Commons Sitting of 30 March 1821

CAPITAL CRIMES DEFENCE BILL.
Mr. Martin,of Galway, in moving the second reading of this bill, observed, that there could be no doubt of the broad principle, that a prisoner charged with any offence ought to have the same means of defence that the prosecutor had of attack. In treason, the prisoner was allowed counsel; but not in the crime next in degree, capital felony. It had been said, that the court was always counsel for the prisoner. On the contrary, he contended, not only that they were not, so, but that they ought not, and could not be so. Again, adverting to the trial of Bellingham, he maintained, that the failure of Bellingham to obtain a postponement of his trial, on an affidavit stating the necessary absence of a material witness, was attributable to his not having counsel to enforce his claim. The hon. member proceeded to state the circumstances of the apprehension of an Irishman for supposed burglary, and his trial at Croydon, in support of his argument as to the justice of affording prisoners charged with capital offences counsel in all cases, and concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
The Solicitor Generalfelt great reluctance in opposing the motion; because he had no doubt that the hon. member intended to confer a benefit on those unhappy persons who were charged with capital offences. From his experience in courts of justice, he took upon himself to declare, that the proposition would operate greatly to the prejudice of those persons. As to the circumstances of Bellingham's trial, they would in no way have been altered, even had the bill proposed by the hon. member, been in existence; for when an application, for delay, founded on an affidavit, was made in a capital case, counsel were always heard for the

1513
prisoner to whatever extent it might be desired. The only effect of the observation, therefore was, to cast a slur on as humane a judge as ever sat on the bench. In nine cases out of ten, the case was made out very strongly against the party accused. In such cases, if the prisoner had a counsel, he must either be silent, which would be construed to the prisoner's disadvantage, or in his defence he must resort to sophistry and every kind of fallacy to serve his purpose. This would require remark from the judge in summing up, and might possibly have the effect of altering the situation and character of the judge, and of making him counsel against the prisoner, instead of counsel for him. The counsel for the prosecution also, who at present contented himself with a temperate and dry statement of facts, would, if counsel were assigned to the prisoner, feel himself obliged to change the character of his address to the jury, and operate in some degree upon their passions instead of their reason. He contended, that the law, even with respect to high treason, did not allow to prisoner's counsel the privilege of addressing the jury until the statute of William 3rd. But, however salutary that statute as affecting the case of high treason, he con tended, that extending that privilege to all other prisoners would only be a waste of the public time, and would lead to no result favourable to the administration of public justice.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, he was al-way ready to admit that the general proceedings of courts of justice in this country were irreproachable; but he was surprised that his learned friend should have argued this question as if the proposed bill were one which had been tried, and had operated unfavourably for a prisoner. His learned friend well knew that, before the statute of William, allowing counsel in cases of treason, the law refused counsel to prisoners in all criminal cases. The statute of William was the first good fruit which grew out of the Revolution. Its benefit was universally felt as a safeguard for the subject; and he was at a loss to conceive why the same advantage which accrued to a prisoner in cases of treason, out of this privilege, would not also be felt in the same manner in other cases. It was remarkable that all the arguments used by his learned friend against the motion, had been used at the time of the passing of the statute of William. He rather
1514
thought that if this measure were tried, it would be found serviceable. There was a broad distinction between what a judge would do in behalf of a prisoner, and what his counsel might do. That which it would be the duty of a counsel to do for his client, would be criminal if done on the part of a judge. His learned friend had overlooked the invariable practice of Scotland, where any prisoner might have the advantage of counsel. He did not seek this privilege to enable criminals to have a better chance of escaping; for their escape he thought the greatest slur upon the practice of the law. His object was, not that these should escape, but that the innocent should have a better protection. The utmost that could result from agreeing to this measure would be, that a greater number of guilty persons would be convicted, which must be regarded as a good and not as an evil.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, that an objection occurred to him, upon the score of time. If two counsel were allowed on each side upon every case, it might not be unfair to suppose that counsellor Bore'em on the one and counsellor Bother'em on the other, would each speak for two hours, and this taking the number of cases, at 3,000, would amount to 12,000 hours annually.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that if it could be shown that the innocent had suffered, or that justice had not been ad ministered because prisoners were not al lowed counsel, he would be ready to sup port the bill; but all persons conversant with the subject, were aware, that every assistance was afforded to prisoners upon their defence. If the bill were to be en tertained upon theoretical grounds, he knew not where the principle could stop. Trial by jury might be abolished upon theory; for certainly nothing at the first view appeared so repugnant to reason as to say, that twelve men should be unanimous in. every case of justice. It was found, however, that the system worked well in practice.
The motion, that the bill be read a second time, was negatived.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the order-of the day for going into a committee of supply,
Mr. Humesaid, that as the House was about to resolve itself into a committee of supply, in which the Army Estimates were to be considered, he felt it his duty to

