Sitting of 9 March 1821

COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE MORNING CHRONICLE"—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyrose to call the attention of the House to a gross breach of its privileges. He was among those who approved of the publicity given to the debates and proceedings of that House. But, while those reports were allowed by connivance to go forth to the world, it was material to guard against any misrepresentation, especially with respect to the decisions or votes of the House; and it was a misrepresentation of this nature which he felt it his duty to submit to the House. That misrepresentation appeared in "The Morning Chronicle" of the 26th of February, and contained a very foul libel upon a majority of that House. The terms of this libel were as follows:—"List of the minority of 37 who voted on Friday last, the 23rd, for hearing the petition of Thomas Davison read before it was rejected, and against lord Castlereagh's admonition to the people of England, not to trouble and take up the time of the House of Commons any more with their petitions [Hear, hear.] After hearing such a libel, he could not but express his surprise at the cheers on the other side. Did any gentleman mean to assert that the majority who voted upon the occasion alluded to, did decide in favour of the admonition which lord Castlereagh was alleged to have given? If any gentleman were so disposed, he would say to I him, look at the Journals, do you find there that any such proposition was ever brought forward as this paragraph implies was supported by the majority?'* He would dare any man to prove that the decision of the House was here fairly described. The statement, then, was a libel The statement to which he referred imputed to a majority of that House a decision which it never pronounced, and a motive upon which it never acted. Such a proposition was never made, and was it not then most unwarrantable to charge a majority of that House with voting in favour of words to that effect, not one of those words appearing in the motion upon which this majority decided? Some such words were, it was said, made use of in the course of the debate. But, whether such words were made use of or not, they formed no part of the motion upon which

1163
the House divided, and it would be too much to charge upon a majority every word used any member of that majority If such a principle were established-there would be an end of all freedom of debate There was another publication within a few days in the same paper, with respect to the members who voted upon the motion of the hon member for Abingdon, in which a false colouring was given to the views of the majority. Upon this publication, however, he did not mean to call for any animadversion. But if the practice were to go on, of publishing the names of gentlemen as they voted in that House (and by the way he could not account for the manner in which such lists were furnished, as strangers were excluded, upon a division), he must say, that accuracy should be attended to, and that: no false description should be sent forth as to the motives of either the majority or the minority. He felt it necessary to assert the privileges of the House, and should move, "That J. Lambert, the printer and publisher of the Morning Chronicle, do attend this House on Monday.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that as to the passage complained of, he was led to believe that every word of it was true. Since he had heard of the intention to bring forward the complaint under consideration, he had taken the trouble of inquiring with respect to the practice of publishing lists of the names of members who voted in majorities and minorities of that House, and he had found, that it had prevailed for above a century. The first instance was that of a division in the House of Lords in 1703; next, that of a division in 1714, upon the expulsion of sir It. Steele. Then followed the lists upon the proposition of the Excise laws, and upon the employment of foreign troops in 1742. From that period down to the present this practice had prevailed; and now, for the first time, a complaint was preferred against it, and that too, upon very untenable grounds; for, although the House did not distinctly come to a vote upon the extraordinary admonition of the noble secretary for foreign affairs, from all that he had heard the paragraph complained of contained a correct description. Whether any gentlemen Were; ashamed of what, they did, or how they voted generally in. that House, he should not pretend to say. But he should be at all. surprised, to find some gentlemen unwilling to have it
1164
known to the world that they had voted against the reception of the petition of a fellow-subject, without even allowing a to be read, although it came from a poor man pining in gaol. The hon. move was not among those who voted against the reception of that petition, and the re-fore it was found. Convenient to put him forward upon this occasion. But, as to the motion, he considered it peculiarly indiscreet, and in order to get rid of it, he would move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir Charles Longsaid, that the ground of his hon. friend's complaint was not against the practice alluded to, but against a particular paragraph, imputing improper motives to a majority of the House upon a certain occasion. By this paragraph' that majority was charged with supporting an admonition to the people hot to trouble that House any more with their petitions; which charge was contrary to the fact. His noble friend had been accused of admonishing members of that House net-to present the petitions of the people. But what was the fact? Why, that some gentlemen, declaring that they felt it their duty to present any petition, couched in decorous and respectful language, his noble friend had observed, that it was the duty; of every member, not merely to examine the style or expressions, but the matter or object of any petition which he was called upon to present.
Sir R. Wilsonexpressed a hope, that as the publication alluded to did not contain any direct censure upon the House, or upon the majority alluded to, the hon. gentleman would have the liberality to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that the first part of the statement in the paragraph complained of was literally true, while1 the second was, according to his impression, substantially correct. The noble lord, after he gave the admonition referred to, certainly attempted several explanations; but still his conception of the noble lords original meaning remained unchanged Upon such a declaration then from any minister, or any member of that House, with respect to the right of petitioning, it was the duty of the public press to animadvert. If gentlemen thought the printer had been betrayed into indiscretion, he trusted to the liberality of the House that such indiscretion would not be made the subject of punishment. The printer have; been indiscreet; but

