Sitting of 15 March 1821

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT AGAINST "THE MORNING POST."
Sir R. Fergussonsaid, it was with great reluctance that he, at any time, made a complaint of a breach of the privileges of that House. He was, however, induced to rise, in consequence of paragraphs of a most gross nature which had appeared in The Morning Post. An article which appeared in that paper of yesterday, libelled his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey), and all those who had acted with him the other night, in terms of the most unwarrantable nature, representing them as Jacobins, and people whose only object was to overturn the constitution. Today this was followed up by a libel of a different character, in the shape of a letter signed "An Englishman." The writer of this letter accused his hon. friend, by innuendo, of a species of cowardice, in a transaction which had occurred betwixt him and an hon. baronet (sir G. Warrender). With respect to that transaction, he had to state, that he was the person consulted by his hon. friend; and if there was any dereliction of duty, or any point of honor unsatisfied on that occasion, it was he himself who was dishonored. As soon as he had had an interview with the noble lord opposite (lord Binning), who acted for the hon. baronet, he had no further communication with his hon. friend till the final arrangement of the affair; and he would assert, that a more base, false, or malicious libel never was inserted in any paper, than that of which he now complained. In consequence of some words which were, dropped in the course of debate by the hon. baronet, seeming to reflect on his, hon. friend, he had applied to the hon. baronet for an explanation. An explanation did eventually take place of a nature the most satisfactory. A similar, libel had appeared in a Sunday paper, called "John Bull." As to that paper, he considered it a stain upon the public

1247
press of the country—a most malicious, false, and rascally publication. As far as party feeling went in dictating political animadversions, God forbid, that a libel of that kind should be punished. But the case was altered when it was private character that was attacked. And not only did this paper attack the virtuous living, but it raked up the ashes of the virtuous dead. He should not move, that the printer of The Morning Post be called to the bar of that House; for his only object in calling the attention of the House to the matter, was to assert his own honor, and that of his hon. friend, and he was satisfied that the noble lord opposite would bear him out in saying, that not the slightest imputation could rest upon the character of either from this transaction.
Lord Binningassured the gallant general, that he most readily complied with his call. He participated strongly with him in opinion, that matters of this sort, when once concluded, ought never to be disturbed. He had no hesitation in saying, that there was nothing connected with the transaction which was not perfectly honorable to both parties.

CARLISLE ELECTION—INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY.
Mr. Jamesrose to bring forward his promised motion on this subject. It was a subject, he said, which involved not merely the rights of his constituents, but the rights of the British people. The fate of his motion would decide whether elections for members were or were not to be violated at the will or caprice of one or more country magistrates; whether, in fact, they were in future to be regulated at the point of the bayonet? It would be recollected that during the last session, he had presented a petition from the freemen of Carlisle, complaining of the conduct of three magistrates, who introduced a military force, when the freeholders were peaceably assembled, for the purpose of electing a member to serve in parliament. The question, it was clear, affected the very essence of the constitution: if, indeed, the constitution was not wholly to be dissolved, such conduct could not pass without reprehension. He would remind the House, that a noble lord, the member for Westmorland (lord Lowther) had stated that the charges in the petition were unfounded calumnies.*The noble
* See Vol. 2, p. 143.
1248
lord had since visited the scene of action, and be had now an opportunity of correcting himself. He had no hesitation in saying, that the facts stated in the petition were true to the fullest extent. The facts were these: The late election for Carlisle had been unusually long, and much party feeling (which always existed in that place) was called into action during the progress of the election. On the first day, a scuffle took place in consequence of two bands of music coming in contact; it was however, nothing more than electioneering affray, and did not last for ten minutes. The agents of Sir P. Musgrave took that opportunity of applying to the mayor for military force, which the mayor refused. Here he would ask, how did it happen that during the election the military should have been permitted to remain in Carlisle? The law was clear on the point. Sir W. Blackstone had said in his Commentaries, that it was essential to the very being of an election, that it should be free, and that when the time and place of the election was once fixed, the soldiers should be removed from the place appointed for holding the election, the day before the commencement of the election, and that they should not be permitted to return until the day after the polling had closed. The mayor, though he had refused to comply with the call for military aid, had yet assured those who had applied to him, that if any impediment should be thrown in the way of the voters of sir P. Musgrave, he would himself lead them to the poll, he would call in a constitutional force Sufficient to conduct them there. This offer, however, was refused by some of sir P. Musgrave's friends. In fact there was no necessity whatever that the military should be called out. In the course of the morning some other trifling scuffles took place, and another application was made for the military. The officer who commanded the military had never felt himself called upon to perform a more painful duty. It was an unnatural employment of a soldier to be called upon to apprehend for trial before a civil magistrate. What! were the military to be employed as constables? Surely it was not necessary to kill a man in order to apprehend him. One wretched man, of the name of Crosby, had been marched off to the Castle, and committed under a pretence of having assaulted one of the magistrates. He had been afterwards committed to take his trial for felony;