1515
submit a motion respecting the staff and public departments of the army similar to that which he had formerly submitted respecting its numerical force. He was strongly impressed with the difference between the numbers of the army in 1792 and 1821; but he was still more impressed with the difference of the expense of the staff. He should therefore move, as an amendment—"That it appears, by the returns before the House, that the total charge, under the head of staff officers of every kind, belonging to the army in Great Britain, and in all the colonies, in 1792 (Ireland excluded), was 33,794 l.; namely—For Great Britain 16,676 l. for the colonies 17,118 l. And that the charge, under the head of staff of every kind, for Great Britain and the colonies, in the year 1821 (Ireland excluded), is 117,710 l.; namely—For Great Britain 33,855 l.; for the old colonies 52,155 l.; for the new colonies 31,700 l.; being an increase in Great Britain and the old colonies, of 52,216 l., and in Great Britain and the new colonies of 83,916 l. a year, for staff officers belonging to the army; also, that it appears, by the returns on the table of this House, that the charge for the public departments in Great Britain, of the paymaster-general, the secretary at war, the adjutant-general, the judge-advocate-general, the comptrollers of accounts, and the commissary-general of musters, their deputies, clerks, and contingent expenses, in 1792, amounted to 45,853, including 4,997 of fees; and that the charge for allowances to the principal officers of the public departments, of the commander-in-chief, paymaster-general, secretary at war, judge-advocate-general, comptroller of accounts, the medical department, their deputies, clerks, and contingent expenses, for Great Britain, in 1821, amount to 133,074 l., being an increase of 87,239 l. more for the public departments of the army in 1821 than in 1792."
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Humesaid, he had now to propose a motion, on which he should take the sense of the House, and he intreated them to consider how much the salaries of offices had been increased since 1797. There was not an individual who was hot aware of the causes of the increase. The motion which he should submit to the House went to pledge them to revise all salaries which bad been increased since 1797. He then moved, as an amendment, That the progressive increase of Salaries
1516
in the different public departments took place in consequence of the increase of business in time of war, and the depreciation of the currency, which began soon after the suspension of cash payments, in 1797; and that as-peace has been established, and the currency brought to a metallic standard, it is expedient, that a' considerable reduction of expense should be effected by a proper revision of all Salaries increased since 1797, by adjusting them to the present value of the currency."
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the amendment referred not only to the estimates which were to come before them, but to every department of the state. It would be improper, therefore, to adopt so sweeping a proposition in reference to a particular question, instead of having a regular discussion on it after proper notice. The amendment, too, affirmed one thing, of which he was utterly ignorant, namely, that a metallic currency had been established; Preparations, indeed, had been made for establishing it. As to prices, agricultural: produce had for some time been low, but1-house-rent, wearing apparel, and manufactures in general, were still as high as they had been.
Mr. Baringsaid, that nothing could be more proper, than that, before they proceeded to vote money, they should lay down reasons for doing so. The hon. gentleman, who was never to be named without gratitude, for his efforts in throwing light on the enormous expenditure of the country, had put before them, in a distinct shape, that which was universally admitted, namely, that salaries had been increased on account of the depreciation of the currency, and that now that the currency was brought back to its old standard, the House should reconsider those salaries. Yet, when the House was called upon to recognise this principle, they were told, that going into a committee of supply was not the time. The remark of the noble lord, that we had not-yet gone back to a metallic standard, was rather hypercritical. On the 1st of May, they might get gold at the Bank at the rate of 3l. 17 s. 10½d.; they might now get it at 3/. 19s.; and by the admission of all persons, the currency was screwed up, not merely to the old standard, but beyond it. He expected that those gentlemen who, some time since, voted against those taxes by which the present expensive system was supported, would

