Sitting of 27 February 1824

CONDUCT OF Mr. CHETWYND, A MEMBER—CASE OF CHARLES FLINT.
Mr. Denmanrose to present a Petition, which he deemed to be one of very considerable importance, especially when he considered the vast powers which had been conferred on magistrates by a late act of parliament. The petition was from a Mr. Charles Flint, complaining of the conduct of a magistrate of the county of Stafford, acting as chairman of the court of Quarter Sessions in that county, who was also a member of that House; and he must say, looking to all the circumstances of the case, that the conduct of that magistrate appeared to call for a considerable degree of inquiry. He had felt it right to communicate to that hon. gentleman (Mr. Chetwynd), the contents of this petition; and, though it was not without pain that he brought forward an imputation on the conduct of any member of that House, he certainly thought that the statements made by the petitioner required to be rebutted by strong circumstances of justification, be-

505
fore the conduct of the hon. member I could be reconciled to what was due from a magistrate of the country, in the correct and impartial discharge of his duties. The petition was of very considerable length, and contained a great variety of allegations, which could not, perhaps, have been compressed into a shorter compass. All these allegations the hon. member opposite had had an opportunity of seeing. Some reflections were cast by the petitioner on the supposed motives of the hon. member, on which he should abstain from making any observation; the facts of the case he should state to the House as briefly as possible. It was a circumstance well known in the county of Stafford, that certain disputes had, for some time, existed respecting the property of sir George Jerningham, a claim having been set up, by a person of the name of Cooke, to the title and estates of that baronet. These disputes had been carried on with considerable asperity in the neighbourhood; one of the tenants of sir George Jerningham had been actually turned out of possession, and an individual named John Wilkes had been put into possession, by virtue of a grant from the opposite party. John Wilkes having obtained possession, a person named Figgin, came shortly after to recover forcible possession, and he (Mr. D.) must say, that the legality of the means by which this was attempted was extremely questionable. The circumstances attending the forcible re-entry took place under the supposed sanction of an Act passed in the first year of the present reign, called the WilfulTrespass act, which, in cases of wanton and malicious trespass, empowered constables, and indeed all other persons, to arrest and imprison the parties supposed to be guilty of such trespass. Now, he did not conceive that it had ever entered into the contemplation of the legislature, that this act could by possibility be applied to cases of disputed right. It could never have been intended by the legislature, that this act should apply to cases where possession had actually been obtained, and where the right of possession could be tried by the ordinary modes of procedure. Mr. Figgin, however, proceeded to recover possession under this act; he took several constables with him, and broke the locks which Wilkes had put on the gates. The constables then took into custody Wilkes, Hammersley, and other persons who were concern-
506
ed with them in obtaining possession. Now this proceeding was, to say the least of it, exceedingly questionable, and the extraordinary construction which had been put on this recent act of parliament, entitled any steps which might be taken to question it to favourable consideration. In consequence of the arrest of these individuals, a number of persons, amounting to three or four hundred, collected round the constables; some strong and indignant expressions were used, but no violence was offered to the constables; ho attempt was made to rescue the prisoners; nor was any assault committed except perhaps in the strict legal sense of the word. Mr. Flint, the petitioner, the legal adviser of Wilkes, and an assistant of his brother, who was an attorney at Uttoxeter in the same county, happened accidentally to be staying at an inn in Stafford on business relating to the corporation, when he heard that his client was being conveyed to prison. Mr. Flint proceeded to the spot, and repeatedly asked the constable to shew his authority. The constable replied that he had his authority in his pocket; but when the man was lodged in gaol, Mr. Flint went to the house of the constable to ascertain this fact, and found that he had no specific warrant for execution, but simply a warrant appointing him as a constable to keep the peace. It appeared from a full and correct report in a provincial newspaper, that there was no attempt whatever to resist the authority of the constable—nothing like personal interference, on the part of Mr. Flint, to rescue his client, or to excite others to rescue him. Even supposing, however, that there had been such a resistance of authority, it was extremely doubtful, under all the circumstances of the case, whether any of the party could be properly convicted of a riot; for if the Trespass-act was, improperly put into execution, they could not have been legally convicted of a riot, for having resisted such an unwarrantable exercise of authority. It appeared, however, that the part which Mr. Flint had taken on this occasion was perfectly unpremeditated; he happened to be at Stafford on business; he heard of the forcible arrest of his client; and, on coming to the spot where the transaction took place, he merely protested against the illegality of the proceedings, and took no part whatever in any acts of violence, if indeed acts of violence were committed by other

