Sitting of 11 April 1821

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITY REMOVAL BILL—PETITION FROM LIMERICK.
Mr. Spring Ricerose to present a Petition from the Roman Catholic Bishop, and between 80 and 90 Roman Catholic Clergymen of the diocese of Limerick. It stated, that the Petitioners are ready to testify in any manner that may be required of them, their unbroken and undivided allegiance to his majesty: that there is no language too strong or too significant to express the sincerity of their disclaimer of foreign authority; but they objected, on religious grounds, to the second bill which had been lately introduced into the House. They stated their objections temperately, but firmly, casting themselves, however, on the judgment and impartial justice of parliament, not to pass a law which may be a violation of conscience. There was no individual more entitled to respect and deference, than the prelate who had signed the petition, and no class of the community had proved themselves more deserving than the Catholic clergy. He would take that opportunity of setting himself right with the House, with regard to what fell from him on a former occasion. He had then stated, that by the capitulation of Limerick, Catholics would have been protected from all the disabilities of which they had now to complain. He had stated, that those articles had been violated, and that to their infraction, all the sufferings of the Catholics might be traced. When he made this assertion on a former occa-
154
sion, he was told, that such an argument was wholly untenable, that it had never before been heard of, and that it had been properly disregarded by the right hon. mover, and the right hon. member for Liverpool. He felt anxious to prove the correctness of his statement, and would do so by showing, that at the time of the treaty of Limerick, Catholics were eligible to parliament, and that they were afterwards incapacitated, contrary to that treaty. It was the declaration against transubstantiation, not the oath of supremacy, which excluded Catholics; but that declaration was not in force in Ireland at the time of the treaty of Limerick. No act analogous to the 30th Charles 2nd, was then in operation, and the oath of supremacy, then the only legal test, did not keep Catholics out of parliament; therefore they were eligible. The treaty of Limerick provided, that no oath but the oath of allegiance should be required of Catholics; and yet the English parliament was guilty of the bad faith of passing an act introducing the declaration against transubstantiation, and thereby excluding Catholics from office, parliament and the bar. He referred to a passage in a valuable work of Mr. Butler's, in which he stated, that at the "passing of 1 William and Mary, Irish Roman Catholic Peers had their seats and voted in the House of Lords, and were eligible to the House of Commons, and to all civil and military offices." The assertion, that this subject had never before been so argued, was also erroneous. It had frequently been so brought under the consideration of parliament, and it had been particularly relied upon by the right hon. mover of the bill, in his memorable speech of 1813. He then stated, that "Roman Catholics were admissible to parliament and to corporate offices for 100 years after the oath of supremacy; that at the time of the capitulation of Limerick, Roman Catholics were not excluded from parliament nor from corporations. On the faith of these articles, all of which were punctually performed by the Catholics, they surrendered their town. The stipulation of William was against any additional oaths, and in favour of additional securities. What was done? The act of William and Mary was passed, giving them no additional security, but excluding Catholics for the first time from parliament, from office, and from the bar." He trusted he had

155
now made out his case, arid shown that the Catholic disabilities were in violation of the articles of Limerick; that this argument was supported by respectable authority, and specially by the authority of the right hon. member for the University of Dublin.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. Lennard,in submitting the motion of which he had given notice, stated, that his object was to put the House in possession of the number of persons who, in the last five years, had applied for admission to the reading-room of the British Museum without success. It appeared, indeed, by the returns, that the number of admissions was exactly equal to the number of applications, and that the greatest inconvenience to which applicants were subjected by the present regulations, was merely a postponement as it was called. But when this postponement was continued till the person applying for admission obtained a recommendation from a trustee, or an officer of the house, in many cases it must amount to a refusal. All he thought necessary was, that the officers should ascertain that the persons applying were of that respectability and station in life, which, were they personally known to them, would procure their admission. The names of all the persons who had applied within the last five years might easily be furnished; and if no list had been kept of those whose applications had been postponed, then another mode must be taken to ascertain their numbers, and he must apply to the persons themselves to come forward. He concluded by moving for an "account of all applications to be admitted to the Reading, Room of the British Museum, within the last five years, which had been postponed till the person applying could furnish the required reference."
Mr. Bankesobserved, that the hon. mover complained of the discretion vested in the officers of the House being too narrow; but surely it was fitting to see that the persons applying were of that description that ought to be admitted. He believed there was no instance of a proper person being refused admission; and therefore he hoped the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion.
Sir C. Longchallenged the hon. gentleman, if he had any case of grievance, to state it to the House; but at present he
156
could see neither the object of the motion, nor any necessity for it. He was not aware of any better rule that could be adopted.
Mr. Dickinsonbore testimony to the facility with which proper persons obtained admission.
Mr. Gurneycould not help adverting to the opinion which had gone abroad, that the libraries on the continent, particularly in France, were more easy of access than that of the British Museum. That this opinion was Unfounded would at once appear by adverting to the fact, that the library of the British Museum was open six hours a clay, with only a vacation of three weeks in the course of the whole year; whereas the libraries of Paris were open only four hours a day, with a vacation of six weeks.
Mr. Lennardwas not disposed to press the motion to a division. As the right hon. baronet had challenged him to produce a case of hardship, he would mention two. The first was the case of a gentleman engaged in the profession of the law, and who had been a contributor to the Museum. This gentleman, whose name was Jones, wrote to Mr. Planta requesting admission to the reading-room, and and was answered that a reference was required. The consequence was, that for these three months Mr. Jones had been unable to obtain admission. The other case was that of the son of an eminent professor at Geneva, who wished for admission to see the manuscript of Rousseau's works, but who received the same answer, and consequently had not been able to procure admission.
The motion was negatived.