1165
What was his in discretion compared to that of lord castlereagh, in the declaration which gave rise to the paragraph under consideration? It would not become their dignity or discretion to found any proceedings upon such a publication, especially after the course adopted with respect to the paragraph under consideration? It would not become their dignity or discretion to found any proceeding upon such a publication especially after the course adopted with respect to the address from the Presbytery of Langholme.
Mr. Wallaceobserved, that the question was not whether his noble friend had made an indiscreet declaration, but whether a gross libel had been published upon the conduct of a majority of that House? For himself, he was anxious that his acts and votes in that House should be fully made known; but as to the declaration imputed to his noble friend, he denied that he had uttered any such words as those imputed to him.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the noble lord had used words with respect to the presentation of petitions, which at first struck him as bearing the construction put upon thorn, but the noble lord had afterwards qualified them. As well as he could recollect the words of the noble lord, they were these—"I would really request gentlemen to admonish those who bring them petitions, not to burthen the House with them in the manner they do." As to what had been contended that this House was not the proper tribunal for hearing complaints relative to the administration of justice, he declared, that if a petition were offered to him to-morrow, complaining, of the conduct of a court of justice, he should feel it his duty to present it: for to what purpose was a committee of justice appointed, hut to enable the people to bring before that House such grievances as they might suffer from malversation in the administration of justice?
Sir M. W. Ridleyconceived, that if the noble lord had used words to the effect stated, he had afterwards, by his explanation, done away the impression which they had made. After all, as the first indiscretion had been on the part of the noble lord and then an indiscretion on the part of some other hon. member who put the title to the minority, he thought it would be advisable to let the matter rest.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he was one of those who did not object to the publication of lists; but he must object to the introduction of such lists, with misstatements of the nature of the vote. The insinuation here was against the majority; for the minority Was described
1166
as having voted against a particular principle, and it was to be inferred that the majority were in favour of it. Now, With respect to the words used by the noble lord, he had understood them this sense—that persons presenting, portions ought to be admonished that it was, in the power of the House to refuse those petitions, if the subject referred, to was one which ought not to be brought before them. If the words of the, noble lord were misunderstood at first he had after words sufficiently explained their meaning. As to the principle involved in the present motion, he contended, that if the House refused to assert its privileges, on such occasions, they would be opening a door for great abuses.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, it had not been his intention to persist in his motion. for bringing the printer to the bar of that House, for he believed he was not person who was most to blame; but, after the hon. gentlemen opposite had thought proper to defend the act of which he complained, he would put it to the House whether it would be consistent with their., dignity to pass it over without animadversion. Still, however, as far as he was personally concerned, he was perfectly ready to withdraw it, provided gentlemen On, the other side would admit that it was an, unjustifiable proceeding to impute motives to members in the way in which they had been imputed in the paper complained of If they persisted in defending such conduct, he thought the House could not do less, in vindication of its own dignity, than call the printer to the bar, that he might at least receive some admonition.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that certainty a more detestable and wicked libel had never been published. If he had himself called the attention of the House to subject, it was perhaps no more then ought to have done; and he could justify himself for having abstained from taking that course, by that self-indulgence which might be allowed to a minister. Now, however, that it was brought before, the House, he must say, that to impute him a desire to prevent the people from exercising the right of petition was not only wicked, but absurd certainly had admonished the people not to present petitions, complaining of grievances,, in which that House could afford them no relief: and such an admonition he apprehended, was an act of great kindness to the people of England. But, when he