507
persons. It certainly appeared to be a case in which the hon. member for Stafford (Mr. Chetwynd), the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, was bound to direct the jury to acquit Mr. Flint, when he was indicted with the other parties for the alleged riot. But instead of taking this course, however, the Chairman had told the Jury, that it did not appear that Mr. Flint was an attorney, although this fact had been admitted by the counsel for the prosecution, and that if he was an attorney, his conduct was not justifiable. He declared, that in his opinion the case was made out equally against all the defendants, and that there was no distinction between the case of Mr. Flint, who had merely come forward to give advice to his client, and the other parties, who had assembled for the purpose of resisting the law. The jury hardly turned round, but almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty against all the defendants [hear! from the Ministerial benches]. This conclusion might naturally be expected, after such a summing-up from the chairman. When sentence was to be pronounced, some more evidence was produced to show that Mr. Flint was engaged in examining the charter of the corporation at the time he was first informed of his client's arrest—a fact which had been admitted by the Chairman in summing up the case to the jury. There were only two justices in court, the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Chetwynd) and a reverend magistrate of the county. It was said, indeed, that the other magistrates were consulted about the sentence, but they were not present, and consequently they must have determined the measure of punishment without any opportunity of judging of the circumstances which might be urged against it. The hon. gentleman opposite, assisted by the reverend divine, came to the resolution, that no distinction ought to be made in the sentence pronounced on all the parties. The attorney who came unexpectedly to his client was to be treated like all the rest; and, accordingly, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and hard labour during the period of his confinement; which hard labour, as the House was aware, meant neither more nor less than that he was to be put to the treadmill among all the felons and malefactors of the worst and most disgusting description. The state of the petitioner's health rendered him a very unfit object for this kind of labour, and it was not until this fact
508
was certified by a surgeon, that the punishment was discontinued. He was sorry to say, that the petitioner owed nothing to the humanity of the visiting magistrates. Another statement made by the petitioner was, that his memorial to the right hon. the secretary of state for the home department, representing the circum stances which required some mitigation of his sentence, had been kept back by the gaoler. He was imprisoned in the month of October, and the memorial did not reach the secretary of state until the end of December. He must own that he felt some degree of surprise, that when a case of this nature reached the Secretary of State's office, no inquiry was made into it. The punishment inflicted upon the prisoner was utterly inconsistent with his situation in life, and the circumstances of the case. It might be proper to state, that this case had excited considerable attention in the county, and that on the 31st of January a meeting of the magistrates of the county had taken place for the purpose of taking the matter into consideration. A full bench of magistrates amounting to ten or twelve, met, and having discussed the matter they resolved not to inquire—not to mitigate the sentence—but to do what the House of Commons had done on a late occasion, when the conduct of ministers with respect to the Spanish question was brought under consideration; namely, to pronounce a panegyric on the conduct of the party accused. This they did without inquiry, and without the means of forming a judgment upon the case; for, with the exception of the rev. divine, not one of them was present when the sentence was pronounced.—It had been suggested to him that, as some proceedings had been instituted in the court of King's-bench by the hon. member for Stafford, this petition should not have been presented, until such proceedings had terminated; but he entertained quite a different opinion. He conceived, that the petitioner had a right to come before the House the very first moment he had an opportunity: and he trusted the House would be of opinion that this summary power of magistrates ought to undergo some consideration, and, if deemed necessary, that a part at least of those powers might be repealed, to prevent such an application of them as had appeared from the statement he had made. But how stood the case? The hon. gentleman had applied to the court of King's-bench for a criminal information against

509