ILCHESTER GAOL.
Mr. Alderman Wood presented a petition from James Hillier, a prisoner in Ilchester Gaol, complaining of his treatment there. The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Alderman Woodthen rose. He said, he would not enter at much length into the subject at present, because he believed the motion for the appointment of a committee of inquiry would not be objected to. It would be, therefore, only necessary briefly to point out the principal topics of complaint which an inquiry would go to redress. The first was the irregular and inconvenient construction of the gaol. It was built near the river, and its foundation in some parts being

157
below the bed of the river, it was damp and of course destructive to health. The; stone in some places was porous, and admitted the moisture, and sometimes the river overflowed its banks and inundated the gaol. In the winter before last such an event occurred, and the gaol was flooded to the depth of fourteen inches, during a day and a night, and while it continued in that state there was no access to the prison but by the hazardous conveyance of a boat. It was not matter of surprise that in a prison so circumstanced, the typhus fever should often rage; and at one time it was at such a height in the prison, that it was not considered safe to take the prisoners to the assizes, and the magistrates did not like to approach the gaol. There were often from 2 to 300 prisoners on a Sunday crowded into the chapel, though it could not conveniently contain 100, which was another cause of pestilential distempers; nor was there an3' Infirmary attached to the gaol, although four years ago a piece of ground was purchased for the purpose of erecting one. Two debtors had died there recently, and were left to breathe their last in the midst of the other prisoners. Another subject of complaint was, that there was no proper accommodation for female debtors. They were confined with the female felons. One female debtor, a Quakeress, who was sent there, preferred to be confined in a solitary cell, where the sun never entered: the natural consequence was, bad health. Her friends were naturally anxious that she should be removed, and he understood that she was liberated since the petition had been put into his hands. Another point was, that the wells were so near the river, that it often flowed into them, rendering the water foul; and the sewer for carrying off the soil and filth from the prison sometimes broke into the wells, and mixed its contents with the water. Some of that water had been brought to him in London, and it was in a most filthy state. With regard to the complaints relative to the government of the gaol, he had no motive in bringing them forward but a sense of duty as a member of parliament. The petition stated facts strong enough to warrant inquiry, and even stronger than the statements which induced the House to accede to the motion of sir Samuel Romilly in 1812, for inquiring into the conduct of the governor of Lincoln castle. He was unwilling at present to enter into the subject of the
158
charges against the gaoler at large, but would touch upon them most briefly. The discipline in the prison was exceedingly severe, partly under the direction of the magistrates, and partly at the gaoler's own discretion. No persons were allowed to see the debtors but their wives, and even they were only admitted to see their husbands in the presence of other persons; notwithstanding this severity of discipline, irregularities occurred which the gaoler ought to have been acquainted with. There were other severe restrictions as to hours. The prisoners were locked up from five every evening till eight the next morning, without even the convenience of water, and even debtors could have no communication with their friends, but during three hours each day, between nine in the morning and five in the evening. But as to the gaoler's own house, there were proofs to show that it was kept open to unseasonable hours, and sometimes all night, while it was a scene of riot, drunkenness, and gambling; for he could assure the House, that it was customary for persons to meet there to gamble, and even the names of many of the persons who were accustomed to frequent it, were mentioned to him. There was, among the rest, a clergyman of the neighbourhood, who, it would be proved, had lost 18 guineas there on one night. He understood he was since dead, and he hoped he was gone to a better world. These facts would be proved by some of the persons who had played there themselves. He could not help thinking, that a person, who, like the gaoler, so conducted himself, while he enforced discipline in other parts of the prison, by orders executed even to cruelty, ought not at least to escape inquiry; and he thought the petition alone was sufficient to induce the House to grant a committee, as supposing Hillier guilty of playing at the game of hustle-cap, it was no reason why he should be chained down in the inhuman manner in which he was. For some alleged offence, a man named Gardner was ordered into solitary confinement, and was thrust into a dark dungeon, chained to his bed, his head shaved, and a blister applied to the scalp by the hand of a fellow-prisoner. The unfortunate man contrived, by rubbing his head to the wall, to rub off the blister; but as soon as this was found out, the blister was again applied, and a strait waistcoat placed upon him. He saw the chancellor of the