1167
was made to say, that he did not wish the people to trouble and take up the time of the House, such a calumny was evidently framed with no other view than to operate upon the mind of the ignorant, and was below contempt. Upon the discussion relative to the conduct of judge Best, he did say, that the people ought to be admonished, that that House was not a court of appeal; and certainly there could not be a greater misfortune to individuals, I than that they should be misled as to the course of remedy which it was right to Adopt. The admonition was given by him in the true spirit of the constitution; and no fair man who heard him, could impute; to him any desire of interfering with the general right of petitioning.
Lord A. Hamiltonthought the best course would be to withdraw both mo-lions. He must say, however, that it appeared to him, that an unfair interpretation was given to the paragraph in question; that there was no assertion whatever that the majority had voted for the admonition to the people; and it was unfair to argue that motives were imputed to them by implication.
Mr. Hutchinsondid not mean to defend the paragraph in question, but rose in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord opposite. The noble lord had said, that no fair man could possibly have misconceived his meaning. Now he apprehended that he had the character of being a fair man; yet he certainly under-Stood the noble lord on that occasion to have read a lecture to petitioners approaching that House. The noble lord had indeed subsequently explained his expressions; and he was bound to give him credit for that explanation.
Mr. Moncksaid, he had heard the paragraph read, and certainly did not think that it deserved the censure of the House. It did not say that the House had sanctioned an admonition to the people, but threw the blame of such admonition on the noble lord. If it had said that the minority were against the motion of the noble lord for an admonition, it might be blameable; but surely no one could think that the House would vote on an admonition.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that if the hon. member was counsel for the editor of the paper, he was not a very judicious one; for if he meant to say that the attack was not on the House, but on an individual member of it, and because it was
1168
upon that individual, it was therefore to be excused, he would drive the House to that notice of it which he should regret.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, he had put it on the footing of a libel on the majority of that House; but still he was prepared to withdraw the motion, provided the libel was not defended. If, however, he found even one member defending it, he would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that the paragraph complained of did not, in fair construction, admit of the interpretation which had been ascribed to it. It was stated, that the minority voted against the admonition of the noble lord, not against any proposition made to the House, but against the principles and sentiments of the noble lord. He hoped both motions would be withdrawn.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he did not think that the House had the power to commit the printer.
The Speakersaid, that the power was not to be questioned by any member, when a case of privilege was brought before them. The hon. member might submit the consideration by itself; but it was clearly disorderly to question the power on the present motion.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he would only observe, that the paragraph appeared to have been totally misapprehended. It was very possible that the minority might have voted under an impression which did not at all influence the votes of the majority. Nothing whatever was imputed to the majority. At the same time, he must say, that he did not think this was a fit subject for the deliberation of the House. It was quite clear, that this was nothing more than a political squib. Scarcely a day passed in which the worst motives were not imputed to public men; for his own part, he was constantly held up, by a certain portion of the press, as a man desirous of overturning the constitution. He thought the hon. member had better withdraw his motion, and unconditionally, for he really could see nothing wrong in the paragraph complained of.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that the question had now assumed such importance in his mind, that he could not consent to withdraw it.
Colonel Daviessaid, that if the printer should now be called to the bar, if would not be for any offence of his own, but because the hon. member would not withdraw his motion.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he was not at all inclined to persist in his motion for adjournment, if the hon. gentleman would also withdraw his motion.
Mr. Barhamsaid, that in point of fact what the printer had stated was strictly true, for the minority had voted against the admonition of the noble lord.
Mr. Bathurstcontended, that there could be no other ground for withdrawing the motion than the admission required, of the passage being an unjustifiable attack on the majority of that House. The complaint could not be abandoned on the ground that it was unfounded. It was impossible not to consider the passage a breach of privilege, but it was not his desire to proceed farther, if the offence was not justified.
Sir R. Fergussonhoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion. He deprecated any libel upon that House; but he looked upon the paper in question with a different eye from the hon. member.
Mr. S. Wortleyasked, whether he was to understand that the gentlemen opposite made a virtual acknowledgment that the passage was indefensible. [Cries of "no, no."]
Mr. Denmanhoped that both motions would be withdrawn, tie however, was not sorry that the question had been agitated, since it was an illustration of the mischief which must inevitably result from rejecting the petitions of aggrieved persons, without reading them.
The question being put, "That this House do now adjourn," the House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 155.

List of the Minority.

Barrett, S. M.

Ossulston, lord

Bernal, Ralph

Ord, Wm.

Curwen, J. C.

Parnell, sir H.

Crespigny, sir W.

Palmer, C. F.

Denman, Thos.

Rice, T. S.

Denison, W. J.

Robarts, Ab.

Ellice, Ed.

Robarts, G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Ricardo, D.

Glenorchy, lord

Sefton, Earl

Hobhouse, J. C.

Taylor, M. A.

Harbord, hon. E.

Whitbread, Sam.

Honywood, W. P.

Wyvill, M.

Hutchinson, hon.C. H.

Wilson, sir R.

Hume, Jos.

Western, C. C.

James, Wm.

Wood, M.

Lambton, J. G.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Dr.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, J B.

Creevey, Thos.

Martin, John

Mr. Lambtonthen moved the previous question upon Mr. Wortley's motion;
1170
but, after some further conversion motions were, with the leave of the House, withdrawn.

