Sitting of 26 May 1808

FIFTH MILITARY REPORT—MEDICAL DEIWRTMENT OF THE ARMY.
Lord Folkestone.—Mr. Speaker; I wish to put a question to the honourable gentleman, a lord of the treasury, opposite to me, and to make one or two observations connected with the object of that question. I came down, sir, to the house this day, with the intention of submitting these observations on the question for the third reading of the bill for renewing the Commission of Military Inquiry; but though I was here before the usual hour of commencing public business, I found that the Bill had been already passed. I therefore trust that the house will indulge me but for a few moments, though I should not be strictly regular in addressing them. The question, which I wish to put to the hon. member is this, Whether it is the intention of the treasury to adopt any measure in consequence of the Fifth Report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, respecting the Medical Department of the Army? And if they do mean it, I beg to suggest to them the necessity of caution and mature consideration, and of further inquiry, before they adopt the opinions and suggestions of the Commissioners. For it does happen to be within my knowledge, that, in the Report alluded to, much injustice is done to the exertions of a meritorious servant of the public; and if I do not say much unmerited censure cast upon him, I have no hesitation in saying that much deserved praise is withheld. The person to whom I allude is Mr. Knight, who holds the two offices of Inspector Ge-
640
neral of Hospitals, and Comptroller General of Hospital Accounts. If gentlemen have read the Report, they will know that the affairs of the Medical Department of the Army were formerly conducted by a board of three medical gentlemen; but that for some years past this board has been abolished, and the different departments of it have been divided between the three gentlemen who composed it. Mr. Knight is one of them. Now, the first thing I wish to remark is, what must strike every person who looks into the Report, namely, the confusion that seems to exist in the minds of the commissioners with respect to the office, which each of these gentlemen has in charge, for censure, is often cast upon transactions which are referred to one of them, when it is evident from another part of the Report, that he has nothing at all to do with that part of the business. But in other respects the injustice done to Mr. Knight is still more glaring. In one instance reference is made to a change lately adopted in the army with respect to hospitals; the system of regimental hospitals having been adopted in lieu of the more expensive and less effectual system of general hospitals:—It is not denied, indeed, that the alteration has been beneficial in every point of view, economical to a great degree, and effectual in insuring the better health of the soldier, and in enabling the different regiments to bring into the field a larger proportion of their respective establishment. But what I complain of is this, that the praise is not given to the person who really suggested and brought about this change—I mean Mr. Knight. Nay, in one instance, pains are taken, most unjustly to detract from his merit: the commissioners compute the saving to the public from this source, to be about 8000 l. per annum, from which too they state some drawbacks: whereas it is evident, that in consequence of the system of stoppages and arrangements established by him, the saving is not only what they compute it to be, but also such as to cover such contingent expences formerly defrayed by the public, making on the whole, even on their own data, an annual saving of upwards of 40,000 l. There are one or two other points in which I think the same injustice has been done to Mr. Knight, The commissioners take great credit to themselves for having detected various abuses in Plymouth hospital; whereas this gentleman had, with great pains and assiduity, laid open all the frauds of that

641
hospital as long as above two years ago, at the desire of the commissioners for auditing the public accounts. He undertook the task, though foreign from the duties of his office, and I have myself seen their letter of thanks to him of the date of the 6th June, 1806, thanking him for the care with which he had done it. Again, with respect to the accounts of Chatham hospital, though he receives no credit for detecting the abuses of Plymouth hospital, a direct censure is cast upon him for not having gone through the Chatham accounts; when in truth those accounts have never to this moment been put into his possession in such a state as to enable him to examine and audit them.—Sir, these are the observations which I wished to make. I thank the house for their indulgence; but I have thought it quite necessary that they should be made, to rescue from unmerited censure a gentleman, who is a most zealous, active, and meritorious servant of the public; who has sacrificed a great portion of his professional advantages in the public service, whose health has been impaired by his labours, and who has, I am sure, always endeavoured, and, I believe, with effect, to perform his duties to the satisfaction of his employers, and to the advantage of the country.
Mr. Sturges Bournestated, that the lords of the treasury had the intention of taking some steps in consequence of the Report alluded to by the noble lord; and that they were already aware of the circumstances to which he had called his attention. They had, accordingly, referred parts of the Report to the War-office for further information; and as they were aware that great injustice would be done to individuals if the opinions of the Commissioners were wholly adopted, the noble lord might be sure due caution would be observed before any steps were taken. He concluded by bearing testimony to Mr. Knight's exertions.
The Secretary at Warsaid, that he was fully aware of the advantages which the public had derived from various alterations suggested by Mr. Knight, and adopted under his directions.
Mr. Freemantlespoke likewise to the zeal and constant attention to his public duties which had always actuated Mr. Knight. He had known him for many years, and was sure that he was a meritorious servant of the public.—Mr. Vansittart and Mr. Calcraft said a few words.—Mr. Rose gave notice that on Monday
642
he should move for some accounts which would tend to elucidate the Report alluded to; and entirely concurred in what had fallen from the noble lord.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM.
Mr. Bankesproposed to refer to a Committee the Account presented yesterday, relative to the amount of Mr. Palmer's per-centage on the revenue of the Post-office. His motive in making this reference was, that he feared the return overrated what was to be properly only the per-centage on the net revenue.—After some explanation from Mr. Long and Mr. Rose, Mr. Bankes's motion was agreed to, and a Committee appointed accordingly.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
Mr. Tierney Mr. Tierney moved the order of the day for proceeding in the examination of witnesses on the Orders in Council.
Lord Castlereaghurged the propriety of proceeding to the further consideration of the Local Militia bill; at the same time, he left it entirely to the feelings of the right hon. gent. whether he thought that the business which he had brought forward ought to take the precedence.
Mr. Rosestated that some of the witnesses, not expecting to be called upon on this evening, had not attended.—The Serjeant at arms having inquired, it was found that no persons were in attendance, and Mr. Tierney having declined to move any new order on the subject,
Mr. Whitbreadthought that the attendance of those witnesses should be enforced, not so much by way of punishment, as for the sake of example in future.
Lord H. Pettysupported the motion.
The Speakersaid, that the house had a right to compel the attendance of any witness, and it was for the house to consider whether their absence was wilful or accidental. If it was wilful, the course would be, to order them into custody; but if it was accidental, it would be for the house to order their attendance on another day.
Mr. Whitbread Mr. Whitbread moved, that they be ordered to attend to-morrow.—While the conversation was going on, the Speaker informed the house that the parties were come. The Speaker having left the chair, Mr. Moling was called to the bar, and examined by Mr. Tierney. His answers to the questions put to him being given in rather an indecorous style, he was reprimanded in the course of his examination, and ordered to be more cautious in the

643
language he used in future.—The above witness was examined at considerable length by Messrs. Tierney, Whitbread, Stephen, and Eden. The purport of his testimony went to prove, that the Orders in Council had not been attended with any of the effects he had expected would have resulted from them upon the continental trade; at the same time he persisted in declaring it as his continued opinion, that of such effects they would sooner or later be ultimately productive.—Three more witnesses were examined, after which the house resumed.