159
exchequer smile at this, but it was no subject for meriment. He was sure the right hon. gentleman would be sorry to be in a similar situation. All the names of the witnesses who would prove it had been handed to him. He would move, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into, and report to the House, what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Ilchester gaol, and the conduct and management of the said prison, and the site and buildings thereof, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."
Mr. Buxtonseconded the motion, but in doing so, did not pledge himself to any opinion; his object was to ascertain whether the charges were true or false. They were charges of the most serious nature, and if they were not substantiated, he hoped every one would join with him in giving the character of the gaoler its just vindication; but if they were true, or bore the slightest approximation to truth—if any one of the gross acts of irregularity and debauchery charged on the gaoler had been committed, he was sure every member would join with him in visiting the gaoler with the severest punishment. He was charged by a person who had published a pamphlet on the subject of the prison (Mr. Hunt), with having given a high character of the gaol contrary to all fact. He could only say, that he had visited the prison, and discovered the errors of its construction; but he found there such a system of discipline and industry, as reflected the highest credit on the character of the gaoler; but he acknowledged, that in minor matters he might be liable to deception: whatever was good in those things was made obvious to every one, what was evil was concealed and kept out of view. He had gone to the prison, unacquainted with the name of the gaoler: he did not even know one of the magistrates, and it was through the intervention of a friend that he procured admission. What he had seen he had faithfully described: if he had been imposed upon when he gave that description, there was but one atonement which he could make, and that was, that when in the committee he would be as ready to expose his own mistakes as those of any body else. He would most heartily join with the worthy alderman to detect the truth; and he would join with others to do justice to the character of the gaoler,
160
if it was shown that the charges rested on nothing more solid than mere imputation.
Mr. Dickinsonconfessed that, knowing what he did of the gaoler, he should be extremely surprised if these allegations could be proved. As to the disorders which were said to have prevailed in the gaoler's house, it was true that they had existed; and it was also true that the magistrates lost not one moment upon information being conveyed to them, in inquiring into the truth. It being found that these malpractices had gone on through the connivance of five or six servants, whose duty it was to have informed the gaoler, they were instantly discharged but the evil was proved to have existed entirely without the knowledge of that individual. As to the infirmary, the ground had been purchased and the building was still going on. With respect to the water, he had himself tasted it, and he understood it was uniformly good. He could of his own knowledge affirm that the bed of the river was 18 feet below the surface of the prison; and so far from the cells being exposed to any noxious effluvia, they were airy and commodious. The hon. gentleman then entered into some explanation relative to the case of Esther Church, a Quakeress, confined for debt, and read a letter from an individual of her own persuasion, to prove that the most humane attentions had been uniformly rendered to her by the gaoler. More than this, her own voluntary acknowledgements, had confirmed the account of her good treatment. He submitted, on the whole, whether it would not be better—as no person was more anxious than himself that the truth should be elicited in this case—to have a commission rather than a committee.
Sir Isaac Coffinstated, that having been represented by the writer of a pamphlet on the gaol, as having played cards there and got drunk, he would support the motion for investigation.
Dr. Lushingtonobserved, that he had made some inquiry relative to these charges, and the result not having been satisfactory to his own mind, he thought a further inquiry ought to take place, and was due not only to the character of the gaoler, but of the magistrates. He thought the conduct of the magistrates entitled to commendation; they had made great improvements by introducing accommodation and discipline into the gaol, which did not exist there before. He