ILCHESTER GAOL—PETITION OF CHARLES HILL.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a petition from Charles Hill, a person 74 years of age, who had been confined in Ilchester gaol for 15 years. Having been appointed a. collector and assessor of taxes in 1796, he went on in that capacity until 1804. In 1806, he was charged with a deficiency of. 719 l. He then sold property of his own to, the amount of 467 l., and afterwards collected taxes that were due to the amount of 217 l.;—there was then a balance against him of 34 l., and, for that sum, he had been imprisoned for 15 years. He had, in vain, petitioned the judges, the Treasury, and the House of Commons, for relief. After his petition to the House had been presented, his boxes were opened, his papers taken away and never returned, and he himself had been put on what was called the county side of the gaol and kept there ever since. He begged, the House to contrast the case of this unfortunate individual with that of defaulters of 100, 200, perhaps 300,000 l., who nevertheless continued to receive the patronage of government. He would not then go into any statement with respect to Ilchester gaol itself, except to state one or two facts. One was, that the prisoners were locked up at five in the evening, and not let out till seven in the morning. Among the debtors was a female quaker, imprisoned for a debt incurred by giving security for her brother. Mr. Hunt also was one of the inmates of that prison. It was his intention, in a few days, to move for a committee to inquire into the state of Ilchester gaol.
Mr. Creeveyrequested that gentlemen would attend to this fact, that Charles Hill, 74 years old, had been confined 15 years for owing 31 l. to the Crown, while Mr. George Villiers, a debtor to the state to the extent of 100,000 l., was allowed to ride and walk about just like other people. There certainly ought not to be one law for the poor and another for the rich.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the Treasury had nothing to do with the case; the Crown had merely instituted the process for the benefit of the parish that had been defrauded. It was for the parish therefore, and not the Treasury, to show mercy.
Mr. Dickinsonsaid, he bad often heard that Hill might have been liberated, if he would give up certain property. He had driven the trade of an attorney in the gaol, and had made considerable profits by his practice. There were two visit-ring magistrates to the gaol, and before every quarter session a number of gentry surveyed the prison; and if any man had a complaint to make, it was heard by them. He had heard that it was once a part of the worthy alderman's duty to go down to Ilchester gaol to examine it, but that, instead of going into the prison, he had made his report to the city of London from a printed book put into his hands.
Sir T. Lethbridgewas satisfied that if the state of the gaol were inquired into, it would be found to be conducted in a most perfect manner.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that as one of the members for Ilchester, he had investigated the case, and found, that though many of the facts stated in the petition were true, they assumed a different colour when accompanied by the explanation. It was true that this unhappy man had been confined ever since 1806, for only S4A; and that if he had executed certain deeds, he would have been discharged long ago. Four years had, however, elapsed since he had consented to execute those deeds. If he had been originally to blame, surely he had expiated Ids offence. The prison being below the bed of the river, was necessarily damp and unwholesome. The greatest pains were nevertheless taken to obviate these evils. The gaoler had been highly successful in introducing a variety of beneficial reforms.
Sir I Coffin,knowing perfectly well the character of the gaoler, bore testimony to his humanity and good conduct.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that with another magistrate of London, the town clerk, and a surveyor, he had visited the prison, and had remained in it for some hours. At the time that the petitioner was treated in the way described, a person charged with fraud, Mr. Kinnear, was living in the house of the gaoler.
Mr. Baringsaid, he had received a statement from one of the magistrates of Somerset upon this subject. It appeared that the city of London sent out a sort of pilgrimage to inspect the gaols of the kingdom—that a city deputation, consisting of two aldermen and the town Clerk, visited the town of Ilchester; they
1172
stopt at the principal inn, and, like, a true city deputation, they had: an excellent dinner; but, unfortunately, they remained so long at dinner, that, being in a great hurry to go away, they actually left the town without visiting the gaol. This did not, however, prevent them from making a report, describing the internal state of the building, the situation of the pump, &c, all of which, unluckily for their statement, had been altered about a year before, and it was thus that a discovery was made of the manner in which they had exercised their inquisitorial functions. [Hear! and a laugh.]
Mr. Dickinsonsaid, he had received a statement of particulars confirming what had just fallen from the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Wilmotasked the hon. alderman, whether he had in fact visited the interior of the prison?
Mr. Bernalobjected to this mode of interrogation.
Mr. F. Buxtonobserved, that the information he had received from the gaoler was that he had been sent for by the hon. alderman and his colleague, who made inquiries of him relative to the state and system of the prison. As far as his own experience went, he had never seen any place of confinement under such excellent regulation. The gaoler had introduced a system of labour, by which the prison discipline was aided and enforced to a degree which did honour to the country.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the hon. member (Mr. Baring) should not have harshly contradicted a member of that House who stated that he had been in the gaol for two hours. One hon. member had said, that the gaoler had been sent for to the inn; he denied it. He had been appointed, with others, to inspect the different gaols in the kingdom, under the authority of lord Sidmouth. The inspectors did not feel that they were bound to find fault: their principal object was to state the size of the rooms, the conduct of the prisoners, the hours of locking up the gaol, &c.
Ordered to he on the table.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved, "That the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the supply granted to his majesty be now read,"
Mr. Creeveysaid, he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. They had hitherto