some of the London papers for the publication of these statements, accompanied by some observations which he considered libellous. Accordingly, a rule was granted, which was now pending. The publication in question had taken place at so early a period, that the information might have been moved for on the first day of the term: had that been done, the rule would now either have been made absolute or discharged, and the trial might then have taken place the next spring assizes; but the application had been delayed so long, that the rule could not now be made absolute until the next term, and the trial could not come on until the summer assizes; and, according to this course, the petitioner could not have an opportunity to present his petition until the next session. This statement, he conceived, was a sufficient vindication of the course which had been adopted. And besides, in fact, the question of the newspapers was collateral to the present subject. The statements in those papers, and the observations that accompanied them, might have been as gross and infamous a libel as ever was published, for any thing he knew; but it was ridiculous to suppose, that the hon. gentleman, in answering the allegations in the petition (and that was the only objection that could be set up) would let out the case which he meant to make at the trial. In point of fact, all that could be stated by the hon. gentleman had already appeared when the criminal information was moved for. However, he (Mr. D.) had now done his duty: he had stated all the facts of the case, he hoped accurately, and the result of that statement was this, that the act itself, in the first place, was illegal, for the offence did not come within the Wilful-trespass act; in the next place the resistance was not violent; whatever blame was attached to the conduct of some of the individuals, that by no means applied to another individual who happened accidentally to come to the spot and tendered the best professional advice he was capable of giving to his client. He was quite sure that the House, looking to all the circumstances of the case—considering the condition of the individual, and his situation in life—would be of opinion, that it was a little too hard he should have been sent to the tread-mill amongst common felons. He thought it right, in conclusion, to state, that the petitioner concluded by expressing a hope—"That this gross abuse of
510
magisterial authority would receive the serious animadversions of the House, the only redress which the petitioner could receive, and which alone could be given by the hon. House; and the petitioner further intreated the honourable House to take measures for the prevention of a repetition of so gross an abuse of power, by the revision of an act which had been abused for the purpose of gratifying malignant feelings of prejudice and personal resentments." He should not deal fairly with the hon. gentleman, if he did not state that the petition ascribed to him personal motives for the course he had adopted. One of the causes imputed was, an altercation between the hon. gentleman and the brother of Mr. Flint, who practised as an attorney at Uttoxeter. But he should also state, that Abraham Flint, the brother, had been committed three years ago by the hon. gentleman for an assault upon a female. This assault he represented as very trifling; however, he was sentenced by the hon. gentleman to six months' imprisonment, and fined 100 l. An appeal was subsequently made to the then secretary of state for the home department (lord Sidmouth), containing a statement of the case, and praying for a remission of the fine. However, lord Sidmouth, just at that period, retired from office, and was succeeded by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel), and one of the first acts done by the right hon. gentleman in his new office was, to liberate the prisoner, and remit the fine. Surely that act afforded a strong presumption that the magistrates had exceeded those just bounds which all persons holding such offices should observe Whether the hon. gentleman himself had interfered, he did not know, but whoever did interfere, it was obvious it must have been done from an impression of too great severity in the sentence. One would have thought then, that the former transaction would have suggested moderation in the latter case. He had now gone through all the statements of the case, and he should leave them without further comment, and move for leave to bring up the petition.
Mr. Holme Sumnersaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing the bringing up the petition. Its sole object seemed to be to cast an imputation upon a most excellent and respectable magistrate, and a member of that House. When the House considered the talents and attainments of the

511
hon. and learned gentleman whose character and conduct the petition impugned, they would easily perceive how competent he was to defend himself, and he was confident the hon. gentleman would give a most satisfactory refutation to all the charges contained in the petition. But, it might happen that an individual of less power and inferior talents would be placed in the same situation; and it was not every man, however strongly he might feel, that was able to express himself efficiently; and he contended, that no magistrate should ever be placed in such a situation. The deficiency which he complained of in the present petition was this, that a court of justice was the proper place to apply for redress, and there was no statement in the petition that such an application had been made. If the conduct of the hon. gentleman had been such as the petition represented, there could be no doubt that a criminal information would have been granted by the court of King's-bench, which would have been followed up, if deserving it, with due severity; and he would appeal to gentlemen who discharged the magisterial duties in the different counties—and a most onerous office it was—whether they would continue to act, if they felt themselves constantly liable to be called upon to defend themselves from such charges as these? If justice had been demanded, and the application refused, then the petitioner would have done right in coming to this House; but no allegation of that kind had been made, either in the petition, or in the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman who presented it, and therefore he should oppose the motion for bringing it up.