161
had examined into those things when at Ilchester, and gave the gaoler great credit for the manner in which the prisoners were employed, and which could not be carried into effect in the manner it was, unless there was a person over them of zeal and ability. He agreed that there were many faults in the construction of the prison, and he only hesitated whether the inquiry ought to be by commission or committee. The character of the gaoler he had always understood to stand high; but lately there had been representations made against him by persons whose testimony he was not entitled to question, but as things stood at present he could form no decided opinion. He believed acts of great mismanagement occurred in many prisons without the knowledge of the persons under whose management they were. He then stated a fact which occurred in the Borough compter, where two female vagrants had been committed, and who had not a rag to cover them—he had witnessed it with his own eyes. [A laugh]. This was no laughing matter. It was one of the most culpable acts that had ever taken place in a moral and Christian country, that those females, without a rag to cover them, should be left in the common prison for eleven days with free access to them by all the male prisoners. This was enough to excite indignation. He would in this case support inquiry, and he was sure the magistrates would come purified out of it, but in the mean time he would suspend his opinion as to the conduct of the gaoler.
Mr. Bathurstadmitted, that this was a case fully justifying inquiry, and was decidedly of opinion, that the circumstances of the case called upon them to appoint a commission in preference to a committee.
Mr. Bennetobserved, that some of the complaints respecting Ilchester gaol were now allowed to be true by gentlemen who, when the subject was on a former occasion brought before the House by the worthy alderman, denied every word he uttered. One hon. gentleman had even gone so far as to state, that he believed the worthy alderman had not visited the gaol at all. In such a case as this, the House would do wrong not to take the inquiry into its own hands. He thought the best mode of inquiry was by a committee, and not by commission, which in the case of Lincoln castle, had turned out a mere mockery. He had
162
seen a list of 30 witnesses to be examined in this case, very few of whom were prisoners, and the rest officers in the army or navy, or the sons of magistrates.
Sir M. Cholmeleysaid, that the hon. member was not justified in calling the commission of inquiry relative to Lincoln Castle a mockery. He objected to the source whence the hon. member drew his information; he believed he had it from Mr. Finnerty.
Mr. Bennetstated, that he had had no communication with Mr. Finnerty on the subject, but he believed him to be entitled to as much personal credit as the hon. baronet himself.
Sir T. Lethbridgedid not pretend to say that the conduct of the gaoler might not be exceptionable, but he was sure that not the slightest blame could be attributed to the visiting magistrates. The best means had been used to improve the gaol, especially with regard to its relation to the river; the foundation was several feet above the level of the river. He preferred a commission, by which both time and money would be saved.
Mr. Creeveywould vote for a committee in preference to a commission. In one case the House had the affair in its own hands; in the other it listened to commissioners appointed by the Crown, of whom he confessed he entertained a peculiar jealousy. He did not like to see places made on such occasions as this, of 1,000 l. or 1,500 l. a year for the dependents of ministers. It was one of the many ways in which the Crown added to its patronage.
Mr. D. Brownehoped the House would not allow itself to be led into a serious discussion by all the babbling trifles that were uttered with respect to every gaol in the kingdom. The appointment of commissions or committees was a power which the House ought to exercise rarely.
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise at the words used by the hon. member. As the hon. member had come from Ireland, where oppression, especially in prisons, was notoriously so familiar, his feelings might be steeled to the complaints or sufferings of prisoners. But the parliament of England was not yet, he hoped, prepared to adopt such indifference, or to sanction such scenes as had desolated and degraded Ireland. The case stated by the worthy aldermen was so flagitious, that he could not conceive it possible for the House to refuse inquiry.
Mr. Robinsonspoke in favour of a commission, observing, that although all the witnesses for the complainants might be at large, it did not follow that some of the witnesses on the other side might not be in prison. So that if a committee were even appointed, it might be necessary to resort to a commission at last. As to what had been suggested by the hon. member for Appleby, that the appointment of the commission might invest government with some trumpery patronage, he was not surprised at such a suggestion from such a quarter; but he had no hesitation in stating, that no consideration of patronage could weigh with him, or any of his friends near him, upon a question of this nature.
Mr. Harbordthought that if a commission were appointed, it ought to consist of persons perfectly acquainted with the prison. He would object to any paid commission.
Mr. Goulburnthen moved as an amendment, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to issue a commission to inquire into what has been, and now is, the condition and treatment of prisoners confined in Ilchester gaol, the conduct and management of the said gaol, and the site and buildings of the same." After some further conversation, the question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," was put and negatived. The main question as amended, was then put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Army Estimates were referred, lord Palmerston moved, "That 6,844 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Adjutant General, his Deputy and Assistants, at Head Quarters, his Clerks, &c."
Mr. Humewas utterly at a loss to know for what purpose such an expense was necessary. In 1796 or 1798, a period of war, the whole establishment of the office of the commander-in-chief consisted of sir H. Bunbury and three clerks. The expense of that establishment in the present year was near 6,000 l. for clerks, besides 8,000 l. for the personal staff. He could not conceive how the 3,661 l., which was the proposed sum for clerks in the adjutant-general's office, could' be expended. In 1792 the adjutant-general was allowed only 500 l. be-
164
sides his staff pay. The country being now in a situation in which every pound that could be saved ought to be saved, he should propose to reduce it by 1,661 l. which would still leave three times as much as it had been in 1792.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that the duties of the adjutant-general's office were multifarious, and quite distinct from those of the commander-in-chief. They consisted in receiving half yearly returns from every regiment in the service, returns twice a month from the inspecting-officers instituting inquiries into claims of every kind, transacting all the business which arose from the recruiting and dismissal of soldiers, granting leave of absence, &c. The House must be sick of references to the year 1792: it was really nonsense to talk of what existed in 1792, unless it could be shown that the business which was now to be carried on was the same as in that year. There was no office under government in which clerks were more closely employed. In 1792, there was nothing known of the state of regiments, or of the claims of individuals. Injustice was then endured from the difficulty of obtaining redress; now, every man of the lowest description in the kingdom knew if his claims were just, that they would be attended to; and his claims often occasioned more correspondence than cases of higher importance. He had seen a hundred letters on the subject of the claim of a private soldier.
Colonel Daviesallowed that it was not desirable to go back to the system of 1792. But his hon. friend made no such proposition. His amendment was, to allow three times the sum expended in 1792. The duties of the office were considerably greater in 1807 than at present, and the expence much less.
Mr. Bennetobserved, that the amendment was founded on the report of the committee of that House, appointed, and he might say packed, by the gentlemen opposite. The reduction of the number of regiments must have considerably reduced the duty of the adjutant-general's office. He wished to ask the House whether, in the present state of the country, they were determined not to reduce one shilling of these estimates? If so, there would be but one opinion as to what that House was in the mind of every honest man in the country.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that an hon. baronet who had been in the War-office, was