1249
but having remained in gaol from 24th of May to 12th of August, he was liberated without any prosecution or trial. It would be said that he was entitled to an action for damages. Yes, he knew that there was ground for such an action; but the fact showed the extravagant extent to which magistrates conceived themselves entitled to proceed. The magistrates could not have been ignorant of the law of the land; but they had been wilfully perverse. They had endeavoured to carry by violence and intimidation what they found they could not effect by fair means. This was an illustration of the consequences to be expected from the large military establishments which were required. This House had been wont to resist, with extreme jealousy and indignation, the slightest interference of the military beyond their constitutional limits; but modern politicians relied for every great exploit on the bayonets of hired troops. The parliament now directed its attention to any thing rather than to the relief of the distresses of a brave, a loyal, and a faithful people. The country was oppressed with barracks, and the petitions of the people were answered only by the sword. This state of things would, ere long, terminate in the total subversion of all civil order and of all law, or it would terminate in what some considered the best possible result—the calm despotism of a military government. But be the result the calm despotism of the sword, or the agitations of an outraged people, he, humble as he was, would ever strenuously contend against the wanton introduction of military violence into a peaceable assembly of the people. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That the said petition be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
Sir P. Musgraveopposed the motion. He said, that there was much rioting, that the civil power was quite unable to keep the peace, that the mayor was treated with the greatest contempt, that three of his own voters were so intimidated, that they thought it prudent not to give their votes at that time, and that the military were not called in until the necessity for their interference was clearly established. The hon. baronet read some letters and depositions to substantiate his positions, but so inaudibly, that a great part of the House itself could not have understood their contents.
Sir J. Mackintoshwished to make a
1250
few observations on the facts which had been stated by the hon. baronet. If he did any injustice to those facts, he hoped it would not be imputed to intention, not having so distinctly heard the statement just made as he could have wished. As far, however, as he heard the hon. baronet's luminous statement, he was inclined to believe that he justified the interference of the military, on account of the expression of popular feeling between the friends of the respective candidates. If this ground of military interference was conclusive, parliament ought immediately to repeal the laws regarding elections, and put them at once under military protection. All popular elections in the kingdom would call for the same interference as that which had been exercised at Carlisle, and the country ought therefore to transfer its confidence from the magistrates, who were the constitutional protectors of the peace—from the laws, which were the defence of privilege as well as power—to a military force which ought to be constituted the guardian of the right of election. By the hon. baronet's account, as far as he could understand it, the riot was said to have arisen from the violent conduct of an outrageous mob. Now, there were two species of language used by candidates at elections, according as they were successful or unsuccessful. That which was called a mob by him who saw through the eyes of a disappointed candidate, would appear to his more happy rival as an honest, spirited, and independent body of the citizens of Carlisle, enjoying the natural triumph of their constitutional exertions. But he (sir J. M.), who was more impartial than either, must say, that if the facts stated warranted the calling out of the military, there never was, or could be, a popular election which would not require military interference. Soldiers must be called, out on all such occasions, as the exultation of the friends of the successful candidates were sure to be designated by his disappointed competitor as the conduct of an outrageous mob. There was, no doubt, a fact of great importance stated by the hon. baronet; it was, that no less than three of his voters had been so intimidated by the opposite party, that they thought it prudent to postpone their votes to a more quiet time. But what did this charge of intimidation amount to? He never saw a popular election in which some day did not occur

