the last time they should ride in their carriages, and the last time they should wear diamonds. He was confident that the tranquillity of the country required 1115 the military protection which it was now receiving.
Colonel Daviessupported the opinion of Mr. Bennet. He observed that in 1818 the whole amount of the barrack expenditure was 99,000l., but in 1819, when every thing was supposed to be settled, and when it might be expected the military expenditures of the country would be greatly diminished, yet the charge for barracks was 123,500l. But he was astonished to find, that in this year an additional estimate of 88,000l. was proposed for building new barracks, exclusive of the charge for repairing old ones. Such appearances were most alarming. There was also a sum of 78,000l. for the department of barrack-masters, of whom there was a whole army in full pay. There was one or more in every town wherever a company was quartered. The duty of a barrack-master was merely to inspect the works, and see things in order for the reception of troops; but not only were those men employed where troops were quartered, but wherever they were likely to come. In every barrack there was also a barrack serjeant and clerk of the works, besides six or seven inspectors. It was impossible that so many persons could find fair employment, although they were a heavy expense to the country. Many of those persons were of a description unfit for the duty, while many experienced officers who had served their country, and were every way competent to the duty, were rejected. He knew of one town where the barrack-master was an apothecary, and another where a stone-mason filled the office. If government thought it absolutely necessary to build new barracks, he hoped the barrack-masters would be transferred from those places in which they were not at present wanted. The present estimate was, however, only a part of the general system of ministers. One step naturally led to another; and it was impossible to say into what extent of expenditure the country would be plunged. It was difficult indeed to get at the facts. The subject was involved in the greatest mystery and obscurity; and any one who wished to investigate it had to wade through a mass of papers of which no one who had not made the attempt could have any conception.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he could assure the committee that the increase of the barrack expenditure was no voluntary act of his majesty's govern- 1116 ment. It was one of those expenses which arose from the agitated state of the country. There could not by possibility exist any disposition on the part of government to inflict a large military expenditure on the public; but they had been obliged to adopt the measures which they had taken, for the protection of the loyal and industrious against the danger to which their lives. and their property were subjected. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had objected to the erection of new barracks. Had he inquired into the representations made to government on the subject by the magistrates and other respectable individuals? Called upon as they had been, government were bound to afford the protection required of them. Having called on the country to make exertions for their self-defence, government were bound to give such assistance as would inspire just confidence. Under these circumstances it was not desirable that the soldiers should be mingled with a disturbed and agitated population. He certainly lamented the extended expense of our military force. But the direct expense of that force was not the most mischievous evil; the indirect expense, by the interruption of industry and the want of confidence which the necessity for that force occasioned, was the most to be regretted; and he was persuaded that the soundest and best economy which parliament and government could practise, would be to employ such a force as would effectually put an end to those disturbances and alarms, which were much more expensive in their consequences, than any means that could be adopted to repress them. With respect to the particular barracks alluded to by the hon. member, there was but one actually erecting in the metropolis. As to the King's Mews, provision had certainly been made there for the accommodation of a battalion of the guards. But the hon. member must In a ware, that whenever any disturbance bad taken place in the metropolis, that had always been, considered a convenient station for either cavalry or infantry. The barracks that were erecting in different parts of the country, were so erecting in consequence of the applications that had been made to government for protection. It those applications could with propriety be communicated to parliament, he was sure they would not only be satisfied with what was doing, hut would applaud the discretion and moderation which government had manifested on the subject.