165
superannuated on a pension of 468 l. and was, nevertheless, in the possession of the lucrative government of Trinidad. On what principle did such an individual enjoy a superannuation pension?
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that sir Ralph Cooper, had been a clerk in the foreign department of the War-office, on the abolition of which, he received, as was invariably the usage, the pension alluded to.
The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 83. For the Amendment, 54. Majority 29.

List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.

MAJORITY.

Alexander, J.

Holmes, W.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Hope, sir W.

Attwood, M.

Hotham, lord

Bathurst, rt. hon. B.

Hulse, sir C.

Beckett, rt. hon J.

Huskisson, rt. hon. W.

Beresford, lord G.

Keck, G. A. L.

Blake, R.

Leigh, J. H.

Bradshaw, R. H.

Lockhart, W. E.

Broadhead, T. H.

Long, rt. hon. C.

Browne, P.

Lowther, lord

Browne, rt. hon. D.

Lushington, S. R.

Brydges, G.

Martin, sir B.

Burgh, sir U.

Martin, R.

Calvert, J.

Metcalfe, H.

Cawthorne, J. F.

Monteith, H.

Clinton, sir W.

Neale, sir H. B.

Clive, H.

Palmerston, lord

Cockburn, sir G.

Pearse, J.

Cocks, hon. J. S.

Pechell, sir T. B.

Congreve, sir W.

Pitt, W. M.

Cooper, R. B.

Plumber, J.

Copley, sir J.

Pole, rt. hon. W.

Courtenay, T. P.

Powell, E. W.

Courtenay, W.

Prendergast, M. G.

Croker, J. W.

Robinson, rt. hon. F.

Dawkins, H.

Rocksavage, earl

Domville, sir C.

Scott, hon. J. J.

Downie, R.

Shaw, R.

Dundas, rt. hon. W.

Somerset, lord G.