1251
upon which those voters who were fastidious of the right of voting under the most tranquil circumstances, might not choose a quiet season. The case, in fact, came to this, that either the military interference on such an occasion ought to be corrected, or the laws of election should be repealed, which guarded the subject in the exercise of his invaluable and sacred right of choosing representatives from armed dictation. He understood the hon. baronet to say, that the law of election justified the calling out the military, because the act which removed the military from the place of election, had a clause in favour of the troops in castles and fortresses, who were permitted to remain, and in this case, the troops which were called upon to suppress the scuffle among the electors of Carlisle, were marched out of the Castle of that town. But, the legal necessity for their interference should be established, as the exception in the clause was not made in order to facilitate the marching of troops upon the places of election, and to introduce armed men to sway the exercise of the most important rights of free citizens, but was merely made in favour of those castles and fortresses, that the troops might remain in and keep possession of them, notwithstanding an election in the neighbourhood. This clause did not endanger much the right of election; because there were very few garrisoned castles and fortresses in England; and therefore, if, where troops remained in such places during the time of an election, they were there to keep the peace, then the law must have provided for keeping the peace in places of comparative insignificance, and left those of the first importance unprovided for. In this case Liverpool must have been left exposed to popular disturbance, Bristol must have been left exposed—and other towns of the first character, while such inferior places as Carlisle were put under the rigorous guardianship of. the military power. To introduce the military power on such occasions, without the last necessity, was a violence done not only to the letter but to the whole spirit of the constitution, and to the election laws in particular, which did not by any exception' facilitate the marching of troops upon places of election, but only enabled the king's forces to keep possession of fortresses, notwithstanding the occurrence of elections in the neighbourhood. As far as he could hear the hon. baronet, his
1252
facts did not establish any material contradiction to those stated by the hon. mover. The hon. mover had stated his case with singular ability, and had convinced him of the propriety of calling on the House to refer the petition to a committee, in order to ascertain, whether a great outrage had been committed against one of the most valuable privileges of the constitution.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the troops had not been kept in Carlisle for the purpose of interfering with the election. The cavalry had been withdrawn and sent to a town in the neighbourhood; but sir John Byng, not knowing how to dispose of the infantry, had ordered the Castle to be shut upon them during the election. This order had been complied with, and no soldiers would have been allowed to go beyond the gates, unless they had been called for by the civil power. Though the law prohibited the presence of troops at elections, yet it recognized, and committees of that House had acknowledged, the interference of the military to protect the privileges of electors. The commanding officer, in this case, had brought out the troops at the request of three magistrates, after the riot act had been read. The three magistrates had called upon the officer to recall the cavalry who had been sent out of town; but the officer refused to do so without the order of the mayor; and the mayor having declined to order it, the cavalry were directed not to come. It was after the election that the two companies had been called out to quell a riot, after great care had been taken that there should be no military in the town during the election. It was plain that there was a very great riot. ["No riot whatever," from Mr. James.] Certainly it might be a question of privilege, but he was sure that it would be found that neither the magistrates nor the government wished to excite an unfounded alarm to justify the use of the military. If there was no cause for the alarm, upon which the magistrates called out the military, they must have acted erroneously; but he was convinced they had no designs hostile to the free exercise of the right of election. If they wished to overawe the freemen of Carlisle, they would have called out the military before or during the time of the election; but it appeared that the troops were not sent for until the polling was over, at least for that evening. However