§ Mr. Humecould not refrain from declaring that the subject was one on which he thought the people ought justly to feel great alarm. There were no less than 97 barracks in the country; all of them with regular establishments. It bad been lately said by ministers, that the additional troops were requisite to meet a temporary exigency; if so, why provide them with permanent accommodation? In Manchester, for instance, where there was already one barrack, another was erecting at an expense of 28,000l.; so that, because that place was once disturbed, it seemed to be supposed that it must be so for ever. By-and-by, he presumed, York, or some other place, would have an additional barrack, in consequence of a similar presumption. At Stockport also (which was within eight miles of Manchester), an additional barrack was building, merely because there had been a tittles disturbance in that place which bad not been quelled until the arrival of the military. The same was the case at Oldham, which was within four miles of Manchester. Good God!—where would be the end of this, if, in every village in which any appearance of disquiet was manifested a barrack was to be built? What necessity was there for an additional barrack at Burnley? What necessity was there for an additional barrack at Carlisle? What necessity was there, in addition to the infantry barrack, for a barrack for a complete regiment of cavalry in Glasgow? He entreated ministers to pause in their course. He entreated them to consider the consequences of thus continually adding to the expenditure of the country. In Glasgow, for instance, there would no doubt be two barrack-masters, one for the infantry, the other for the cavalry. If there was the smallest disposition on the part of government to economise, the duty of superintending both those barracks might be discharged by one individual. At Maidstone, and at several other places there was this double establishment, which was wholly unnecessary; He hoped the hon. member for Shrewsbury would persist in taking the sense of the committee on the proposition for erecting new barracks, a measure, in his opinion, entirely uncalled for by the circumstances of the country.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that before his majesty's ministers had come to a determination to erect new barracks in the proposed districts, they had made every necessary inquiry on the subject, the result 1118 of which was, that they found themselves forced to comply with the requests made to them from different parts of the country for protection. He was aware that temporary barracks would be best, if they could be obtained, but that was found impracticable. There were no buildings in the districts where soldiers were required that could be appropriated to this purpose. This was felt by the local authorities, and so represented to government. It was also found, that if the troops were not kept totally to themselves, there would be neither safety for them nor the districts which they were sent to protect. With respect to what had fallen from an hon. member relative to the appointment of stone-masons, or other improper persons, to the office of barrack-master, he could only say, that no such appointments had taken place while he had been in office. He could assure the committee, that he had always used his utmost endeavours to appoint competent persons to such offices, and the greater part of those so appointed were reduced officers. He always selected the most deserving, even of that, class of persons. He had only one observation to add; the barrack department had advised a reduction; they had no interests in the appointments, that being vested in the Treasury, and he could assure the committee, that such recommendation had in every instance been attended to.
§ Mr. Abercrombyobserved, that be would not have said a single word on this occasion, were it not that he felt it necessary to state the reasons which induced blip to vote for the motion of his hon. friend. He did not mean to enter now into that part of the question, which from the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, appeared to be of so alarming a nature, particularly to those who understood the principles of the constitution. It would be idle now to enter upon that part of the question. The right hon. member had taken credit for a reduction being made in the barrack department, while on the other hand it was shown that it had been progressively increasing daring the last three years. In a word, the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer was neither more nor less than this, that such was the state of the population of this country; such was the alienation of the people's feelings from the government of the country, that his majesty's 1119 ministers had no other resource than that of building barracks within four miles of each other all over the country, in order to repress the feeling which existed in the country. The right hon. gentleman said, that this was not the wish of government, but that they were forced to it by the disaffection of the people. If there was any one reproach greater than another to be cast upon parliament, it was that of listening patiently to such a statement, without having taken a single step to inquire how this awful and melancholy change had taken place, or how it could be permanently remedied. Now, indeed, they had the grand remedy in the erection of barracks and the maintenance of troops throughout the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in explanation, said, that the hon., and learned member had misunderstood him. What he said was, and lie did not hesitate again to avow it, that such was the state of some of the population in the metropolis and in several oilier districts, that it became necessary, in order to protect the property of the industrious well-meaning, to establish barracks and keep troops in those disturbed districts.
Colonel Daviessaid, that in mentioning temporary barracks, he did not allude to old stores or other buildings. If it were found necessary to erect barracks for a time, they might be built of wood. This would be a sufficiently strong, and a much cheaper mode of erecting barracks, than by erecting them of stone.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had understood the right hon. gentleman in the same way as his hon. and learned friend, and that he had actually put the merits of this question upon the general and notorious disaffection of the people. It was evidently the system of the government in this country that had created the discontent and dissatisfaction which the right hon. gentleman acknowledged to exist, and which he stated as the groundwork that rendered the erection of barracks necessary. He conceived that ministers did not look into their own measures with a scrutinizing eye. If they did, they would there trace the causes of that alienation of public feeling, and of that general discontent, of which they complained. The present was a very large question, and, if pursued, would lead them into a debate on the general state of the country. He had no hesitation in saying, that if, when the repre- 1120 sentation was made, in July last, to lord Sidmouth, respecting the state of the disturbed districts, parliament had been called on to take into consideration their existing circumstances, the evils that had since occurred, and which tended to alienate the public mind, would not have I happened. Could any man, who felt a love for his country, or who entertained reverence and respect for the British constitution, look, without alarm, at the estimates laid before them, in a time of profound peace, for building barracks in those great towns where discontent was alleged to exist? Such a proceeding was no less than an avowal that the government must keep down the feelings of the people by the sword. If, instead of an inquiry into the internal misfortunes of the country and the miseries of its population, they applied harsh and coercive measures, at an enormous expense, it could have no other effect but to create additional discontent. He allowed, with the right hon. gentleman, that property, and the peaceable part of the population, must be protected. But he must farther observe, that the causes of those discontents should be inquired into, and the legislature should see whether the present state of the country was not to be attributed to that system of force and coercion which had been so long adopted. Ministers never thought of that, but called for the means of erecting barracks as a mere matter of course. Neither were they contented with a temporary establishment to meet a temporary disturbance. No they called for a permanent establishment, instead of devising measures to make the people more contented with their situation, and more ob. client to the laws. The sum now to be voted was 110,000l. for the building of barracks, of which 88,000l. were to be granted on account, to make a beginning this year. The subject was a most important one, and he was sorry it was debated in this way, because he thought it ought to be considered on the wide and extensive scale which it demanded. He trusted that the present session would not be allowed to pass without an inquiry into the real state of suffering, as well as the alleged disaffection of the people.