1173
voted nothing more than the annual malt duties; but they were now on the point of proceeding to vote specific sums upon estimate. He thought it right, therefore, that they should bear in mind what their situation was; during the seven weeks that they had been sitting, there was scarcely a day on which petitions had not been presented, setting forth distresses and grievances of every kind. In no one instance had it happened that those complaints were not borne out by statements of hon. members. The government had, however, taken no steps to afford redress, had held out no hope that the causes of complaint would be lessened or withdrawn. Two attempts had been made, one by the hon. member for Abingdon, who had proposed the removal of 2,000,000 l. of taxes, and another by the hon. member for Cumberland, both of which had met with the same fate. In other words, two applications to reconsider the present system, and to alleviate the public burdens, had already been made and rejected. Having thus turned their backs upon the country, they were now preparing to vote away the public money with as much apathy, as if, instead of being on the verge of bankruptcy, we were in a most flourishing situation. What, then, was the course which under such circumstances it was incumbent on the House to pursue? It was impossible for him to participate in that insensibility towards the distresses of the nation, which the House was too much in the habit of showing. He was far from wishing to give offence to individuals; but he must say that there were vices and defects in the constitution of that assembly, which prevented a due regard being paid to the rights and interests of the people. I In the first place, it appeared by one of their reports, that seventy members of that House held offices or pensions, the emoluments of which amounted to 150,000 l. per annum. The public had evidently no chance of fair play, whilst these annuitants were sitting in that House and deciding every question. This, then, was the first national grievance which ought to be redressed before the House resolved itself into a committee of supply. Another referred to the offices of receivers of the land tax and distributors of stamps. These he also looked upon as the property of members of that House; and if any hon. gentleman entertained a doubt of it, he had only to move that these receivers and distributors should be
1174
called to the bar, and then asked as to the value of their offices, and from whom they received them. There were seventy receivers of the land tax, and as many distributors of stamps in England and Wales, to 6ay nothing of Ireland, all of them great sinecure offices, and all given away by hon. members to their families, dependents, or supporters. When he alluded to these sources of influence, let not the noble lord, however, suppose that he shut his eyes to the other streams which took their course also through that House, to India, to the Customs, to the Colonies, to the subject of the' forthcoming estimates themselves. What an array might there be found of comptrollers, of cashiers, of accountants, and the Lord knew what! All were but parts of the same system, and were kept together at the same allowances as when money was but half its present value. By this state of things the House had become too strong for the people. With these impressions he should propose, as an amendment, "That this House will take into its immediate consideration the subject of members of this House holding offices of profit or pensions under the Crown, together with the expediency of diminishing the number thereof, it appearing to this House, from the third report of a committee of finance, made in the year 1808, there were then upwards of seventy members of this House who held offices of emolument or pensions under the Crown, amounting together to the annual sum of 150,000 l. and upwards; and it further appearing to this House, that, in the present state of universal and unparalleled distress in which the nation is involved, no substantial relief can be expected by the people, except from an independent and disinterested House of Commons."
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that if he really could think the hon. gentleman serious in pressing his motion in the shape in which lie had put it, he should be disposed to enter more fully into reply than he was now about to do; but, as he rather thought the motion was intended to record upon the Journals the opinions which he held, he did not mean to enter at length into the merits of the questions which the motion involved. If the hon. gentleman was serious in meaning to stop the whole supplies for the service of the country, until all the great questions to which he had referred were satisfactorily adjusted, then, indeed, the motion was a plain indi-

1175
cation on the part of the hon. gentleman, that So far as in him lay, he was determined to obstruct the whole machinery for carrying on the government of the country. Did the hon. gentleman consider, that the vote for the payment of the army was only up to December last? Did he recollect that the mutiny act would expire on the 24th of the present month?
Colonel Davieswished to know from his hon. friend, whether it was his intention to press his resolution of refusing all supply until the reform stated in his amendment should take place, or until the House pledged itself to the measure?
Mr. Creeveysaid, he was not prepared to state in what supplies he should concur, until he saw the fate of his motion, upon which he should certainly take the sense of the House.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that the object of his hon. friend's amendment was, that parliament should give some pledge to the people, that as, on the one hand, they took away the people's money, so, on the other, they would endeavour to gratify their wishes and relieve their distress. He hoped he would repeatedly bring such questions before the House.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he was not prepared immediately to decide upon so important a question as that which his hon. friend's proposition involved: neither was he prepared to take a step, which went to embarrass, not the particular administration, but the general government of the country. Strong as was his hostility to ministers, he could not take this mode of gratifying any party feeling. He yielded to no man in a desire for strict economy and a constitutional reform in that House. He concurred in many of the observations made by his hon. friend; but he could not vote so extensive a measure without having had an opportunity of hearing it fully discussed. With respect to the army estimates, he should object to the amount of force proposed, thinking it too large for the exigencies of the country; but as he knew that there must be some army, and as that army must have some pay, he could not oppose going into the committee.
Mr. Creeveyexplained, that his only object was to pledge the House to take into its consideration the number of official persons sitting among them, who were directly interested in the estimates.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that though he sincerely wished the whole of the econo-
1176
mical resolutions of his hon. friend carried into effect, he could not see how that could be done by the immediate course pointed out by his motion.
Mr. Huskissonreminded the House, that if the motion were carried, that could not that night go into the committee of supply.
Mr. Monckdeclared his readiness to support the motion. He saw nothing in it to prevent their going into a committee of supply. All it involved was a pledge on the part of the House to retrenchment and reform, which he thought they were bound to give to the people.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be put stand part of the question," the House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 38. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion, 134.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, viscount

Lambton, J. G.

Barrett, S. M.

Lushington, Dr.

Benyon, B.

Martin, John

Birch, Jos.

Monck, J. B.

Bury, viscount

Ossulston, lord

Cavendish, Henry

Palmer, C. F.

Coffin, sir I.

Pares, Thos.

Crespigny, sir W.

Parnell, sir H.

Denison, Wm. J.

Phillips, W. R.

Duncannon, visct.

Ricardo, D.