1253
jealous the House ought to be of their privileges, he did not think there was a case to go before the committee of privileges.
Lord Lowthermaintained that there had been a most malignant riot, calling for the interference of the military power to quell it, which military power was not introduced into the town until after the close of the election. The inquiries he had made led him to the conclusion that the magistrates had done no more than their duty. No case had been made out against them, and he entirely denied that the military had been resorted to with a view of overawing the voters and influencing the election. He would therefore move the previous question.
Mr. Curwenobserved, that this was not a question between certain individuals of the town of Carlisle, but one which affected the privileges of that House and the rights of all the people. He maintained that there had been no riot, and not even as much blood shed as would cover the point of a pin. If there had been any riot, some person, he should suppose, must have been indicted by the magistrates in justification of their own conduct. But was that the case? One man, who asked the magistrates whether the Riot act was read, had, indeed, been committed, but had not been prosecuted. They had, indeed, wished to turn him out of the prison without any further proceedings against him; but the man had refused to go, stating that a gross violation of the law had been committed in his case, and that he would not stir, unless he was discharged by law. He was of opinion that if the House failed to notice the conduct of the magistrates, there never could be a case in which it could again interfere in vindication of its privileges. He should certainly vote for inquiry; and thought that if the magistrates were convinced of the rectitude of their conduct, they, more than any other persons, ought to wish it to be instituted.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the present was a subject which the House always regarded with the greatest jealousy. Unquestionably, that House was the tribunal before which all complaints of an infringement of the rights of the people, as respected the election of their representatives, ought to be brought. To call in the military during an election was an infringement of those rights, which nothing
1254
but the clearest necessity could justify. What had that House been in the practice of doing in cases of a similar nature? When, in 1741, the members for the city of Westminster called witnesses to the bar to prove that the church-yard, in the neighbourhood of the hustings, had been taken possession of before the commencement of the election by a body of armed soldiers, the House came to a re solution, "That it was a high infringement of the liberties of the subject, a manifest violation of the freedom of elections, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution of this kingdom." He would also read a short extract from the observations of one of the most eminent individuals who ever sat in the chair of that House—he meant Mr. Speaker Onslow, when—in compliance with the instructions of the House, he reprimanded the magistrates who had called in the military on that occasion. The hon. gentleman here read the extract to which he alluded. After citing the resolution, it proceeded—"It is impossible, if you well consider the terms of this resolution, but that you must have felt in your breasts the deepest sorrow and remorse for this rash act of yours, which, if it had not been animadverted upon, might have given the most dangerous wound to the constitution of this free country, that perhaps it had ever felt: this country, free, because this House is so; which this House can never be, but from the freedom of elections to it; and amidst the too many ways for violating that, none can be more pernicious, because none more quick, decisive and permanent, than what you might un happily have set a precedent for and which might have grown to an extremity, under the specious and ready pretences of fears and necessity, that supersede all law." It concluded by saying, "what you have done, is against one of the most essential parts of the law of the kingdom."* He should be ashamed to add a single word, after reading this quotation, which so clearly laid down the rule that the interference of the military on such an occasion was justifiable only on the clearest necessity. Undoubtedly, there might have been such a necessity in the present case; but that was a question which ought to be investigated, and he therefore thought the hon. member perfectly right in calling for an inquiry
* New Parl. Hist. Vol. 12, p. 328.

1255
by that House, which was bound to defend the privileges of the people.
Mr. Beckettdenied that the case of Westminster, and the present case were parallel. In the case of Westminster, the troops were placed near the hustings before the commencement of the election, and remained there the whole time. In the case under consideration, the military had not been called in until the poll had closed [No, no!]; at least, so it was stated in the petition. This was a very stale proceeding. If the conduct of the magistrate; of Carlisle had been blameable, why was it not sooner inquired into? But was it blameable? Had there not been a considerable riot?—had not several men been knocked down, and some of their legs broken?—had not the Riot act been read three times? Were not those of the mob who remained, guilty of felony? and were not the magistrates, who acted on their own responsibility, justified in, at length, calling in the military, to put an end to that which they could not put an end to without them? But even if the magistrates were wrong, had the hon. mover taken the proper course on the occasion? Ought he not rather to have moved, that the petition should be referred to the examination of a select committee, or rather, ought not the whole business to have been submitted to the court of King's-bench? The courts of law were open to any one who had to complain either of this or of any other act of the magistracy. For his own part, he must state it as his opinion, that if the hon. member had been influenced by better feelings, or had been better advised, he would rather have taken a course very different from that which he had thought it his duty to pursue.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had never heard any question in which the clearest privileges of the House and the most valuable rights of the constituent body were implicated, treated, in the manner in which the present question had been treated by the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He was sorry that there should be any member in that House so lost to the love of liberty, so regardless of the privileges of that House, and so neglectful of the dearest rights of the subject, as that right hon. gentleman was on his own showing. The right hon. gentleman had said, that this complaint was now stale. Stale! A breach of the privilege of parliament, an interference of the military
1256
at the election of a member to sit in that House, was called stale: stale indeed; because it did not come in time to suit the palate of the right hon. gentleman, and therefore was to be neglected as unnecessary; or, if made out, was to be referred to the common-law courts, and to be decided by the common-law principles of riot. Was that the way in which infringements of the right of election were to be remedied? He regretted that a man who held sentiments so novel and so unconstitutional should hold a judicial situation of great consequence; and he believed that if the right hon. gentleman had ever ventured to express such sentiments before he had been appointed to that situation, he would not now have held it. To show that the military had been called in at all, was sufficient to justify inquiry. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the magistrates had caused the military to interfere upon their own responsibility; and the magistrates should be made to know that their responsibility would bring them to the bar of that House, if their conduct was complained of. That was the way in which he would advise the House to interfere in this question. He did not stand there to say that the magistrates could not be justified; but he did stand there to say that the House could not be justified if it did not examine into the conduct imputed to them. His hon. friend had moved that this complaint should be referred to a committee of privileges; perhaps it might have been better if he had moved that it should be referred to a select committee; but let it not be said, that when a party of magistrates caused the military to interfere with the rights of election, no redress could be obtained for the people, because the mode proposed to obtain it was not exactly the best possible.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that a noble lord had declared that there never was a more malignant riot than at the election for Carlisle. Now he could assure the House, that he, for one, had seen a more malignant riot, and that at the noble lord's last election. He had there seen a slave dealer from Liverpool heading a body of bludgeon-men whom the noble lord kept in pay, and had seldom been more gratified than on seeing them routed and deprived of their spolia opima by the gallant peasantry.
Lord Lowtherobserved, that it was easy to call special constables bludgeon-