§ Mr. W. Smithexpressed his regret that such large sums should be voted in such a manner. This was a question of confidence. It might be right to extend confidence to ministers, but here this 1121 was not the case. They were called upon to vote sums for barracks and soldiers, on the statements of magistrates, of which the House knew nothing. The question was, whether the committee were prepared to vote 200,000l. for barracks, with all its attendant expenses, upon the mere recommendation of a set of magistrates? He did not mean to say that ministers meant any attack on the liberties of the people, but this he would say, that if ever any bad man, or any bad administration, should entertain such an idea, the country could not be more inconveniently placed than by having those barracks and garrisons distributed over the country.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, with reference to the sum charged for repairs, that it was Impossible to have a large range of barracks, without incurring a great expense every year for keeping them in a proper state. If the barracks had been originally constructed in a solid manner, such sums would not be necessary for repairs; but many of them were formed of wood, and were very much decayed.
§ Mr. Creeveysaid, he observed, in the present estimates, a sum of 14,000l. for pensions and allowances to barrack-masters, &c.; and in the army estimates, he had remarked a charge for two retired barrack-masters-general of 2,000l. each, besides other items connected with the barrack department. How was it possible to imagine that a barrack-master-general could be entitled to a pension equal to 5l. a-day, while a retired lieutenant. general, who might have been all his life in the army, and seen the most dangerous service, received only 1l. 5s. a-day? He should like grants of this kind to be brought before the House in a more plan and clear shape. Those grants were professedly given under the 50th Geo. 3rd, which empowered the heads of departments to grant a remuneration to retired officers, in certain proportions for past services. If the returns under that act were examined, it would be found that the sums paid to individuals who had retired were perfectly enormous. There were 2,000l. a-year to two retired barrack-masters-general; 2,000l. a-year to a retired comptroller of accounts; 1,500l. to a retired clerk, &c. The country was quite unable to pay such sums, which were far greater than the services performed justified. No less than 700,000l. had been granted in this manner; and he conceived a general re- 1122 turn should be laid before the House of all persons receiving allowances and pensions, in conformity with the provisions of the act he had mentioned. With respect to the item immediately under consideration, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that the state of the country rendered it necessary that troops and barracks should be furnished, in order to suppress disturbances. Now, if disturbances were apprehended, it would certainly be proper to guard against them; but a temporary danger did not afford any reason for establishing a permanent system.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, the two sums of 2,000l., to which the hon. gentleman had alluded as part of the army estimates, were allowances granted to two retired barrack-master-general previous to the establishment of the barrack department. This was the reason for charging them in the army estimates. Previous to the establishment of the barrack department there was a barrack-master-general in this country and in Ireland. They both had military commissions, and, on retiring, an allowance was granted to them. Since the period when the barrack department was established, charges relative to it were comprised in the miscellaneous estimates; and the 14,000l. to which the hon. gentleman referred consisted of pensions to retired barrack-masters, whose services occurred since the barrack department was formed. Almost all of them had been officers in the army, and would have been entitled to half-pay if they had not been provided for in this manner.
§ Sir H. Parnellwished to be informed whether the Irish barrack department was not under the control of the Treasury. If there was reason to complain of the expense of that establishment here, there was still greater reason to complain of it in Ireland. The expense, last year, in that country, was 123,000l. He conceived, particularly as the two treasuries were now united, that this department should be placed under its control.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that the barrack estimate for Ireland was always brought forwardby the chief-secretary for that country. Of course the chief-secretary for Ireland would introduce the charge in the services for the year.