1517
now vote for a resolution that did not pledge the House to a reduction of salaries, but merely to a revision of them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that the object of the hon. member might be better attained, by making specific propositions on the separate estimates, than by calling upon the House to come to a general sweeping resolution.
The House divided: For the Amendment, 29; Against it, 50.

List of the Minority.

Bury, lord

Lennard, B. T.

Butterworth, J.

Martin, J.

Boughey, sir J.

Monk, J. B.

Baring, A.

Price, R.

Bennet, R.

Parnell, sir H.

Creevey, F.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Crawley, S.

Ricardo, D.

Crompton, S.

Smith, W.

Davis, col.

Williams, R.

Evans, W.

Williams, O.

Fergusson, sir R.

Whitmore, T.

Gordon, R.

Winnington, sir T.

Hornby, E.

Western, C. C.

Heron, sir R.

TELLERS.

Harbord, hon. E.

Hume, J.

Johnson, col.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, lord Palmerston moved, "That 105,943 l.5s 10 d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the charge of general and staff, officers, and officers of the hospitals, serving with his majesty's forces in Great Britain and on foreign stations (excepting India), from 25th Dec. 1820 to 24th Dec. 1821."
Mr. Humeobjected to the amount of this vote. With regard to the allowance to the commander in chief, he considered it enormous, and disproportionate to the distressed circumstances of the country. From 1794, up to 1815, the pay of the commander in chief was only 9 guineas a day. It was now increased to 16 l. 8s. a day. He was aware of the important services of the illustrious individual at the head of this department; but it was the duty of parliament, now that we were arrived at the seventh year of peace, to reduce every part of our military establishment, and to begin by applying that reduction to the head of it. The next item was the charge for the secretary to the commander in chief. The salary of that officer amounted to 2,000 l. per annum. No such office existed in 1792, and the secretary had now comparatively little to do. In 1792, the, whole details of the
1518
army were conducted by the war office at an expense of little more than 10,000 l., and the secretary at war had not more than 14 or 15 clerks, instead of the array of 60 or 70, clerks which the noble lord now kept. The quarter-master-general had not even an office, at that time, and the whole expense of his establishment; which now amounted to 5 or 6,000 l., did not cost more than 500 l. a year. He thought the salary of the secretary to the commander-in-chief might 1 be reduced 1,000 l. a year. The next item was the pay of the chaplain, who united three offices. The salary of this individual would certainly admit of reduction; for it was clear that he could not perform the duties of all these offices, unless he could be in three different places at one and the same time. The offices of the deputy assistant adjutant-general, and the deputy assistant quarter-master-general might be advantageously reduced. There was not a military man who did not agree that a staff of 15,000 l. was extravagant, and might be reduced one-half, or at least one-third. Some reductions had been made in the staff in South Britain. The pay to five permanent district assistants to the quarter-master-general, admitted of considerable reduction. Indeed, those officers might be altogether dispensed with. With respect to the charge for two inspectors of army clothiers, at 693 l. the whole of the duties might be performed by one inspector with a committee of the officers of the respective corps. The office of chaplain-general was entirely a new creation, and the gradual increase of his income showed the disposition of the government to extravagant expenditure. When this chaplain was first appointed, be had only a salary of 365 l. a year. It was afterwards raised to 800 l s. Now, if 365 l. a year was a sufficient salary for this individual, at a time when our military establishment was double or treble what it was now, his present allowance would surely admit of considerable reduction. The staff in North Britain was double or treble what it was in former years. There was a secretary and an aide-de-camp in. that department who had precisely the same duties to perform; one of these offices might, therefore, be well dispensed with. He. begged to call the attention of the committee to the amazing disproportion between the staff in England and in Ireland. The staff of Ireland, which, in 1792, cost only a few