Mr. Chetwyndthen rose and addressed the House to the following effect, evidently under the influence of very strong feelings—Mr. Speaker; I rise to present my most earnest prayer that the petition, which has just been presented to the House, may be brought up and read; for I should hold myself unworthy ever again to rise to address you—I should consider myself disqualified from ever again sitting on the justice seat—if, upon the ground of any technical informality, I objected to having the Petition received; or if I gave the slightest opposition to the most complete and unrestricted investigation of each and every one of the allegations it contains. I am, Sir, at this moment prepared to go through the details of that petition sentence by sentence; and, if it shall not ap-
512
pear from the facts which I shall state, and which I am happily in a condition to substantiate, that there is not the shadow of a foundation for any, even the smallest portion of those charges, I earnestly implore this House to visit upon my head their most heavy animadversion, even to dismiss me from the House, and to call upon the lord Chancellor to strike my name out of the list of magistrates. I implore the House to hear that petition read, and in the name of justice to hear my answer [loud cheers].
The Attorney-General(sir J. Copley) said, he was anxious to make a few remarks upon this subject, as it had fallen to his lot to be acquainted with some of the facts of the case. And first, he wished to advert to a statement contained in the conclusion of his hon. and learned friend's speech; he meant with respect to Mr. Abraham Flint, the brother of the petitioner. The fact was this: an application was made to lord Sidmouth, in the shape of a petition, to mitigate the sentence which had been passed upon him by his hon. and learned friend the member for Stafford. That petition was supported by the interference of his hon. and learned friend, but, after a perusal of the circumstances of the case, lord Sidmouth had been of opinion, that there were no grounds for a mitigation of the sentence. However, not satisfied with having gone so far, as soon as lord Sidmouth had retired from office, and was succeeded by his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel), so far from any prejudice remaining in the mind of his hon. and learned friend against that individual that he actually renewed his application to the secretary of state, and, on the second occasion, his prayer was attended with success, and his right hon. friend consented to yield to his intreaties. Then, he would boldly ask, what pretence was there for an imputation of undue prejudice in the mind of his hon. friend, against the present petitioner, or against any member of his family? Did not his own conduct furnish the best refutation [cheers]? Now, with respect to the present charge what were the facts? An individual was supposed to be guilty of a violation of the law, and having been arrested by a constable, an immense crowd of people assemble to the number of four or five hundred, for the purpose of rescuing him from the constituted authorities. He hoped the House would not be led away by the ex parte statements of the petitioner; for

513
he must inform them, that the magistrates who sat upon the bench on that occasion, had had an opportunity in the court of King's-bench, of contradicting these statements, and that it had been done in the most satisfactory manner upon the affidavits of his hon. and learned friend, and of the reverend clergyman who presided along with him and several others. This man Flint was one of the party who had endeavoured to effect the rescue. Now, it was stated in the petition, that the magistrates had refused to bind these parties over to the Quarter Sessions; but this the magistrates had denied on oath, and declared to be untrue. Again, another important assertion was contained in the petition, although his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Denman) had not thought proper to advert to it. It was this, that although originally there was no intention to indict Flint, his hon. friend (Mr. Chetwynd), who was himself afterwards to sit upon the cause, had interposed to procure an indictment to be preferred against him [hear, hear!]. This base and libellous allegation his hon. friend had contradicted upon oath; and it was further contradicted by the gentleman who assisted in managing the business of sir G. Jerningham. If, then, he opposed the bringing up this petition, it was because the petitioner had ventured to calumniate a member of that House, and a magistrate, upon charges which had not even the shadow of a foundation [cheers]. What, in reality, were the facts of the case? An indictment was preferred against certain individuals, and the case came to be tried before a jury; when the evidence had been gone through, his hon. and learned friend who presided, read over every word of it to the jury most carefully. Was the individual unassisted? No; he was supported by the advice and talents of counsel; and, after a considerable length of time, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. It had been said, that his learned friend in his summing-up had stated the law improperly; but, were the House to believe this on the bare, unsupported statement of the accused and convicted party. Mr. Clair, the other magistrate, had stated, that he had approved every act done by his hon. friend who presided. Then, the next step upon which an accusation was founded was the sentence which was pronounced. Let it be recollected, that these arties were convicted of a riot. But, did his hon. friend act upon his own judgment?