1257
men, but not very fair to call the captain of a merchantman a slave-dealer, after he had long ceased to exercise that traffic. With regard to the interference of the military, the Whigs had found their assistance necessary not very long since at a Westminster election.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that finding there was a doubt on the point whether the military had been called in before or after the close of the poll, he certainly felt no longer any disposition to resist inquiry on the subject.
Sir J. Grahammaintained, that there had been a great riot on the occasion in question, of which fact, no less than seven affidavits had been made, and that it was on that ground that the magistrates had issued orders for the troops to interfere.
The previous question was withdrawn, and the original motion agreed to.

BREAD.
Mr. Harbordrose, to move for the appointment of a select committee to take into consideration the existing regulations relative to the making and the sale of Bread, with a view to repeal the same. When it was considered that two-thirds of the population of the empire lived almost entirely on bread, it behoved the House to see that they were supplied with it at the cheapest possible rate, of the best possible description, and in just measure. That was not now the case. The existing law on the subject was pernicious in its tendency, inasmuch as it held forth to the poor the expectation of a protection which it did not realise, and prevented them from using that caution to which they would otherwise resort. He had referred to all the acts on the subject which had passed during the last 553 years. He would trouble the House, however, only with the general result which he had drawn from those acts. All that he now felt it his duty to do was, to point out the defects of the law as it existed. With regard to the remedy, some might think that there ought to be no legislative interference at all; others might be of opinion that this or that provision would be desirable. He intended to move for the repeal of the 59th of Geo. 3rd, c. 36, containing a clause which enacted, that in all cases of complaint against bakers, the complaint should be made within 24 hours after the bread was made, and should be supported before the magistrate by one
1258
or two disinterested witnesses. It was manifest that the onus probands was here laid upon the wrong party, and that difficulties were cast in the way of the poor, who were most exposed to frauds of this description. The labouring poor in the country often bought their, bread on a Saturday, and employed, their children for that purpose. A deficiency in the weight might not therefore be discovered till Monday, when the time for receiving the complaint was gone by. In fact, he believed that in Norfolk, not one conviction had yet taken place under this statute, although a very short time before it passed, there had been 40 before one magistrate. In Dorset, similar effects and followed, and one magistrate had stated to him that he was averse to receiving complaints, from a fear of making the bakers acquainted with the actual state of the law. In the county of Stafford the same inconvenience was generally felt.
Mr. Littletonobserved, that he had, heard many complaints of the futility of the law in its present state. He was inclined to think that unrestricted competition would afford the public, greater security than any legislative enactment, but was of opinion, at the same time, that there should either be an entire repeal of the law, or that bread should in future be sold by weight.
Sir C. Burrellobserved, that the circumstance of the quartern loaf being now sold at 10 d., whilst fine wheat was at 14 l a load, could only be ascribed to combination.
Alderman C. Smithobserved, that wheat being at 14 l. per load, the quartern loaf might be sold at 17½d.
The motion was then agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the motion for bringing up the report of the committee of supply,
Mr. Bernalsaid, he conceived the guards to be the most expensive force that the country could be called upon to maintain. They had become a sort of military police, and he was at a loss, to conceive what reason could be assigned for stationing a subaltern's guard at the West-India Docks, a Serjeant's guard at the British Museum, or a corporal's guard at so many different posts in every direction. They might be very proper at the Tower; but certainly a commercial body, like the West-India Dock company, were capable of protecting their own property.