§ Mr. T. Wilsonconceived gentlemen were wrong when they attributed all the evils of the country to the measures of 1123 the government. He would call their recollection to the turn the debate had taken on a former evening, when it was admitted that the discontent and disaffection of the people did not arise from any want of respect for the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons, but were produced by distress, occasioned by a deficiency of employment. If that were the case, and if the distress had become greater than it was, it must produce an increase of discontent, which required an increase of energy to meet it. With respect to the feelings of the country, he could not help thinking that the language continually used on the other side of the House was not calculated to assuage it. Indeed, it tended to render the people not only dissatisfied with their situation, but with the conduct of government. He I did not know what measures would be adopted by the gentlemen opposite, if they were in power; but, were they placed in that situation, they would surely keep up such a force as might be necessary to repress any dangers that were likely to threaten the peace of the country. He did not wish to give a vote for expending the public money unnecessarily; but no argument offered by the gentlemen opposite had convinced him that the present was not a proposition that ought to be agreed to.
Mr. Calcrafthoped the hon. gentleman would forgive him if he said that, when members of the House of Commons were about to vote the money of the people, they had a right to make such observations as they might think fit. They were sent to the House for that purpose. They were called on to canvass every proposition brought before them. When money was demanded, it was their duty to call on the chancellor of the exchequer to state his reasons for requiring it, and in return, to acquaint him with their views on the subject. The hon. gentleman certainly was not so much in the habit of objecting to votes of money as individuals on his side of the House were; but that circumstance, however they might regret it, would not render them less vigilant. With respect to a question, as to the difference of expense for building the barracks at Leeds and at Glasgow, no answer had been returned to it; and, as a member of the House of Commons, he conceived that he had a right to have that circumstance explained.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotbelieved that the inha- 1124 bitants of Glasgow had supplied a portion of the expense, which had occasioned the difference.
§ Mr. Abercrombysaid, he had stated no opinion of his own, originally, but had quoted an opinion, an extremely alarming one, of the chancellor of the exchequer. He had since heard his qualification, which was, that his was a partial and not a general statement. How far it was partial or general must be collected from the proposed erection of barracks all over the country.
§ The committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 30. Majority for the Resolution, 42.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, lord | Griffith, J. W. |
| Abercromby. hon. J. | Harvey, D. W. |
| Bright, R. | Hume, J. |
| Beaumont, T. W. | Lennard,T. B. |
| Boughey, sir J. | Lushington, Dr. |
| Bernal, R. | Monck, J. B. |
| Calcraft, J. | Martin, J. |
| Calcraft, J.H. | Ord, W. |
| Clifton, lord | Palmer, C. F. |
| Colbourn, R. | Parnell, sir H. |
| Coffin, sir I. | Ricardo, D. |
| Creevey,Thos. | Smith, Wm. |
| Denman, T. | Smith, Saml. |
| Davies, col. | TELLER. |
| Ellice, E. | Bennet, hon. H. G. |
| Farrand, R. |
§ On the resolution, "That 25,000l. be granted for maintaining and repairing the British Forts on the Coast of Africa,"
§ Mr. W. Smithsaid, that every shilling of the money granted for the same purpose for many years had been misapplied. It would appear from the accounts, not merely for the last years, but for many years before, that the money which had been expended did not in any degree promote the expected object. The slave trade was not, in consequence of that expenditure, prevented. Were he to speak out on this subject, he would use very severe epithets indeed. He considered the expenditure any thing but advantageous to the country. He had no hesitation in saying, that the transfer to the government of those forts from the African company was a salutary measure. In the first place, a sum of 1,200l. a year, divided amongst those who called themselves the African company, would be saved to the country.
