Sitting of 12 March 1805

MUTINY BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the third reading of the mutiny bill, the bill was read accordingly; after which,
The Secretary at Warbrought up a clause by way of rider, which contained the oath to be in future administered to all members serving on regimental courts martial, and also another for swearing all the witnesses who should give evidence before them.
General Fitzpatrickthen rose, and, after adverting to his proposal on a former day, that no person should be permitted to sit as president on a regimental court mar-
858
tial who bad not attained the age of 21 years, said, that if be thought it could have the slightest tendency to weaken the discipline of the army, he would be the last man who should think of proposing it. He did not say, that the usual punishments inflicted were more severe than necessary, for which reason, the clause he should recommend, would, in its effects, rather serve to strengthen the powers of regimental courts martial. As it must, however, be confessed that the punishments were at times extremely rigid, the greater attention should be paid to have them carefully administered. If the same gravity and dignity were infused into these regimental, that always accompanied general courts martial, the men, finding the same impartial trial in the one, as in the other, would be naturally led to a more cheerful compliance with their decisions. He maintained that the powers given to regimental courts martial went beyond the object for which they were originally established, which the act itself stated to be for the trial of small offences, which words certainly must imply that they would be limited to the infliction of small punishments. They were never designed to try mutiny, desertion, thefts, and those other serious charges which, were now brought before them; and though in usage the intention of the act had been prevented, yet if it had been foreseen that such causes would have been brought before them, there could be no doubt that they would have been subjected to the same solemnities of oaths as in general courts martial. To his proposal he never had heard any other objection made than the general one, that it would be an innovation in the service; but the same argument was applicable to any improvement that could be offered, and would have formerly applied with equal force against the bill itself. As the object of administering oaths was acceded to by the secretary at war, what remained for him to submit was, that the presidents on such courts should not be under the age of 21 years. He proposed it on the same principle on which it was required, that none should preside in general courts martial who were not of the rank of field officers, the object of which was, to provide that the presidents should be persons of a competent experience. It might, indeed, be said, that the presidents of regimental courts martial were required to be of the rank of captains, and that if a man was

859
not fit for Such a president, he could not be fit to command a company. In answer to this, he would declare it as his opinion, that it would be a good and salutary measure, if captains were required to be of the age of 21 years. He thought the genius and talents of some young men would offer an exception to this regulation, but, as a general rule, he thought it might have very favourable consequences as to the service. On the present occasion, however, he would not submit any other alteration than the one he proposed, especially as military regulations in general more properly belonged to the prerogative of the crown. He then proposed; as an amendment to the first clause, that after the. words that "no man under the rank of captain," should be added the words, "and had attained the age of 21 years."
Sir James Pulteneyopposed the clause on the grounds that the long-established practice in the army ought not to be altered without the maturest deliberation.
The Secretary at Wardefended the clause on the grounds that an innovation had been made by the regimental courts martial taking cognizance of higher crimes under different names. It was time, therefore, that the evidence against the soldier should be examined with the solemnity of an oath, that the punishment for perjury might follow close upon falsehood. He had consulted several general officers, who were for the most part against the clause, but they had alleged no sufficient reasons. He could not agree to have none as president of a court martial who was not 21 years of age, on account of the inconvenience which it would produce.
Earl Templewas against the oath being administered, where the person who swore falsely was not liable to the penalties of perjury, as must be the case in a regimental court martial, which was not a court of record like a general court martial.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that persons perjuring themselves before a regimental court martial, should be made liable to all its penalties.
Sir Eyre Cootedefended the clause, because it gave greater solemnity to courts martial. The object was the discovery of truth, and how could truth be more effectually discovered than by putting the witnessess on oath?
Mr. Fullerwas against the clause, as tending unnecessarily to multiply oaths.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed
860
in the propriety of the clause, though he regretted that he differed in opinion from so many able officers. He could not conceive how the oath could be prejudicial. The discretion of the officer was the same, and the evidence would be the same. He agreed, that if the practices of the courts Of law, with respect to evidence, was to be followed, it might be dangerous. He a greed to this clause, because it was just in itself, and not because there was any complaint.
Lord De Blaquieresaid, wanted no innovation in the system, but to have things brought back to their original institution, to confine the jurisdiction of regimental courts-martial to trifling offences, instead, of trying, as they do now, offences of mutiny, desertion, &c. under names that did not belong to them. He wished to have limited also the quantum of the punishment they should be entitled to inflict, for he had seen a man sentenced by a regimental Court-martial to receive one thousand strokes, for an offence, which, on board a ship, would not have been punished with more than a dozen lashes. At the same time, he confessed that he did not like to hear the solemnity of an oath should be resorted to in every trivial charge of drunken frolic, or being late on the parade.
Sir W. W. Wynnein reference to one of the observations of the chancellor of the exchequer, said, that in the militia, he knew of many captains in regiments, who were neither 21 years of age, and had not been so much as two years in the service.
Colonel Franklundspoke very warmly against the bill, as likely to breed great dissentions, and promote disputes and unhappiness amongst the men, who would be thus encouraged to threaten their comrades with indictments for perjury if they gave evidence unfavourable to the accused. The practice which the clause went to abolish had prevailed for time immemorial, and without any complaint against it, from the reign of W. HI. down to the present moment, though the mutiny bill was brought every year before the eyes of parliament. This was merely a question of speculative good, offered to practical experience, for which reason he would give it his decided negative.
Colonel Stewartsaid, he could not oppose the clauses, on account of the manner in which regimental courts martial proceeded, as they were now constituted. He