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Sefton, earl

Glenorchy, lord

Talbot, R. W.

Guise, sir Wm.

Webbe, Ed.

Harbord, hon. Ed.

Whitbread, Sam.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wilson, sir R.

Honywood, W. P.

Wood, M.

Hornby, Ed.

Wyvill, M.

Hughes, W. L.

TELLERS.

Hume, Jos.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Creevey, Thos.

James, Wm.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Mr. Humesaid, that in rising to object to the motion, he could assure the House that he did not adopt this course with any wish to oppose unnecessarily the business of the committee of supply. His object was to place upon record the present state of the military force and expenditure of the country compared with its state at former times. He reminded the House that the committee of finance of 1817 recommended the adoption of the same military expenditure that was estimated for 1792, and which the committee deemed sufficient, or nearly so, for every exigency. It was impossible, without the most, rigid economy, to afford relief to

1177
the country; and they were bound to adopt every economical recommendation, and more especially when such were sanctioned by the investigation of one of their own committees. The chancellor of the exchequer had a few nights ago led them to believe that there would be a saving of upwards of 1,000,000 l. sterling in the estimates for the year. After looking at these estimates, he could not see where such a saving was to be effected. The estimates for the army this year were stated at 6,643,968 l.; but he begged the House to recollect that the sum was only two-thirds of what they would be called on to vote before the termination of the session. Last year the estimates amounted to 6,897,000 l.; but if any hon. gentleman looked at the act of appropriation, he would find that the several sums voted last year for the army amounted to more than 9,000,000 l. there being here a difference of 3,000,000 l. voted away in driblets, after the regular estimates had passed the House. It was indeed a fact worth notice, that nearly fifty votes had been taken for the military establishment of the country. Hon. gentlemen might perhaps suppose that the 6,000,000 l. standing on the estimates was all that they would be called upon to vote for the army; but he now warned them that before the close of the session they would find 9,000,000 l. required for the military department alone, exclusively of the Ordnance, which ought to be an item of the military establishment.
His object was to make the charges of the army at present approximate as nearly as possible to that of 1792. It appeared that corn was now at the same price as in 1792, and he saw no reason why there should not also be something like equality in the expenditure. In the year 1792, there were 15,919 men for Great Britain, and 17,323 for the colonies. In Ireland the House of Commons voted at first 12,000 men, and afterwards 3,232 were added, so that there were in all in Ireland 15,232 men and officers. In Great Britain, Ireland, and the colonies, 48,474. At present, we had in Great Britain 27,852 regulars; in the colonies 32,476; and in Ireland 20,778, making a total of 81,106. He entreated the attention of the House to the fact that we had at present 32,632 men more than in 1792. He was willing to make an allowance of 12,000 men more now for the extended establishments of the country; but still
1178
he found a surplus of 20,000 regular troops. He would not recommend the, reduction of such a large force at once; but he would certainly wish to see 10,000 men reduced, which would allow 12,000 men for the colonies, 2,000 for reliefs, and leave a surplus of 10,000 beyond the year 1792, an allowance sufficiently liberal. In 1792, the number of the artillery was 3,730, and from 4,000 to 5,000 marines. He found no charge made in that year for staff-militia, and, therefore, he did not know whether they were embodied or not; but he should suppose that all the militia called out iii 1793 were ready to be organized in 1792; and, joining them to the artillery, be found a force of 25,757 irregular troops, as he would call them. At present we had 7,872 in the Ordnance department, while the marines had been augmented to 8,000. By an estimate he held in his hand, he found that we had at present 51,998 militia. In Great Britain there were 37,391 yeomanry and volunteers ready to be called out, and in Ireland 20,231 volunteers. Taking, therefore, the whole of these, we had in the United Kingdom a force of 125,492 men in arms, or ready to be called out. Let the House then compare the establishment of 1821 with that of 1792, and let those gentlemen who complained of agricultural distress, consider whether it was not their duty to reduce the public expenditure, and thus lighten the public burthens. Bearing these estimates in view, it was impossible that any gentleman could have economy at heart, and not vote for a reduction of the military force.
He would next call their attention to the unavailable part of the military force, comprising the life-guards, the horse-guards, the foot-guards, the dragoon-guards, and the dragoons; and as these were the most expensive regiments in the service, he believed the House would agree with him in thinking, that there was no reason why there should at present be nearly double the number of life-guards and foot-guards that had been found necessary in 1792. The life-guards and horse-guards were increased by 360 men since 1792; the dragoon-guards, in 1792, were 696—in 1821 they were 2,66S men, being an increase of 1,972; the dragoons in 1792 were 2,080—in 1821 they Were 5,152, being an increase of 3,072; the foot-guards in 1821 were 5,760—in 1792 they had been 3,126—the increase was