§ On the resolution, "That 150,000l. be granted, to pay in the year 1820 the awards of the. commissioners established 1125 in London, in pursuance of an act of the 58th George 3rd, c. 85, for carrying into effect a convention between his majesty and his most faithful majesty, signed at London the 28th of July, 1817, to claimants of Portuguese vessels and cargoes captured by British cruisers, on account of the unlawfully trading in slaves, from 1st June, 1814,"
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he believed the House was ignorant of the manner in which this sum was incurred by the government of the country. He would state how those captures originated; they were made in consequence of the neglect and ignorance of the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, and of his colleagues. He stated this openly, and he was prepared to prove it. He was prepared to show that the instructions sent out by the Admiralty were, from the beginning to the end, illegal. He was sure no hon. gentleman would for one moment sanction them, if they were brought under consideration. He was therefore to presume that those instructions had been sent out by the Admiralty without those persons at the head of that department knowing what they contained, or what would be the effect of them. He would appeal to one act of the noble lord opposite; if the noble lord would but recollect the circumstance, he had no doubt but that the noble lord would bear testimony to what he said. The instructions in question were sent out to the different cruisers from the Admiralty, and were, as they ought to have been, acted on by the commanders of those cruisers, for he would ever contend that it was the duty of the masters of cruisers, upon receiving instructions from the Admiralty, to obey them. Under those instructions vessels belonging to Spain and Portugal were captured—and captured, in violation of every principle of the law of nations. Though an advocate for the abolition of the slave trade, he must condemn, an act which went to overturn every principle of the law of nations observed in this country from the earliest ages down to the present day. Those illegal instructions were executed as soon as they were received; great alarm followed; a number of Portuguese vessels were brought into the different ports of the coasts of Africa, and condemned in the most unmerciful manner. But instructions subsequently issued by the noble lord opposite, revoking the instructions previously issued, and containing fresh orders, saying 1126 in fact, that every thing contained in the former instructions was unlawful—saying in plain terms to the masters of our cruisers, "You have innocently acted on the illegal instructions you received—but for God's sake desist; make no further aggressions." The noble lord must say that this was the substance of the instructions he had sent out. A treaty was subsequently entered into, by which the British government undertook to pay for all the vessels captured under the illegal instructions. This treaty was followed by an act of parliament, by which it was enacted, that after the produce of the vessels captured the government would make up the deficiency of the value; but the right hon. gentleman who moved the resolutions well knew, that such was the neglect of government that not one shilling had been received out of any of the different ships that had been captured. Were ministers prepared to admit that for five years they had been so negligent as not to have considered this subject—that they had not taken any step to possess themselves of one sixpence of the property which had been captured? He was not, of course, expected to know what had recently passed at the Treasury, but up to Christmas last, and he believed to a still later period, not one shilling had been received out of any of the ships or cargoes captured, for which the House was now called upon to vote so large a sum; and yet in the present state of this country, every shilling that could be saved was of importance; and although the captors were not entitled to one shilling on account of the vessels which they seized, yet the country, it seemed, was to be, burthened with an enormous sum of money to be paid to foreign powers, in consequence of the ignorance and neglect of the first lord of the Admiralty, who sent out false and illegal instructions to our cruisers.
§ On the resolution, "That 41,787l. be granted for defraying the expense of Works and Repairs of Public Buildings for the year 1820,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the preparations which were making for the coronation were but of a temporary nature: an unnecessary expense appeared to be incurring. Preparations intended for a mere temporary purpose were got up on a scale as expensive as if the different public situations for the coronation were to last, not for a day, but for thirty or forty years.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the expenses of the coronation would be brought under the consideration of the House.
§ Mr. Creeveywished to know when those expenses would be brought under consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that they would be submitted to the House as soon as the privy council should determine the amount of the expense which they might consider likely to accompany the coronation.
§ Mr. Creeveyasked, whether the amount of that expense would be submitted to parliament before the ceremony of the coronation shall take place?
§ Mr. Humesaid, that in the last year a sum of 80,000l. was granted for secret service money, 47,000l. of which was only appropriated, leaving a balance of 33,000l. in the Treasury. That 33,000l. added to the 60,000l. now called for, would make nearly 100,000l. for secret service money. The internal state of the country, and still less Our relations with foreign powers, could not justify the disposal of so enormous a sum. They had nothing to fear from foreign powers; they had nothing to do with foreign countries, unless, indeed, commissioners were to be sent out to Naples and other places of the same honourable description with other commissioners which he need not name.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that however the hon. gentleman might object to them, grants of this description were also recognized by parliament, were always accounted for, and were necessary under the circumstances of the country.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he did not want to, have grants for secret service money altogether done away; he only objected to the extent of the present grant.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that grants for secret service money were always the largest in those years when general elections took place.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that if the hon. member would only look into the act he would see a special provision requiring that money granted for secret service should be duly accounted for under the authority of the secretary of state.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that the three secretaries of state were responsible on oath for the money expended. It was impossible for him to say how the money was to 1128 be expended, or why so large a grant was thought necessary. But the House would recollect, that the sum was applied for, not merely for the foreign, but for the home department also.
§ On the resolution, "That 5,000l. be granted, for the support of the Institution called, 'The Refuge for the Destitute for the year 1820.'
§ Mr. Humeobjected to this vote on the ground that parliamentary interference was dangerous. If a sum of money was to be granted to this institution, many other institutions in the metropolis, equally deserving of consideration, and with equally strong claims might and would ask for parliamentary assistance.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that many of the persons relieved were juvenile convicts, whose previous character or whose parentage made it desirable that they should not be sent to the hulks. Government having thrown this charge on this society, they were bound to take part of the burthen. The change made in the character of convicts sent thither was a proof of the judiciousness of this arrangement.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the institution saved the country a very considerable sum; a number of young persons convicted of petty Grimes, and sentenced to slight punishments, were received into the establishment; but no funds could withstand the constant demands that were made upon it; many persons who were actually starving, though recommended by magistrates, were reluctantly turned from the doors of the institution. The progress of juvenile delinquency in the metropolis was very great; and as the Refuge could not receive all the objects that presented themselves, he would beg to suggest to ministers, that they ought to form some place under their own direction, where those persons might be received; for, if left loose upon society, it would be only to spread vice and crime.