861
Slated, that it was usual for the president to take short notes of the most material parts of the evidence, while the other members of the court were chatting, or perhaps amusing themselves with writing or drawing on the slips of paper before them. In his opinion, these courts martial should always be composed of either 5 or 7 officers.
General Stewartsaid, he was anxious that on account of the similarity of their names, his opinion should not be confounded with that of the hon. officer who spoke before him, and whose proposal, of placing 6 or 7 officers in these courts martial would be impracticable in places where troops were detached, sometimes at the distance of one hundred miles asunder.—After a few words from General Fitzpatrick, the first clause was agreed to, and added to the bill; and, on the question being put on the second clause authorizing the administering of oaths as to the witnesses,
Sir J. Pulteneysaid, he did not think this clause would be attended with any material inconvenience; but, considering how soon the present mutiny bill would expire, and that it must undergo a discussion in the other house, he doubted whether there would be time to pass it with those amendments.
Sir J. Wrottesleywas adverse to the bill, on account of the bad effects to be apprehended from it; amongst which, he mentioned the certainly that, in all parts of the country where soldiers may be tried by regimental courts martial, upon charges brought against them by the townsmen or inhabitants amongst whom they were quartered, there would be found petty fogging attorneys on the watch to take advantage of the slightest circumstance that could afford any ground whatever for menaces of indictments, or actual prosecutions for perjury. Both the clauses being added to the bill, it immediately passed, and was ordered to the lords.