514
No; Mr. Clair sat in conjunction with him. But, even they did not rest upon their own judgment; they applied for assistance to the other magistrates who were in attendance, one of whom his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Denman) very well knew—he meant sir Oswald Moseley—and they were unanimously of opinion, that the judgment had been most correct and proper [hear, hear!]. Then, surely, if his hon. friend deserved censure, all the others were equally censurable. So far then for the trial, the charge, and the judgment. The next point to which his hon. and learned friend had alluded was, the hard labour to which this individual had been consigned. His hon. and learned friend had talked of his punishment at the tread-mill for three months. But, to shew how false this statement was of harsh treatment, he was prepared to prove, on the representation of the individual himself, that he had been only on the treadmill for five hours [cheers].
Mr. Denman.—Do you mean for five hours in all?
The Attorney General.—Yes; for five hours altogether. He was subsequently employed in carding and spinning wool, and, on a further representation from the individual, he was allowed to remain entirely idle. As to his having been shut up for forty days, and deprived of any intercourse, and of his being allowed nothing but bread and water—points which were contained in the petition—as his hon. and learned friend had not touched upon them, he should say nothing; but he would just put the matter to the House in this way. In consequence of the publication of statements in the London papers, similar to those in the petition, his hon. friend (Mr. Chetwynd) had moved for and obtained a criminal information, in the court of King's-bench; his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Denman) had stated, that there were some observations upon the statements, which also formed a ground for the application. Whether this were the case or not, he was not prepared to say; but the main charge was the statement which was now repeated in the petition. The House were aware, that the court of King's-bench never granted a criminal information, until all the facts were disproved upon oath; so that all the material allegations had been contradicted upon affidavit by his hon. friend, by Mr. Clair, by the agent of sir G. Jerningham, by the task-master of the prison,

515
and, in fact, by all who were in a condition to give a direct negative to the charges [cheers!]. The reason why any delay had taken place in the court of King's-bench was, because the defendants themselves had applied to the Court to allow the case to stand over till the next term, in order that they might be prepared with matter to answer the opposite side; so that the charge of delay did not attach to his hon. friend. He certainly thought, as had been anticipated by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Denman), that it would have been more proper to have postponed the presenting of this petition until after the question had been investigated in a court of law, in that manner alone in which it could be fairly investigated; unless it was supposed by the petitioner, that an ex parte statement in this House would have injured the case of his hon. friend. The consequence to the petitioner would be, that if every one of his statements were false, no legal responsibility would fall upon his head; whereas, if he had made false representations on oath in a court of law, he would have been liable to a prosecution for perjury. Upon all the grounds which he stated, he should most certainly oppose the bringing up the petition.