1179
2,634. He begged to observe, that none of these troops could be sent to the colonies; they were chiefly confined to the duties of the metropolis, in which there was an unnecessary number of guards and sentinels. In 1792 there were in the metropolis 363 men, horse and foot, employed in the guards of the metropolis, relieving 159 sentinels; in 1816 (the time when the last return had been made) there were 936 men on guard, affording 238 sentinels. The expense of the troops who did this duty was much greater than that of troops of the line. The expense of the life-guards was 70 l. per man; of the dragoons, 48 l. 10 s.; of the foot-guards, 34 l.; of the infantry of the line, 31 l. He should have no hesitation, therefore, in proposing a considerable reduction in the horse-guards, life-guards, and dragoons; because, even if they were not more expensive in time of peace, they were less efficient, as they could not serve in colonial garrisons. He should, before parliament separated, move for an account of the average expense of supporting; regiments of the guards as well as regiments of the line. He had no hesitation in stating, that even if the guards were kept up with the same economy as regiments of the line, still the duty would be more efficiently performed by the latter, ft; saying this he meant no reflection whatever on the horse or life-guards, he was aware that no men had conducted themselves with greater bravery and gallantry than the guards in our late campaigns on the continent. What he meant to say was, that the horse-guards were not equally available for public service with regiments of the line. For instance, we could not, in a case of emergency, send the guards to Ceylon, the Mauritius, or the West Indies. They were only fitted for home duty, and that duty, too, which was of the least public worth—that was, show and parade. The amount of those troops was three times as much now as it was in the year 1792, and being supported at an enormous expense, went to swell considerably the general account, which lit was his object to reduce.
Having said thus much of the army, he now came to another branch of our expenditure, which had increased to a large amount within a few years; he staff! Indeed, the increase which had taken place in all our public establishments was almost incredible. Let any member open any
1180
page of the returns on the table, and they would find the increase enormous. they would, for instance, find many clerks retired upon an allowance as half-pay which was sufficient to support any independent gentleman. In the War-office department they would find such items as l,400 l. year to the first clerk, 1,000 l. to another 800 l. to another, and so on. He would ask, whether such extravagance was to be allowed in the public expenditure, at a period when every branch of our industry was suffering under great privations? He maintained, that under such circumstances we ought to exert ourselves to bring our military establishment down to the standard of 1792. According to the appropriation act of 1792, the expense of the regular and irregular troops of Great Britain amounted to 1,814,800 l. The expense for Ireland during the same year, was 516,349 l. making together a sum of 2,331,149 l.; while the total sum for the present year was 9,500,216 l. showing an increase of 7,169,067 l. Was it fit, then, that the House should go into a committee of supply without coming to a resolution on the gross amount of these estimates? It might be said, that in stating this excess, he had not looked at the charge of the non-effective force. He admitted that the expense under this head amounted in 1792 to no more than 500,000 l. while at present it was 2,000,000 l.; and consequently this accounted for a part of the increase which had taken place in the estimates. But he contended that, taking the aggregate amount for the years 1792 and 1821, there was a positive increase of 7,000,000 l. exclusive of the non-effective force. As to the plan of the noble lord, for reducing the number of men in each battalion instead of reducing whole battalions, he must say that such a mode of reduction was not only contrary to the opinions of the best judges, but contrary to the opinion which the noble lord himself had expressed on a former occasion. The noble lord had in 1817, submitted a proposition to the finance committee, in which he maintained that 8,000 men: might be kept up in the form of 10 battalions, for 74,000 l. a year less than it would cost to keep up the same number in the form of 20 battalions; and, there fore, upon the noble lord's own principle, if the 93 regiments of 650 rank and file each, which formed our present establishment, were thrown into 75 regiments of