AGRICULTURAL HORSE DUTY BILL.
On the order of the day being moved for the 2nd reading of this bill,
Mr. Plumerrose to object to it; his reason for doing so was, that the duty bore, with a very extraordinary degree of pressure, on the farmer; and, consquently, in the end, on the landed interest. The farmers of this country, he said, were by no means that very opulent class of men they had been falsely represented to be, and he was well convinced, the times were better
862
for the farmer, when corn sold at 8s. or 9s. per bushel, than in those in which it had reached the very high prices, at which it had been in the course of a few years last past. He had been told, that this tax would, as taxes generally do, fall on the consumer, but who, be asked, are the consumers? The answer is very direct said he; those who eat bread: as such, it must fall with the greatest weight on the lower and poorer orders of the community, and therefore he was averse from it. A committee above stai s had, in the course of last session, been a long time employed to enquire into the most effectual means of reducing the price corn, and, consequently, of bread, and the result of that inquiry was, that it would be necessary to take every possible step towards the improvement of agriculture. The present tax, he was convinced, would very materially impede the interests of agriculture, and there fore he was against it. He did not say this from any captious opposition to taxes, but from a thorough conviction, in his own mind, that he was strongly impelled by his duty to make the observations he had done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he really thought the bill would not produce the pressure which some gentlemen apprehended, He believed the tax would fall on the consumer; and the increase it, would create in the price of the article of corn would amount to a sum so trifling, that no one could think it any inconvenience to any body. The whole of the duty was estimated at 300,000l. one-third of which would be borne by those who kept horses for trades in large towns, brewers and the like, so that the whole amount of the duty on husbandry was only 200,000l. The amount of the rental of England alone was 37 millions; including Scotland, it was 40 millions. The produce of land had been calculated under the mark many years ago, and since which great improvements had been made; in no case was it calculated at less than 3 tines the rent; in many it was 5 and 6 times that amount; but taking it moderately, at 4 times the rent, the annual produce would then be 100 sterling. Now, this duty was only one 7 50th part of that produce on the whole average of the kingdom; and taking the bill in the most objectionable shape in which gentlemen chose to put it, that was, distinguishing the arable from pasture land, and taking it to be more on the arable than on the pasture, it would then be the

863
1,000th part of the produce of the pasturage, one 500th on the arable land, and this, computing one quarter of corn to each individual in the kingdom in the year, would amount only to an additional charge of 1½ per annum, a sum, he apprehended, not so alarming, nor any thing, likely to check the growth of corn.
Mr. Coke (of Norfolk)said, he was perfeetly convinced the operation of it would be to take away all inclination to agricultural improvements. There were at this moment fewer horses employed than when the last tax took place, and there could not be a doubt but that, from this additional tax, the number would continue to decrease, which must of course prove an injury to the general interests of agriculture. It would prevent the bringing of marle from any considerable distance, and render the carriage of every kind of manure more difficult and tedious, from the decrease in the number of horses. He was thoroughly satisfied, that if the tax took place, the same quantity of corn would not be grown as had been heretofore, which must prove highly injurious to the country, and contribute to enhance the price of bread. It was, he said, an old, and he believed, a true saying, that when poverty once gets into the stable, it will not be long before it makes its way into the house. He warned the right hon. gent. that the farmer might be induced, in many places, to substitute oxen to perform the offices of agriculture. In every part of a country like this, there would be always a prevalence of local prejudices; he could wish they were not so common. In Norfolk, where farming was carried to a great degree of nicety, he believed there was no such thing known as the use of oxen in husbandry, but it was otherwise in many other counties, and might be brought into far more general use in those counties where there was more grazing land. If the farmer did not receive a fair remuneration, there could be no doubt his corn would grow less. From all these considerations, therefore, he should certainly vote against the motion.
Sir W. W. Wynneargued that the present tax would bear heavily, in particular on the holders of mountainous farms, where six horses are sometimes required to do work which two could perform in a low flat country. He hoped also that there would be an exemption, if the bill were persevered in, of horses under 14½ hands high.
Mr. Foxsaid, that although farms of 20l. a year were exempt, yet thousands of small farms were now subject to the tax, and ought to be relieved from its pressure.
Mr. Gilesopposed it as immediately pressing hard on agriculture, and would not soon fail to fall on the consnmer. He had, however, one objection to the tax entirely, and that was, a breach of faith with the farmers. They were only to be taxed three-fourths of their rents, which was an estimation of his profits, and you cannot lay a direct tax on the profits of the farmer without making an alteration in his property tax; for if you lay a tax on him, you diminish his profits, which cannot be done without a breach of faith.
Mr. Canningcontended that the arguments of the hon. gent. who spoke last, proved too much, and therefore ought not to weigh in the consideration of a measure of this nature.
Mr. Greysaid, that he agreed with all his hon. friends, that a more injurious tax could not be proposed. If we are to bear additional burdens, that cannot be done without attending to the principal resources of the country. He was doubtful as to the real policy of the corn bill, but sure he was, in his own mind, that the less parliament interfered in matter of that kind, the better. In every view of it, he thought there could not be a more impolitic tax than the present, for it would operate as a discouragement to agriculture, and consequently prove highly injurious to the country.—After this a desultory conversation took place: Sir R. Buxton, Mr. Bastard, and Mr. Fellows, opposed the Bill; the Attorney General and Mr. Huskisson supported it; after which
the house divided: For the second reading 73—Against it 76—Majority against the Bill 3.