Ellis, T.

Strutt, J. H.

Fellowes, W. H.

Taylor, sir H.

Fynes, H.

Temple, earl of

Gascoyne, I.

Townshend, hon. H

Goulburn, H.

Trench, F. W.

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Hardinge, sir W.

Wallace, rt. hon. T.

Hart, G. V.

Ward, R.

Harvey, sir E.

Wilson, sir H.

Harvey, C.

TELLER.

Holford, G.

Clerk, sir G.

MINORITY.

Bankes, H.

Chaloner, R.

Benyon, B.

Chetwynd, G.

Bernal, R.

Corbett, P.

Boughey, sir J.

Creevey, T.

Bury, visc.

Crespigny, sir W. D.

Buxton, T. F.

Crompton, S.

166

Davies, T. H.

O'Grady, S.

Denman, T.

Palmer, C. F.

Dickinson, W.

Parnell, sir H.

Duncannon, visc.

Philips, G. jun.

Evans, W.

Rice, T. S.

Farquharson, A.

Rickford, W.

Glenorchy, visc.

Robarts, A.

Gordon, R.

Sefton, earl of

Graham, S.

Smith, hon. R.

Grattan, J.

Smith, R.

Guise, sir W.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Harbord, hon. E.

Tremayne, J. H.

Heron, sir R.

Whitbread, S. C.

Honywood, W. P.

Whitmore, W.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Hurst, R.

Wilson, sir R.

James, W.

Wilson, T.

Johnson, col.

Wodehouse, E.

Lennard, T. B.

Wyvill, M.

Lushington, S.

TELLER.

Monck, J. B.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

On the Resolution, "That 6,192 l. be granted for defraying the charge of an Allowance to the Quarter Master General, his Deputy and Assistants at Head Quarters, his Clerks, &c."
Mr. Humesaid, that though the office of quarter-master-general was one of considerable labour and importance in time of war, it was monstrous that the country should be burdened with so many quarter-master-generals, &c. in time of peace. Above 3,000 l. of the grant now proposed was to defray the expense of offices which had no existence in 1803, when the commission of military inquiry was in existence, and which in 1804; only cost the country 954 l. He should therefore move, as an amendment, that a reduction of 1,500 l. be made in the expenses of this office.
Lord Palmerstonobserved, that the hon. member was upon this occasion completely caught in his own toils; for this was one of the establishments which was precisely on the same footing of expense that it stood in 1792.
Mr. Humecontended, that there were five permanent district quarter-masters at present, whereas there were no such officers in 1792.
After some further Committee divided:—tion, 104. For the Majority 44.
On the Resolution, "That 922 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Deputy Quarter Master General in North Britain, his Clerks, &c."
Mr. Humerequested to hear from the noble lord, the particular duty the officer had to discharge.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, the office was as old as the Scotch Union, and the duty of the quarter-master-general was to make such arrangements as would prevent the troops in Scotland clashing on their march.
Mr. Bennetobjected to the item, and moved a reduction to 600 l.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the public were to pay 900 l. to prevent 1,300 men in Scotland meeting on the same road.
The Lord Advocatestated a recent instance, when the quarter-master-general was called upon to discharge an extensive and important duty, in consequence of several regiments of the line marching to Glasgow.
The Committee divided:—For the Resolution, 98. For the Amendment, 56. Majority, 42.
On the Resolution, "That 5,180 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Allowance to the Judge Advocate General, his Deputy, Clerks &c."
Mr. Chetwyndobjected to the grant as a profligate expenditure of the public money. The allowance to the judge-advocate exceeded the salary of the lord-chief-justice of England, and he had not only a deputy-adjutant, but an assistant-deputy in his office. Fie hoped the country gentlemen would remember their pledges to their constituents, and draw the strings of the public purse a little tighter. With that view, he should move, as an amendment, that the sum of 3,180 l. should be granted in the room of 5,180 l.
The Judge Advocatecomplained that the hon. gentleman should have brought the charge of profligate expenditure against him, without having previously informed himself of the fact. The present arrangement had been made in 1807, and the duties of the office had considerably increased. The salary of the judge-advocate-general was not, as the hon. gentleman supposed, 5,180 l., but 2,500 l. a year; and when they knew that the correspondence had considerably increased in the department since that period, and that the military business of Ireland had been added to that of Scotland and England, he was sure the committee would not look upon the grant as exorbitant.
Sir R. Fergussonperfectly agreed with the lion, gentleman as to the extravagance of the sum proposed; and wished to know at how many general courts-martial the present judge-advocate-general had presided? The deputy-judge-
168
advocate was the person who performed the business of the office.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, they had that night had another proof of the unfair manner in which observations originating on his side of the House were treated; for no sooner had a complaint been made of a general system of profligate expenditure, than the right hon. gentleman rose, and took the whole charge to himself, whereas, the charge was against the system, and not against the individual.
Mr. Chetwyndsaid, he had no idea whatsoever of making apersonal allusion to the right hon. gentleman. He could have harboured no such intention, as the right hon. gentleman was perfectly unknown to him. He said, and would repeat it, that he considered the whole system to be one of profligate expenditure. His majesty's speech from the throne, and the speeches of ministers, had led him to expect a great reduction of expense. But he had been so much disappointed, that though no man was more inclined to support ministers, he could not do so when he saw them resist every proposition that tended to retrenchment. He was determined to do his duty to the country, while he had the honour of a seat in that House, without indulging in any personal feeling or motive.
Mr. Denmanhad no hesitation in saying, that the labours, not only of the chief justice, but of the puisne judges, far exceeded those of the right hon. gentleman. He regretted, that particular circumstances prevented him from attending in his place to assist those who had so honourably opposed the enormous grants of the public money—exertions which if they did not tell at the present time, would operate most beneficially hereafter.
Mr. Martin,of Galway, was as ready to economize as any man, but it was neither economy nor prudence to reduce the salaries of public officers. The army should have the highest legal talent. The judges were not liberally paid; and therefore a comparison of their salaries and that of the right hon. gentleman was unfair. He should vote for the larger sum.
Mr. Humebegged to remind the House, that the salary of the former advocate-general (sir C. Morgan), who not only acted as advocate-general, but as secretary to the board of general officers, amounted in the whole to 1,033 l. whilst the dry salary of the right hon. gentleman