1259
Neither could he admit the fitness of a military guard for protecting the medals or rarities deposited in the British Museum. Now, the 100 men stationed at these two last-mentioned places would render a force of 400 necessary in order to afford reliefs. He was convinced, that 4,000 effective rank and file of foot guards would answer every purpose, and that the cavalry might also bear a considerable reduction. He wished for these reductions, if it were only as a pledge that this country was not to be made a theatre of experiment for introducing the military and despotic systems of the continent.
Sir H. Hardingecontended, that to assimilate the guards to regiments of the line would considerably add to the present expense.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, the House acted with regard to the public expenditure, like a prodigal, who first determined to spend a certain sum, and then proceeded to consider how he should get it. He objected to the report being brought up upon these principles, and maintained, that the committee was falsely termed a committee of ways and means. They did not consider the real ways and means by which the country might meet the expenditure, but merely recommended a given service to be supported by a given expenditure without estimating the means of the country. How could he tell that the repeal of the last malt duties, and of the husbandry horse-tax, might not be carried, and a deficiency consequently arise in the ways and means of the country to support the proposed expenditure?
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that the prospect before the country was sufficiently lamentable, for the reasoning of ministers was, that if there were no reduction of the army, there could be no diminution of expenditure, and consequently no reduction of taxation. The hon. member proceeded to advert to the military force kept up in Ireland, and contended, that the civil establishment in that country was not placed upon a proper footing. The great defect of the system was, that constables were appointed by the grand juries, and consequently were not sufficiently under the control of the magistrates. He was satisfied that if the civil force were placed upon a proper footing, the army in Ireland might be considerably reduced.
The report was brought up.
On the motion, that the first resolution for fixing the number of men at 81,468, be agreed to,
Mr. Humesaid, he was under the necessity of moving, by way of amendment, that the number, instead of being 81,468 should be 71,468 men. He would take that opportunity of clearing himself, from the charge of having cast an imputation upon the guards. It was true he had said that some of them were kept up more for idle parade than real utility; but he meant this as no reflection upon the men; he merely wished to impress upon the House, that if a greater number were maintained than was necessary for the wants of the country, the only ends they could serve were those of idle parade. The great object which he thought most desirable in reducing the military establishment of the country, next to the saving in point of expense, was the necessity it would impose upon the magistracy of the country to depend upon the civil rather than the military power upon civil occasions. The occurrences at Carlisle, Dublin, and other quarters, ought to be so many lessons of caution to the House how they afforded facilities, by keeping up large military establishments, for the constant calling out of the military upon public occasions. As to the reliefs for the guards, he must say that they were created by the unnecessary manner in which that branch of the force was applied; for instance, it was impossible to pass into that House without seeing soldiers stationed in the avenues: there was actually a barrack in the House of Commons. Many evil consequences besides the expense arose from this practice; the regular civil police became relaxed and ineffectual. When any popular meeting took place, the peace was to be preserved by soldiers; a message was to be sent to the lord mayor to know how many guards he wanted, for there were plenty at his service. He had no wish to trench upon the comforts of the soldier, whose pay was doubled since 1792. [A cry of "No."] It was, he repeated, doubled. In 1792, the pay was sixpence a day; it was now a shilling. This was his arithmetical calculation; and he reminded the noble lord that he promised to be a match for him in arithmetic. His object was to reduce the numbers, and not the allowances of the soldier. He concluded by proposing his amendment.
Colonel Daviessaid, that as the chief objection to reduction had been the necessity of reliefs for foreign garrisons, he should show that the proposed reductions could be made without taking from the troops applicable to reliefs. The old colonies had now 17,000 men. In 1787, they had 12,245, and in the latter half of 1792, 13,277. If the garrisons of those colonies were reduced to the standard of 1787, 4,700; if to that of 1792, 3,700 men might be reduced. With respect to the force at St. Helena, he thought that every purpose of safe detention might be accomplished with one-half the garrison now maintained. One regiment of cavalry might, lie thought, be reduced. He challenged any professional man to defend the maintenance of the waggon train, which was altogether useless. He thought the reduction proposed in the amendment could be safely carried into effect.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, said, that as the hon. member for Aberdeen, who might be called the leader of the Opposition, had proposed to reduce the pay of the soldier to one-half, would he get his party to pledge themselves to that measure?