1519
thousand pounds, was now charged at 20,500 l. There was a charge for no less than seven adjutants-general, and eight quarter-masters-general, with their deputies. One-half of these might be safely reduced. The medical staff in Ireland was much larger than in England. The whole of this medical staff was appointed in 1796; and, as their appointment was understood to be temporary, they received their commissions from the lord lieutenant, and not from the king; nor had one of them ever been abroad on foreign service. They had, in fact, remained in Ireland for the last 15 or 16 years, and had never shared the dangers, which had fallen on the English medical staff. If this staff was to be kept up, it was but just that it should be supplied by officers of the medical staff in England, who were now on half-pay, and who had been actively engaged in their professional duties in all the late campaigns. With respect to the foreign staff, the charge for this department, which in 1792 was 17,000 l., now amounted to upwards of 50,000 l. The whole charge for the Wind-ward and Leeward Islands was 8,442 l. in 1792, and was now 21,509 l. He had on a former occasion stated his opinion, with regard to Malta and the Ionian Islands. The charge for these Islands amounted to 11,766 l. and was two-thirds higher than was necessary. Under all these circumstances he thought that the vote might be reduced at least by 20,000 l., and would therefore move, that the resolution be amended by the insertion of 85,943 l., instead of 105,943 l.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the question upon which he was at issue with the hon. member was rather a question of principle, than a question of detail; for unless he could show that the principles upon which the military establishment of the country was conducted in 1792, were applicable to the present times, it was futile to compare the details of the present expenditure with those of 1792. Now, he contended, that the military system of 1792, instead of being a guide to direct their course, was rather a beacon to avoid. It was extremely unfit even for the period at which it existed; still less was it applicable to the present state of Europe. Our army in 1792, taking it in the aggregate, and without reference to the courage and character of the officers and men, was one of the worst appointed armies in Europe. Great improvements
1520
since that time had taken place in every part of our military system; and unless we were prepared to forego all the advantages which we derived from those improvements, he knew not upon what principle the proposition of the hon. member could be defended. The hon. gentleman had complained of the salary of the commander-in-chief, but that salary was raised to its present amount, by a regulation assigning that rate of pay to all field marshals when employed so that this was not a personal grant to the present commander-in-chief. The duties of the military secretary to the commander-in-chief were of the most laborious nature, and had in fact been much increased by the reduction of the army; for as it was the duty of the secretary to carry on the correspondence with the commander-in-chief, his labours were much increased in consequence of the number of applications on the part of officers reduced to half-pay. As to the inspectors of army clothing, he was not sure that he understood the hon. gentleman's proposition for substituting one inspector with a committee of officers belonging to each regiment. If the regiments were on foreign service, such a plan would be impracticable; at all events, the expense of sending a detachment of officers from each regiment, would more than counterbalance the reduction of one inspector. With regard to the salary of the chaplain-general, the clerical arrangements of the army had been much improved since the appointment of a gentleman of character and respectability to officiate in that capacity. The hon. member complained, that the staff in; Ireland was much greater in proportion than the staff in England; but the army in Ireland was much more dispersed than in England, and as that circumstance involved more frequent marches of different detachments, and more frequent inspections, it was necessary to keep up a staff to a greater amount. The noble lord concluded by opposing the amendment.
Colonel Daviesbore testimony to the obligations of the army, and of the country in general, to the services of the illustrious person at the head of the military establishment. He was, however, convinced, that a considerable saving might be made in our military establishment; if not to the extent stated by his hon. friend. The commander-in-chief and staff in Ireland, he thought, should be reduced, which would save about 4,000 l. a year.