The Solicitor General(Mr. Wetherell) said, that putting out of consideration for the moment, the talents and character, and gratuitous services of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Stafford, he should contend, that no magistrate in the country ought to be left at the mercy of such a petition as that which had been offered to the House. Three courses were open to the petitioner; the one was, to move for a criminal information against his hon. and learned friend; the second was, a petition to the great seal; and the next, an application to the lord-lieutenant of the county. But, instead of this, the petitioner had called upon the House to form itself into a court of criminal jurisprudence, which they were not competent to do; and, if the House should resolve to entertain this petition, they would knock out of the lists all the ordinary and constitutional modes of redress. Until he was satisfied that all the ordinary means had been resorted to, he should not consent to the receiving this petition. His hon. and learned friend had called upon the House for an opportunity of vindicating his character; but, would the
516
House allow that? He had not the slightest doubt that his hon. friend would be able to prove that every line of the petition was a most base and scandalous calumny. But, would the House allow him to be put upon his trial? If a magistrate had been accused, who was not a member of that House, there would be neither law nor precedent for adopting the course which the petitioner had pursued. Why, then, should it be different, because the individual was a member of the House of Commons? It did so happen, that an hon. member of that House was accused, who had talents and abilities to defend himself, and who had sufficient spirit and honour to stand up in his place, and demand inquiry. But, it was the duty of the House to say, "You shall not be put upon your trial; for, according to the constitution, you cannot be tried" [cheers!].
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that on the subject of the presentation of the petition, or the propriety of receiving it, he should not say one word; for, in that respect, he felt himself somewhat in the situation of his hon. friend, the member for Stafford, inasmuch as the exercise of his judgment had been called in question. But, if an inquiry were to be set on foot, and he were called upon to account for the reasons why he had abstained from advising the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy, then he should endeavour to give a satisfactory explanation of his decision. There were three points upon which blame was attributed to him in his official capacity; the first was, the nature of the inquiry which he had instituted; the next was, the delay in commencing it; and the third was, his not having advised the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy. With respect to the two first, he should endeavour to give a satisfactory explanation. On the last, he should be silent; because it would be impossible to explain the various motives that would induce one to abstain from giving such advice without going into a full detail of the particulars of the case. The two preliminary points, as to the nature of the inquiry and the delay, he should proceed to explain, and from that explanation, the House would draw an inference as to the propriety of the other. The first case was that of Abraham Flint: and it had been very justly stated, that his first act on his

517
coming into office was, to advise the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy in the case of that individual. He held in his hand a letter which he had received on the subject from his hon. friend (Mr. Chetwynd). It appeared, that after the conviction of Abraham Flint, it happened, that, upon the trial of another individual, an accidental circumstance had occurred, which materially affected the credibility of one of the witnesses who had deposed against him; and immediately upon the discovery of this fact, he received from his hon. friend a letter, containing these words: "I now feel fully justified in imploring the royal mercy for the liberation of this unfortunate man: he is at present suffering most severely; his family are in the greatest distress; and I earnestly entreat your earliest attention to his case." And this is the individual who is supposed to be influenced by undue prejudices against the family of the petitioner [cheers!]. Now for the question of delay. That letter was dated, Lichfield, January 29, 1822; and upon the back of that letter, he found written the words, "Immediate—to be complied with;" and on the 1st of February, Abraham Flint was accordingly liberated. But to come to the subject of the present petition. This man was convicted in the month of October, and he had no means of knowing, as the House would suppose, that any such conviction had taken place; and, in fact, it was not until the December following, that he had received the least knowledge either of his trial or conviction. And really he thought it was a little too hard that he should be accused of delay under such circumstances and before the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Denman) had made up his mind to impute to him any unnecessary delay in the discharge of his official duties, he ought, at least, to have taken some pains to make himself acquainted with the real circumstances of the case.