SALT DUTY BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclared his intention to propose in the committee an alteration with respect to the duty in Scotland. The increase would be proportionate to the present rate of duty in that country and here. If this was not exactly fair, consistently with the qualities of the salt in both countries, he pledged himself, on inquiry, to bring it to the proper standard. After a short conversation the house divided: For the second, reading 92—Against it 54—Majority 38.—The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed,—Adjourned.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
The Marquis of Abercornsubmitted a motion to their lordships, as part of which he read the allegations which he brought for-
856
ward at the commencement of the session against Judge Fox, the tendency of which was, that they should be referred to the committee of the. Lords to whom the petitions of Mr. Hart and others, against the hon. judge, had been referred.
Lord Aucklandexpressed his regret that the subject had been ever brought forward before their lordships in the shape in which it appeared to stand; but now that they had taken it into, consideration, he thought it incumbent on them to proceed to a conclusion, and either to acquit or convict the learned and hon. gent. whose conduct was the subject of the charges or accusations, or whatever, other names were given to them. He sincerely lamented that such a precedent had been established, as that one of the judges of the land should be called upon to answer the allegations of any member of that house, however respectable, and particularly as the matter of those allegations was not within the immediate knowledge of that noble lord, but taken upon the bare assertion of those whose authority should be received with some diffidence. If it were competent to the noble marquis to do this, by parity of reasoning, any of the 658 members of the other house might call upon any of the judges, or even the lord chancellor, to answer to charges which, perhaps, might ultimately prove to be unfounded. What a situation, therefore, would that of those persons, chosen on account of their experience, ability, and virtue, to administer the laws, be, if, on the solitary allegation of any of the members of the other house, or of any noble lord out of the 360 of which the peerage consisted, they should be required to answer at that bar accusations of the most serious nature. However as their lordships had proceeded so far, he thought it their duty to continue, notwithstanding the objections to which their proceedings may give rise.
The Lord Chancellorexplained the different modes which might be employed far the removal of a judge guilty of misconduct, both by the ancient law and the act of settlement. The other house might have proceeded by impeachment, and he was sorry that mode had not been resorted to; but still it was competent to either house to proceed by address. His lordship explained the anomalous proceedings, in which it was possible the present measure might lead their lordships, and, slated more explicitly than what had been pre-

857
viously done, what he conceived to be the intention of the noble marquis in making his motion.
Earl Spencerdeclared that it did not appear to him to accord perfectly with the usual course of their lordships' proceedings in criminal matters, that the allegations of the noble marquis, as well as the petitions, should be referred to their lordships' committee.
Lord Hawkesburyadverted to the novelty of the case, and urged the necessity of proceeding with extreme caution and precision in a case for which there was no precedent.
Lord Ellenboroughwould, with the leave of their lordships, propose an amendment, which he thought would have the effect of obviating the objection suggested by a noble lord. He thought it a subject for deep regret, that an occasion for any measure of the sort upon which they were engaged should have occurred; and he particularly lamented, that the mode of impeachment had not been preferred to one which was likely to involve them in a sea of eternal discussion, where they would have to labour without rudder or guide. The honour, the character, and the fame of one who filled the most important office in the magistracy, should not be subjected to the delays and inconveniences inseparable from the mode of proceeding, into which the house had unfortunately fallen. His lordship's amendment was then read and adopted, which was in substance" that so much of the allegations against the hon. Mr. Justice Fox, as were not contained in the petitions, should be referred to the committee."ߞAdjourned.