1521
The staff of the Leeward Islands was excessive, amounting to 21,000 l. annually. He did not see any necessity for a quarter-master-general in those small islands, which had fort-adjutants and brigade-majors. As to the force kept up at St. Helena, even allowing it was necessary to station two battalions there, yet he did not see why there should be both a lieutenant and brigadier-general. The amount of saving which would arise from the staff reductions which he proposed, would be about 13,000 l. a year, exclusive of the medical staff. He would move a resolution to that effect when the amendment before the committee was disposed of; but, painful as it was to his feelings to dissent from his hon. friend, lie could not go to the full extent of his amendment.
Mr.J. Smithsaid, he should have been much more satisfied with the amendment, if it had proposed a smaller reduction. He was ready to acknowledge the benefits which had accrued to the nation from the exertions of our gallant army; but in these times, when even the public creditor was alarmed, it was necessary that every practicable saving should be made, and that no person should be employed by the state whose services were not absolutely necessary.
Mr. Hume,in consequence of a feeling expressed by his hon. friends around him, wished to withdraw his amendment, and to substitute another in its place, proposing a reduction of 10,000 l. instead of 20,000 l.
The committee divided on this amendment: Ayes, 61 Noes, 116. The original resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolution, "That 25,382 l. 13 s 10 d be granted for the General Staff of Ireland,"
Sir H. Parnellthought that the appointment of a separate commander of the forces for Ireland, with the staff by which that officer stood surrounded, was a measure of blameable expense. The duty might be perfectly well performed by an officer having the rank of lieutenant-general, and such an alteration would be attended with a considerable saving. The whole establishment of Ireland was formed upon an Extravagant scale, for there were more general officers employed to command 20,000 men in that country, than sufficed for 27,000 in England. He concluded by proposing to reduce the grant to 20,479 l.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that a commander of the forces in Ireland was indispensable. When they considered the distance between Dublin and this metropolis, it would be seen that the delay and inconvenience of correspondence would be subversive of order and discipline, it then became a question, how the office of commander of the forces was to be remunerated. The committee would see, that the individual who held it was subjected to heavy expenses, in consequence of being obliged to receive the very best company at his table, and that the various other duties of his office led him into large expenditures.
Mr. Humemaintained, that the establishments of Ireland might be reduced without inconvenience to the service. They exceeded, past all reason, the corresponding establishments of this country.
Mr. O'Gradysaid, it was not against the effective force of the army, but against the superfluous offices attached to it that he directed his opposition. The commander of the forces in Ireland and the adjutant-generals and their assistants appeared to him to be kept up at an unnecessary expense, and he should, therefore, vote for their abolition.
Mr. Grantobserved, that if they were to have a court in Ireland they must countenance the appointment of high offices in order to support its dignity. The hon. baronet had suggested last year that the office of lord lieutenant might be abolished—a suggestion that had excited considerable alarm in Ireland.
The committee divided: For the amendment, 53; Against it, 140.
On the resolution, That 28,883 l. be granted for the Allowance to the Paymaster General,"
Mr. Humeobjected to the expense of maintaining this establishment. The amount which annually passed through the pay-master's hands was from six to ten millions, and it cost the country 28,000 l. to maintain this office; that was, to pay the military checks, which might be done at the Bank for nothing. One individual, with the assistance of four or five clerks, could do all the business of the office, In 1792, the amount of this department was 18,344 l. A reduction was even then thought of; hat, instead of that its amount had been raised to 28,000 l. No harm would be done to the individuals of that department, if the expense was brought back, in the first instance, to the

1523
amount of 1792; and hereafter he hoped means would be found to do away with the office, altogether. The whole amount of the expense of the department at present was 28,883 l., which included 5,000 l. payable in pensions. He would move, that the sum of 23,728 l. be substituted.
Sir C. Longentered into a description of the duties attached to the office in peace and war, and contended that, from the nature of those duties, it was impossible they could be performed by the Bank. He stated the expense of the establishment, from 1792 to the present time, for the purpose of showing that, since he was connected with the office, much had been done in the way of retrenchment. He had made many reductions, and he doubted not but that he should be able to effect still more. Several accounts which were connected with the late war were in the office. This rendered it necessary to retain clerks, who would not otherwise be employed. When those accounts, were audited and passed, the hon. gentleman would see a very considerable reduction; but it would be the worst possible policy to dismiss those clerks before the accounts were settled.
After some further conversation the committee divided; the original resolution was agreed, to without a division.
The House resumed, and on the motion, that the report be received on Monday, the House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 20.