Mr. Denmansaid, he had been quite misunderstood. He did not of himself impute any delay to the right hon. gentleman: he had merely stated, that one of the allegations contained in the petition was, that the memorial had been detained for a considerable time, he had expressed no surprise, nor made any complaint, and for this reason, that he did not know at what date the memorial had reached the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Peel,in continuation, said, that on the 6th of December he received the first communication on the subject, and that was contained in a letter from Mr. Tooke, the law-agent of Mr. Flint, and he requested that he might have an opportunity of stating the circumstances of the case to the secretary of state. He was not at all aware of any such trial having taken place, until the receipt of this intimation, and accordingly he sent back an answer to Mr. Tooke, stating, "That if it would be any satisfaction to Mr. Tooke to see Mr. Peel on the subject of Flint's case, he should be ready to receive any communication. But it was Mr. Peel's invariable course not to act upon a statement in any criminal case, that was not communicated in writing." Any one at all acquainted with proceedings in criminal cases, would at once perceive the policy of this rule. Upon the 6th of December he received the first intimation of the transaction, and he immediately applied for information; and on the 17th of the same month he received the answer; so that the period that had elapsed between the 6th and 17th of December was all the delay that had been complained of. Then, with respect to the nature of the inquiry, he in the first instance applied to his hon. friend (Mr. Chetwynd), and he should be ashamed, if, while he professed to repose confidence in him, he had applied to any other. His hon. friend was not content with sending back a short and immediate answer, but had entered into a detail of all the evidence, and had sent besides a literal transcript of the charge which he had delivered to the jury, and had concluded, by requesting him (Mr. Peel) to judge for himself what course he should pursue. It was not his intention to enter into an explanation of the course which he did adopt; he should content himself by stating, that he felt quite satisfied that the sentence was a just and lenient one, and that he would have acted imprudently if he had advised the Crown to interpose the royal prerogative.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that notwithstanding all that had been offered, he could not forbear from making a few remarks. It appeared to him, that the charges were wholly without foundation; for he believed, in the administration of justice, or in the performance of the other magisterial duties, a more scrupulous magistrate did not exist than his hon. friend. He

519
could not conceal his surprise at the manner in which the hon. and learned member had introduced to the notice of the House what he was pleased to call the allegations in the petition which he held in his hands. He would appeal to their recollection, whether the hon. and learned member did not appear to identify himself with the case of the petitioner [No, no, from many members]. The magistrates, he could take upon himself to say, after the fullest inquiry, had conducted the examination of witnesses, and the whole proceedings of the trial in the fairest way. They had been most solicitous to put themselves in possession of the actual state of the facts; and the universal conviction of all was, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Stafford, had conducted himself, as was to be expected from his high character, in the most impartial and judicious manner. He had himself received a communication from Mr. Clair, a magistrate of the county, who sat on the bench with the hon. member for Stafford, requesting him to say, that if any blame attached to the chairman of the Quarter Sessions, he was ready to take his full share of responsibility; and that if it was deserving of censure, which he denied, it must equally attach to himself. There was another magistrate also present, who had expressed the fullest approbation of the conduct of his hon. friend; he meant sir Oswald Mosely; and he did expect that the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would repose confidence in an opinion proceeding from that most upright and conscientious authority. It was most true, that the petitioner, with five other persons, were convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour. Undoubtedly, the other individuals convicted with the petitioner were in the humblest walks of life—they were tailors, shoemakers, or such like description of persons; but, would it be contended, that a difference was to be made in the punishment of the persons so convicted, on the ground of any difference in their respective stations of life? Surely, that House would never recognise the principle, that there was one law for the poor, and another for the rich! The truth was, that by certain proceedings the county had been much agitated, and it became the duty of the magistrates to prove that the law could not be violated with impunity.
Mr. Sturges Bournesaid, he could not
520
consent to allow the petition to be brought up. His objection was this, that the hon. and learned member alleged no corruption to the magistrates. If the petition did allege corruption, then this was not the proper tribunal for the appeal. The court of King's-bench was the court to which the petitioner ought to have taken his complaint. The gravamen of the charge was not against the summary nature and arbitrary conduct of the jurisdiction, but against the finding of the jury; a matter upon which the House could not erect itself into a tribunal of appeal.