§ Mr. Lockhartcontended, that such charity, in fact, was an encouragement of crimes. The first offence should not be so lightly spoken of. A vigorous police would seize the offenders before they committed the crime, and while they were loitering and plotting, crimes.
§ On the resolution, "That 60,000l. be granted towards defraying the expense of the building of a Penitentiary House, at Millbank, for the year 1820,"
§ Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, he understood 1129 that 600,000l. had been already expended on this Penitentiary, of which he very much doubted the policy. It was now turned into a manufactory, which in the present state of the population of the country, only deprived the honest poor of work; so that the Penitentiary supplied the poor-houses, as the poor-houses supplied the Penitentiary. With all this expenditure, would any one say that there would be six penitents, who, according to this rate, would be produced at 100,000l. per penitent? This was rather a high price to pay for penitence. As he was to quote history on the subject, he should quote a monarch who was supposed to know as much of the fair sex as any king ancient or modern—he meant Solomon. Solomon said, that "a virtuous woman was above rubies;" this was to be sure in favour of such an expenditure. He understood, that the penitents from Newgate were ruined at the penitentiary—that Mrs. Fry's penitents were quite done up at Millbank. This put him in mind of a mistress, who having been robbed by her servant, said—"bless my heart, I am astonished at her, for she was strongly recommended to me from Newgate." [A laugh] He was against this system; he was for having all criminals sent out of the country to let honest men live.
§ Mr. Holfordsaid, the Penitentiary had not and would not cost 600,000l. It had hitherto cost only 340,000l. A vote of 60,000l. was now called for, and another would be required, he did not know to what amount; but the whole expense would not exceed 500,000l. He agreed with the gallant admiral as to the general policy of sending convicts, whose punishment was to continue for a long term of years, out of the country; but maintained that a place like the Penitentiary at Millbank was necessary for those whose sentences were only of a temporary nature.
§ On the resolution "That 21,000l. be granted for defraying the expense of the establishment of the Penitentiary House at Millbank, from 24th June, 1820, to 24th June, 1821,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, that a considerable discussion had taken place last year in the committee regarding the erection of a steam-engine in the Penitentiary for the purpose of easing the labour which the prisoners endured in drawing water and in grinding flour. The committee, 1130 though no division took place upon it, had shown a decided disapprobation of the plan; and he now rose to ask, whether a steam-engine had been erected in the prison, for the purposes which he had before mentioned.
§ Mr. Holfordhad great satisfaction in informing the hon. gentleman, that the steam-engine had not been erected, and that all intention of erecting it had been abandoned. Instead of a steam engine, four machines had been purchased for the Penitentiary, two for the drawing of water, and two for the grinding of flour.
§ Mr. Lockhartwished to know how many penitents were at present confined in the Penitentiary.
§ Mr. Holfordsaid, that at present there were 400 penitents within its walls; by that time next year he hoped there would be 700. The number of criminals convicted annually exceeded that number; and the Penitentiary was built to hold 1,000. They had sent out of it, within the last year, 30 individuals, who, he was confident, would never again have occasion to visit it.
§ Mr. Lockhartsaid, he was afraid, if the bill of fare of the honest poor who had been driven into Lambeth workhouse, for instance, by the pressure of the times and of taxation, were compared with that of these persons who were imprisoned for their crimes, the comparison would be much to the advantage of the latter. These convicts had each a separate room, fared well, had a physician for their bodies, and a priest for their souls. He thought it a bad system that persons who were under punishment for crime, should be in a better situation than those who were suffering from misfortune.
Mr. Bennetdeprecated the tone of scorn in which the last speaker had expressed himself relative to this establishment. He should like to know what that hon. gentleman would wish to have done to the unfortunate individuals in that prison.—Were they to be left to starve? There was this difference between them and paupers in the poor-house—the pauper could leave his residence, but the convict could not leave his, being placed in it contrary to his own will. He was not for pampering the palate of a convict, but he was for allowing him that quantity of provisions which was requisite to his support. He was fully convinced of the truth of an observation of the immortal Howard, 1131 that persons in prison require a greater quantity of food to sustain nature than persons out of it. Indeed, there was in punishment something of a corporeal disease, which wasted the frame much more than any person who had not seen its effects would readily believe. The hon. gentleman had sneeringly said, that the prisoners had a physician for their bodies and a priest for their souls. Was there, then, to be no religious attendance paid to the convicts; or was that attendance to be considered only as a fit object for a sneer? He could hardly have believed, had he not himself witnessed it, that any member would have risen in his place to broach such doctrines. If the House agreed to them, they must give up the great principle of establishing prisons for the reformation of offenders, the fruit of which he was certain would be: good. He could not refrain from entering his protest against the position that it: was impossible to establish such a system of prison discipline as would unite in itself the reformation of the offender and the punishment of the offence.