Mr. Humedisavowed having made any proposition for taking away half the pay of the army.
Mr. Hutchinsonconsidered the exertions of the hon. member for Aberdeen to redound as much to his own credit, as they would ultimately prove of advantage to the country. When the House had been voting an extravagant estimate on an impoverished country, he did not envy the feelings of the hon. member, who had endeavoured to turn into ridicule the efforts of those who exerted themselves to lessen the burthens of the people. He was proud of being one of those who had joined in those efforts: he acknowledged no leader: he had looked at the distresses of the people, the state of the finances, and the policy of the country, and he declared, as a man of honour, that he believed the vote to be extravagant and unnecessary.
Mr. Bankessaid, that had he been present last night he should certainly have voted for the reduction of 5,000. In 1816 he had enforced the necessity of reducing the estimates so far as it was practicable to the scale of 1792. In the committee of finance, in 1817 he had pressed the same necessity, from a
1262
conviction that every attempt ought to be made to approximate the present with the former peace establishment as nearly as possible. Circumstances might, undoubtedly, render a greater number of men necessary at present than our situation in 1792 called for. The different system, for instance, on which reliefs were now conducted, could not be met by so small a number of men as was heretofore employed. There was, however, one point which strongly inclined him to think that the numbers now kept up were more than the present situation of affairs demanded. He alluded to the fact, that the establishment voted in 1819 was not so large as that now proposed. For his own part, he could see no reason whatever for voting a single man more than the force which in 1819 was considered sufficient. Looking to the state of the country, he saw nothing, either at home or abroad which could lead him to apprehend danger. The severe pressure of the times might, however, he was ready to confess, induce him to go farther in point of reduction, than perhaps he would be otherwise inclined to do. He would willingly vote for a reduction of 5,000 men; but he could not go as far as 10,000.
Mr. Wilberforcecould not but think that the number of troops proposed to be kept up was considerably too great. Those who were at the head of the military establishment might be of opinion that the force called for was not more than sufficient; but, on the other hand, it was natural enough for the people, who were to defray the expense, to wish that the number proposed should be lowered. In such a state of things, the parliament ought to make itself, in some degree, responsible for voting a lower establishment than ministers themselves would like to propose. If at a future period a greater force were wanted for our internal or external security, the country would much more cheerfully respond to the call, if it were now shown that the House felt a due commiseration for the distresses of the people. The force for domestic service, especially for Ireland, appeared to him to be too great. Whether this was the case with respect to the colonies, where the superficies to be defended was so extensive, he could not say; but, looking to the entire vote, he thought the House would not perform its duty if it agreed to it without modifications.
Mr. W. Smithwas of opinion that in the Colonies a considerable reduction might be made in the military force. All the force necessary for their defence was one of sufficient magnitude to guard them from surprise by a coup de main Now, which of the powers, in any one quarter of the globe, was likely to surprise, in a hostile way, a colony of Great Britain? Not one of our colonies stood in danger, either in prœsenti or in prospectu. If they reduced their foreign garrisons, the saving would be more considerable than any that could be effected in any other branch.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the increase since 1819 consisted of the augmentation of the regiment at New South Wales, from 650 to 1,000 men, which was effected in consequence of the representation of the governor of that colony. A regiment had also been appropriated to the service of Heligoland, &c, instead of proceeding on the old system of drafting companies to those places. He called on gentlemen to mark the situation in which the country would be placed, if they only voted 70,000 rank and file, which would be the number granted, if the amendment were carried, exclusive of the veteran battalions. There were at present afloat 4,550 rank and file, a body not now available for any purpose to which the army about to be voted was applicable. There were non-effectives of the line 4,400 men. There were at the depot at the Isle of Wight 3,100 raw recruits belonging to regiments abroad. Here, then, was a total of 10,250 rank and file to be deducted from 70,000, which the gentlemen opposite proposed. So that, in fact, they were only giving to government 60,000 men disposable for all the purposes which required a military force.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the said Resolution," the House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 46: Majority against the Amendment, 70.
The resolution was then agreed to.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, lord