169
amounted to 2,500 l. a year. The deputy advocate-general at present per formed merely the duties of a common clerk, and as such ought to be paid. It was not consistent with reason to suppose that so many courts-martial should take place at present as were held when the army was more numerous. 1,000 l. might fairly be deducted from the judge-advocate's salary, and he would then receive 400 l. more than sir C. Morgan received up to the year 1806.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the judge-advocate had been under secretary of state for 12 years, and could not therefore be entitled to any compensation on the ground of giving up his profession. If the salary of his office was 2,500 l. during war, some reduction ought to be made now. He was sure that the office, with a salary of 2,000 l. would gladly be accepted by gentlemen at the bar, of adequate qualifications. He confessed himself dissatisfied, not only with the original resolution, but with the amendment. He did not consider the offices of deputy judge-advocate, or assistant judge-advocate, in any way useful; and would therefore move, that the proposed sum should be reduced by a sum of 1,200 l. being the amount of the salaries of those officers.
Lord Miltonprotested against the idea of taking the salaries of 1806 as any standard for the salaries of the present day. In 1806, corn was sold at 88 s. now it was sold at 54 s. Country gentlemen were forced to reduce their rents; every class in society suffered a sensible diminution. Were those who held offices under government to be alone exempt from the effects of that pressure which bore so hard upon society.
Mr. Bennetsaid he should be glad to see any the smallest reduction made in the estimates.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, if the hon. gentleman would propose a reduction of 5s. he would vote for it.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, the ground for the reduction of the salary of the judge-advocate had failed, because it had been shown that the business was as great now as it had been in time of war. The argument drawn from the depreciation of money would apply to all offices.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman who now filled the chair of that House, and who preceded the learned gentleman in his office, had, he understood, attended, with one exception, every general court-martial held in London during the
170
period that he was judge-advocate. Now, he was informed that although the present judge-advocate, might give 600 opinions in the course of a year, he had personally attended but two courts-martial.
The Judge Advocatesaid, the rule which he found established, and which he had observed was, for the judge-advocate to attend in person only at the trial of general officers. The trouble and investigation in other cases were however just the same.
Sir R. Fergussonbegged to ask, how-many courts-martial on commissioned officers the right hon. gentleman had attended since he held his office?
The Judge Advocatestated, that he had attended all the courts-martial held at headquarters except one, and their number, he believed, amounted to six.
The committee then divided: For Mr. Bennet's amendment 44; against it 92: majority 48.—For Mr. Chetwynd's amendment 51; against it 83: majority 82.—For Dr. Lushington's amendment 53; against it 82: majority 29.—The original resolution was agreed to. The chairman obtained leave to report progress, and at a quarter after two in the morning the House adjourned.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGH TRADE.
The Marquis of Lansdown,on presenting the Report of the Committee on Foreign Trade, said, he would state, in a very few words, the objects to which it related. Those objects were, our Asiatic trade, and the facilities which might be given to it. The subject was considered under the three following points of view:—That part of our Asiatic trade which was