1181
800 rank and file each, there would be a reduction of expense to the amount' of 212,000 l. He knew that there were persons who differed altogether from him upon the merits of that system of arrangement, and who said—"let us have skeletons of regiments for the convenience of rapid filling up;" but surely 75 regiments of 1,000 men each, with the aid of second battalions giving a force of 150,000 men, would be sufficient for any emergency. It was objected, that there were legal difficulties in the way of the course which he advocated—that men could not legally be drafted from one regiment to another; but why not adopt the measure pursued in India, and suffer men to volunteer from one corps to another encouraging them by small bounties or by the hope of promotion?
He would now briefly take notice of the Staff a department throughout which, in the committee, he intended to insist upon reduction. It was almost too much to look back to the cost of the Staff in the year 1792, only 6,427 l.; and to advert to the amount at the present day, 28,485 l.; giving a difference of 21,958 l. Of this enormous increase 15,782 l. was to be traced to the commander in chief's office, an office which did not exist in 1792 or 1794; and he meant no reflection upon the royal duke at the head of that office, nor upon those who acted under him; for he thought that the duty at the Horse Guards was done as well as that of any office under government; but still he called for reduction, because the thing, however well done, was done upon too expensive a scale.—But, he should go farther, and look at the expense of the staff maintained abroad. The expense of the staff in the West Indies, North America, and the Mediterranean, in 1792, was 17,000 l.; in 1802, it amounted to 19,935 l.; and in the year 1820 it stood increased to 82,529 l. being, for the old colonies, which formerly cost 19,935 l., 51,490 l. and for the new colonies 31,039 l. Now, considering that England was at peace with all the world, that she was in a situation to reap, if she could ever reap, the advantages resulting from the treaties and alliances which the noble lord opposite had so fortunately brought to bear, certainly she could not need even so heavy an establishment as she had maintained in 1802. Of what advantage was peace, if we were to continue keeping up our wear establishment? To him it appeared
1182
that the truest and the cheapest mode of defending our colonies was to give them an interest in defending themselves; to get rid of the system which refused to our fellow subjects of the colonies the birthright of Britons. What had been our policy? We had refused to the Mauritius, to Ceylon, to Trinidad, and to Malta, the privileges and protection of the British constitution. Did the noble lord recollect the noble defence made by about 500 Dutch troops when the Cape of Good Hope was first attacked by several British ships of war? Did the noble lord suppose that Englishmen would fight less bravely on a similar occasion? No: but the difference was this, the Dutch bad their rights and privileges to fight for, while our colonists have no such rights to defend. The only privilege of this constitution which had been extended was the trial by jury to Ceylon, and even that concession went far to tranquillize the minds of the inhabitants. He had on a former occasion stated, that our new colonies ought to pay for the protection afforded to them; and so they would, if they were not obliged to pay 10,000 l. to one man, 5,000 l. to another, and so on. This money was paid, in great part, to sinecurists and pensioners, sent out from this country by government influence. In page 6 of the army estimates was to be found a single item of 1,048,000 l. for paying and clothing of colonial troops. Before we got possession of those colonies they supported themselves; when we got possession of them, not only did they absorb the whole of their revenues, but they became a drain upon this country. What else could be expected, when they were obliged to pay thousands to men who did not reside in them, and to boys who had never seen or perhaps heard of them? He was not one who would advise the giving up of any one of our colonies; but he would have them made to contribute to their own support.
The hon. member proceeded to state the expenses of the new colonies when we first got possession of them with what they now cost, and contended that, unless the present system was altered we should lose, rather then derive advantage from them. Adverting to the expense of hospitals, he observed, that the expense under that head in 1792 was 23,450 l. where, as at present it amounted to 132,484 l. The war department, consisting, in 1796, of twenty-one clerks, cost 8,227 l.;—on

1183
an average of the last 10 or 12 years, it cost upwards of 60,000 l. a-year. The office of the secretary of war now consisted of two departments, one for correspondence and accounts, which cost 34,118 l.; the other for making up what were called the arrear accounts. The business of the office having been in arrear, it was thought better to appoint a separate department to make up those accounts, and let the other clerks go on with the usual business. It was given in evidence before the military commission, that the arrear accounts could be all made up in three years; now, though several years had elapsed, they were still unfinished; and would continue so as long as that House voted the sum proposed for paying that department. He, for one, was of opinion, that these accounts ought not to be brought up: he thought it too bad, that widows and orphans should be now called upon to account for the acts of their husbands and fathers, or for the negligence of government; he was convinced that the collection was productive of much vexation and hardship to the parties from whom it was taken. Suppose he had been a paymaster, and had tendered his accounts, which had been refused by government, would it not be too hard to call upon him at the end of 30 years, for those accounts, when, perhaps, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to make them out? He thought that no account of more than ten or fifteen years standing ought to be called in. Little saving could be made by the money called in, as the office itself cost the country 17,136 l. a year. The hon. member, after enumerating several other considerable items of expenditure in the War-office and military staff, concluded by observing, that it was unfair, when such opportunities for retrenchment offered, to call upon the country, pressed as she was by mutiplied distresses, to support so large an expenditure. He then moved to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "That it appears, by the official returns before this House, that the total military establishment of Great Britain and Ireland for 1792 (exclusive of the East Indies, and of the artillery, militia and marines), consisted of 48,474 men, namely, 15,919 for Great Britain, Guernsey, &c.; 17,323 in the colonies abroad; and 15,232 in Ireland; and, that the total military establishment of Great Britain and Ireland for 1821 (exclusive of India,
1184
the militia, and marines) consists of 81,106 officers and men; namely, of 27,852 in Great Britain, Guernsey, &c.; 32,476 in the colonies abroad; and 20,778 in Ireland.
Sir R. Wilson,in seconding the amendment, coincided with his hon. friend in his views of general retrenchment, but deprecated any sudden diminution of the military force of the country.
The question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the motion'' was then put and agreed to. The Speaker was about to put the question for his leaving the chair, Mr. Hume said that he had intended to allow a negative to pass against his two first resolutions, and to divide the House upon the third. Under the present circumstances, however, he did not clearly see how that measure was to be carried into effect. The Speaker said that the House having decided that the words proposed to be omitted should form part of the question, that question must be put to the House.
Mr. Tierneythought that the value of the resolutions proposed by his hon. friend would be lost by the course just proposed. At that late hour it would be out of all question, to go into the army estimates. The better way would be, to adjourn, and so give his lion, friend an opportunity of shaping his motion on this important subject.
The question "that the Speaker do leave the chair" was then put and negatived, and the committee was deferred till Monday.