§ Mr. Lockhartsaid, he had no such feelings as had been imputed to him; but when he saw that with improved prisons and new charities, crimes were increasing, he felt that the country was losing its way on an amiable system, and that what was really wanted was a preventive police. He protested against any plan which should put criminals in a better situation than the unfortunate.
§ Mr. Ricardothought that the difficulty of getting admittance into the prison ought to be taken into the consideration of the committee. If the officers were under the inspection of the public, they would be more likely to do their duty; and he could see no good reason why the prisons should not be subject to the inspection of the public.
§ Mr. Holfordthought he could satisfy the hon. gentleman that the difficulty of which he complained was nothing more than a due caution on the part of the governors of the Penitentiary. If the public at large were allowed free ingress into it, it was clear that accomplices of the prisoners might gain admission, and thus counteract all the good purposes which the establishment was intended to effect. Any person of respectable appearance might gain a ticket of admission by application to the secretary of state; but if all were admitted who desired to have admis- 1132 sion, the time of the officers of the institution, which ought to be devoted to other employments, would be Silly occupied in looking after the various individuals who would come to visit them.
§ Mr. Ricardosaid, that the difficulty of obtaining admission into the Penitentiary was so great, that he himself, though a member of parliament, had not been able to inspect it.
§ Mr. Arbuthnot,in moving "that 25,000l. be granted towards defraying the expense of making an inland navigation from the eastern to the western sea by Inverness and Fort William," observed, that 60,000l. would be wanted to complete this canal, but that he only intended to ask for 25,000l. this year.
§ Lord Althorpexpressed some surprise at what had just fallen from the right hon. gentleman. When this subject was before the committee last year, they had been told that not more than 75,000l. would be wanted to complete this canal. It was proposed, in the committee, to take 50,000l. at that time, and to leave 25,000l. to be taken this year. He was now told that, after the grant of last year, 60,000l. more was wanting. This, he thought, required explanation.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotstated, that in this, as in many other cases, the actual expense had been found to exceed the estimates which had been made of them. Here the excess amounted to 30,000l.; but he expected that no other excess would occur hereafter.
§ Sir H. Parnellwas convinced that those who looked upon this canal as a public work of no utility had taken a very mistaken view of the subject. He looked forward to it as a source of future revenue, and therefore thought that no objection ought to be made to the grant in question.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that if the House thought fit, he would propose that the whole sum of 60,000l. should be then granted for the completion of this canal. The reason why he had not done so at first was that he did not wish, in the pre sent distressed state of the country, to impose upon it any burthen that was not absolutely necessary.
§ Mr. Humethought that this work, which had already cost so much money, ought to be completed; at the same time he could not help expressing his conviction that more than 60,000l. would be wanted for that purpose. When this canal was first proposed, it was said, that 1133 the expense of cutting it would not exceed 250,000l. This estimate was found to be erroneous; and then it was said that the expense would not exceed 580,000l. Now 60,000l. more was asked for; and; that sum, he would repeat it, would not be sufficient to complete if. Instead of anticipating the production of any revenue from that canal when it was completed, he expected that there would be an annual demand upon the House for a sum of money to keep it in due and efficient repair.
§ On the resolution, "that 40,000l. be granted for defraying the expense of Law Charges for the year 1820,"
§ Mr. D. W. Harveywished to know the reason why such an increase of expenditure had taken place in this item. Last year the law charges did not amount to more than 20,000l.; now they amounted to 40,000l., independently of the 8,000l. for prosecution relative to the coin.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotattributed the increase in the law charges to the disturbed state of the nation, and the expenses which had been necessarily incurred in summoning and maintaining witnesses to support the various prosecutions which had arisen out of it. The solicitor of the treasury could not state what the exact amount of those expenses would be, but thought that a grant of 40,000l. would cover the whole of them.