151
carried on by British merchants under licences from the East India Company; that part carried on under licences from the Board of Control; and that part which was not now, but might be carried on by British merchants, and was actually carried on by American merchants, with the city of Canton. The Report took those three heads into consideration, and displayed the advantages which might be expected from the alterations proposed; pointing out the manner in which those facilities might be granted, and stating the objections which had been made or might be made to them. Alive as the Committee were to the interests of all commercial bodies, and aware that no extension of the Asiatic trade, could be obtained without the consent of the East India Company, they had kept its interest scrupulously in view, and did not think that what they had to propose, would affect them, especially their home monopoly. They trusted, therefore, that they would meet with liberal assistance from the Company, in all those things which neither affected its interests, nor those of the strangers under its protection. He should now submit the Report to the consideration of their lordships, and of his majesty's government; and would only add, that the correspondence between the Board of Control, and the East India Directors, would be produced in a day or two, and might be joined to the Report in the shape of an Appendix. He should now move that the report be laid on the table, and printed.—Agreed to.

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that as he understood that no objection would be offered to the Bill in its present stage, all parties being agreed to go into evidence upon the subject, he would confine himself to a very few observations. The present bill differed from the former one, inasmuch as the former went to remove the franchise altogether, while the present transferred it to another place. It had been improperly compared to a bill of pains and penalties; it was, in fact, a bill of regulation. Besides, it was to be recollected, that nearly one-half the voters had been already convicted, who were now said to be put upon their trial, and that so far from awarding any punishment against individuals, by the bill, they had passed an act of indemnity to protect them in giving evidence to sustain a remedial law. A
152
party had desired to be heard by counsel, but there was no counsel on the other side: it was, therefore, necessary to consider how they should be heard. He did not object to the calling in of counsel; but it was impossible that their lordships could submit to be interrupted in their examination by counsel, or to bandy legal subtleties with professional men. Perhaps the most convenient course would be, to allow counsel to be present at the whole of the evidence, and then to call upon them for their defence. His lordship concluded with moving the order of the day for proceeding to the examination of witnesses on the bill.
Lord Ashburtonobjected to the Bill altogether, as it not only exercised the power of disfranchising one borough, but of transferring that franchise to another. If they resolved to disfranchise the rotten borough now under consideration, they did not know how soon they might be called upon to adopt the same proceeding with regard to other places; and when they reflected, that the House of Commons owed the introduction of some of its most distinguished members, among whom were the names of Pitt and Fox, to small boroughs, they ought to pause before they recognized a principle which might end in their extinction.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could not agree to the mode of conducting the inquiry proposed by the noble lord; for whether they looked upon it in the light of a bill of Pains and Penalties or not, they had derived great advantage in a recent case, which was a bill of Pains and Penalties, from adhering to all the rules of evidence. The rule of evidence was, that counsel should be permitted to offer legal objections to any question; of course in doing so, they would observe the respect which was due to the House; but he had lived long enough to know, that in judicial proceedings, there was no man who did not stand in need of assistance. If, however, the House should object to the interference of counsel, he hoped they would excuse him if, in his anxiety to do justice, he submitted questions on behalf of the persons interested.
The Earl of Harrowbysuggested, that as it was proposed to hear counsel against the bill, it might be proper for the House to appoint counsel to argue in support of the bill.
The Earl of Rosslynobjected to the hearing of any counsel, as it would be the

153
means of postponing the examination of the witnesses until after the holydays.
Lord Erskinehoped the bill which had passed the other House, would have the most important effects; it would, he trusted, raise that House in the affections and confidence of the people.
The Marquis of Lansdownwas decidedly against calling in counsel on both sides, as the bill was wholly of a remedial nature.
The Earl of Rosslynthought, that counsel were not necessary to argue at ther lordships' bar the wisdom of a legislative measure.
It was agreed, that counsel should be called in to-morrow, for the purpose of proceeding on the examination of wit-nessess.