Crompton, S.

Allen, J. H.

Evans, W.

Bernal, R.

Fergusson, sir R.

Bright, H.

Farrand, R.

Bankes, H.

Grant, J. P.

Calcrart, J.

Guise, sir W.

Campbell, hon. J. F.

Gordon, R.

1264

Graham, S.

Robertson, A

Gaskell, B.

Robarts, col.

Hamilton, lord A.

Rice, G. R.

Harbord, hon. E.

Smith, R.

Hurst, R.

Smith, W.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Smyth, J. H.

Stuart, lord J.

Jervoise, G. P.

Sykes, D.

Lloyd, J. M.

Tulk, C. A.

Lockhart, J.

Tennyson, C.

Lennard, T. B.

Tremayne, J. H.

Milton, lord.

Webb, C.

Moore, P.

Whitmore, W.

Parnell, sir H.

Wilberforce, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Wyvill, M.

Rickford, W.

TELLERS.

Ricardo, D.

Hume, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Davis, C.

COUNTY COURTS RATE.
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Lockhartagreed in the principle of the bill, because he conceived it was not proper that the superior courts should be occupied in deciding causes, where the property in dispute, whether money or chattels, was of trifling value. It was also a great hardship on the suitor, who frequently lost 30 l. or 40 l. in endeavouring to recover a much smaller sum. The noble lord meant to remedy this evil by creating a sort of county judge—a barrister—who, with the aid of a jury, would be able, four times in a year, to determine causes of a certain value. Now, he conceived, that a new tribunal was wholly unnecessary. In his opinion, if the powers of the courts of quarter session were amplified, the duty could be done more constitutionally. This would be a much more respectable and efficient tribunal—more under the aggregate eye of the country, and attended with less expense to the public. He hoped the noble lord would explain whether there was any foundation for the rumour, that it was intended to pay the judges in these courts by allowing them a fee of 6d. for each cause. It was evident that such a regulation was quite incompatible with any thing like the respectability, which ought to attach to the judicial character. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the bill; but if it went into a committee, he should certainly oppose it in toto, or move such an alteration as would prevent the appointment of barristers to the offices of judges in county courts.
Mr. F. Palmerhoped the House would not agree to the suggestion of His hon. friend of throwing the business in ques-

1265
tion upon the quarter sessions. The increase of business in that direction had already become very inconvenient.
Mr. Chetwyndconceived it necessary that some change should be made in the constitution of the county courts. The poor had great reason to complain of the impositions practised on them by the country attornies under the present system. As to the quarter sessions, they had already sufficient business; and if the House, by adopting the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, should overburthen the country magistrates, the consequence would be, that no gentleman would accept the office, and the country would be obliged to have recourse to that greatest of all curses, a stipendiary magistracy. At the same time, in the present distressed state of the people, he could not consent to any additional burthens on the county-rates, and therefore he should oppose that part of the bill which proposed to provide salaries for the judges by the imposition of a new rate.
The Attorney Generalhad no hesitation in saying, that he thought the plan of the noble lord extremely objectionable. It went to establish a perfectly novel jurisdiction, and one that would be attended with heavy expense. The noble lord proposed to establish no fewer than 80 tribunals, with a barrister at the head of each. The salaries of these judges, considering that their time was likely to be occupied exclusively by the business of their courts, could not be averaged at less than 500 l. a year, which amounted to no less a sum than 40,000 l., exclusive of the salaries of 80 clerks. The plan of paying the judges by allowing them a fee for each cause was too degrading to be entertained for a moment; and therefore their salaries must be paid out of the county-rates.
Lord Althorpsaid, that as the opinion of the hon. and learned member was unfavourable to the bill, he feared there was little chance of its ultimate success; but he would press it to a second reading, in the hope that he should be able to alter the bill so as to render it free from objection.
The bill was read a second time.