Mr. Hobhouseobjected to this grant, on the very grounds which the right hon. gentleman had stated in explanation of its amount. He objected to it because the money which this grant was to cover, had been expended in the prosecution of political opinions. Those who thought that the recent prosecutions had been instituted without reason—and he was one who presumed to entertain that opinion—were hound to oppose the grant; whereas, those who entertained a different opinion, in all probability would support it. By making grants to so large an amount for such purposes, they enabled the Crown to fee all the talent of the country—he meant all the legal talent—to oppose the people. Briefs had sometimes been delivered on the part of the Crown to all the leading counsel on a circuit, so that an unfortunate defendant was often deprived, by such means, of the aid of eminent counsel. They would be doing an improper thing, as the representatives of the people of England—if indeed that House were the representatives of the people ["Order, order,"]—should 1134 they allow the public money to be voted away in such grants, without raising their voices against the proceeding.
§ Mr. Huskissonunderstood the hon. gentleman to say, that he considered the prosecutions which had taken place during the last year to have been totally unnecessary. If the trials which had taken place at the Old Bailey for high-treason,—if the prosecutions for sedition at York, Lancaster, Chester, Warwick, Leicester, and other places, were indeed unnecessary, then of course the grants which had been voted to carry them on, were a waste of the public money. But if it was the opinion of the House, that the Crown should have power to institute prosecutions, it was necessary to supply it with money for that purpose. He could not help remarking, that objections to the amount of expense incurred by Crown prosecutions came with rather a bad grace from gentlemen on the opposite side of the house, when it was recollected that ministers had been so frequently reproved by them for making new laws, instead of prosecuting to a greater extent under the existing laws. The hon. gentleman said, that this grant was made to pay fees to all the legal talent at the bar, and to prevent defendants from having the benefit of eminent counsel. It certainly was the duty of king's counsel to give the Crown the benefit of their services; but the hon. gentleman was mistaken in supposing that all the expense was incurred by retaining-fees, for a considerable part of these charges was incurred by the attendance of witnesses, and the issuing of summonses. A part of the sum of 40,000l. now proposed to be granted was to make good the deficiency of last year; and part of it was prospective, to defray the expense of prosecutions likely to be instituted in the present year. If the hon. gentleman objected to the whole of this grant, he hoped the committee would not be disposed to go along with him in that objection; and if any particular part of the expense appeared objectionable, accounts should be furnished of the manner in which the former grant had been applied.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that those who thought the late prosecutions necessary, would, no doubt, vote for the sum; but he was not responsible for the opinions expressed by gentlemen in the last parliament: he was not to be bound by what had been said by gentlemen on that side of the House on the occasion alluded to 1135 for, on reading the debates at that time, he had objected to the opinion expressed by many hon. members, that government should have prosecuted more rigorously than they did under the old laws. He was hostile to the whole policy of government with respect to these prosecutions, and therefore he protested against this grant. He thought that these prosecutions should not be paid for by the people, because they had been instituted against the people.
§ Mr. Lockhartobserved, that all who had pleaded their own cause had been found guilty.
§ Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that it was quite correct, that the attorney and solicitor-generals were in the habit of receiving fees upon Crown prosecutions, whether they attended or not. It was within his own knowledge that such was the case with regard to no less than 760 prosecutions in the court of exchequer in the course of the last year, upon each of which prosecutions the attorney and solicitor-generals received ten guineas each, although neither ever attended in any one instance. There was another statement also from the hon. member for Westminster, which was perfectly true. He meant, that upon a barrister s acquiring a high character for talent, the Crown was forward to retain him on its side by the grant of a silk gown; and it was notorious, that if a person prosecuted by the Crown desired the assistance of any king's counsel, he could not obtain that assistance without paying eight or ten guineas for a licence, or dispensation from the Crown, allowing such barrister to plead for him; so that here was a sum which the prosecuted person must pay in addition to the usual fee, in order to secure the support of an advocate so unnecessarily, and he would add, so improperly retained by the Crown in the first instance. This was a system which evidently called for some revision. With respect to the expense of Crown prosecutions within the last year, he was glad to understand that there was no objection on the other side to lay before the House some accounts illustrative of the items and character of that expense, and he hoped for the speedy production of those accounts.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, it had always been the custom to retain the attorney-general and the solicitor general in Crown prosecutions, and that, although they might not appear in person on the trial, they 1136 were always consulted by the Crown as to the manner of conducting the prosecution.
Dr. Lushingtonobserved, that the attorney and solicitor generals received fees upon Crown prosecutions, because they were responsible for such proceedings. But he felt that it was only in cases where such responsibility properly attached, and where they were actually consulted by government, that such fees should be given. He had known himself, of cases in which the attorney and solicitor generals had received fees without being at all concerned; in Doctors Commons for instance.
§ The several resolutions were agreed to.