Mr. Humedeprecated any decision on the part of the House, which would go to shut its doors against the complaints of the people. If he understood his hon. and learned friend who presented the petition rightly, the petitioner was ready to verify the truth of his allegations, not only on his own oath, but by the testimony of other witnesses. Recollecting that such was the statement of his hon. and learned friend, he could not but consider him rather hardly dealt with, when hon. members imputed to him the attempt to identify himself with the petition. He knew nothing of the particulars of the petition, but from the spirit with which it was met, there appeared something like a grudge, which excited in his mind a degree of suspicion. Let, however, the complaint be received; let the petitioner at least be allowed to lay his statement on the table, and then, if an investigation should take place, the merits of the case would be understood. This would be acting upon the principle of justice to all parties. But, at all events, there was this higher question; namely, that the doors of the House of Commons ought to be thrown open to the petitions of the people.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, he had signed the resolution of the magistrates passed in approbation of the conduct of the chairman and concurred in every thing that had been advanced by the Attorney-general upon the same subject. He had, however, made one reservation, which had not been strictly observed; namely, that the resolution should not be directly published. His reason for thinking it unfit for present publication was, that the conduct of his worthy and excellent friend, the chairman, had been attacked in one of the public Journals, the British Press, in a manner which he would not stigmatize with any particular epithets

521
at present, because it was likely to become the subject of judicial decision: he would only say, that the attack was such as no person of honour and sound feeling could suffer to pass, without calling for the decision of a court of justice upon his conduct. He could not accede to withdrawing the petition, because the conduct of the magistrates, which he thought unimpeachable, was concerned too deeply in the decision; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that in the whole kingdom there did not exist a more temperate, feeling, or impartial magistracy, than that in the county of Stafford.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, he had listened with great attention to all that had been offered by hon. members against the reception of the petition. The hon. member for Surrey had opposed it, on the ground of the hardships to which the magistracy of the country who were not orators and rhetoricians, or so well able to defend themselves as the hon. member for Stafford, would be exposed, if petitions of the character of the present, were received by that House. The learned Attorney-general had opposed the reception, because he denied the truth of its allegations. The hon. member himself, whose conduct was attacked, with a feeling that was highly creditable to him, had expressed a solicitude to have the whole proceedings inquired into. He knew nothing of the particulars, but after such an avowal by the hon. member for Stafford, he considered the conduct of his friends at least injudicious. The new tone assumed that night, in speaking of the petitions of the people, ought to be met in the commencement with reprehension. Were the doors of the House of Commons to be closed against the people of England? If he stood alone he should divide the House against such an attempt.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that ever since the House of Commons had been a house of Commons one uniform custom had prevailed with reference to the receiving of petitions. No member, it was held, was justified in presenting a petition, unless he was prepared to pledge himself to the truth of its allegations [No no, from the Opposition]. No individual, he would repeat, had a right to make the access to that House a matter of convenience for himself in attacking the character of magistrates and others. The members of that House were bound to present no pe-
522
tition that was disrespectful [hear, hear! from the Opposition]. It would be a safer and wiser course for hon. members to wait until they heard the end of the sentence. If the hon. member who was accused was not present; if he had no advocates in that House, and was himself not a member, still he (Mr. Wynn) should have opposed receiving a petition, complaining of a judicial proceeding before a competent tribunal. If any abuse or malversation existed, the constitution, in such cases, provided a legal remedy. It was stated by the hon. and learned gentleman who presented the petition, that the petitioner imputed corrupt motives. Under such circumstances, his means of redress were through an application to the court of King's-bench.
Mr. Brightsaid, he had not a single doubt of the truth of all that had been urged in defence of the conduct of his excellent and very worthy friend, the member for Stafford, but, throwing aside all personal feeling and consideration, he called upon the House and especially upon the country gentlemen present, to reflect deeply how far the conduct recommended with regard to this petition agreed with the right of the people to present petitions to parliament, which right was secured to them by the great charter. He would assent to the withdrawing of the petition, but not to the opposition made to bringing it up. He never would consent to so dangerous ah encroachment on the people's rights. Were they really prepared to say, that because a magistrate happened to be a member of that House, the House would not hear any petition accusing him of malversation? The right hon. gentleman said, that a member presenting a petition, was bound to take care that there was nothing disrespectful to the House in it. But, would any one say that a petition was disrespectful to the House, which sought the interference of the House in a case of alleged oppression? For what purpose did they sit there, if not to listen to the complaints of the people? It was said, that the complaint in the petition, if true, was matter tryable by the ordinary jurisdictions. He allowed that that might be the more proper course: but it was one thing to deny the truth of a petition or the propriety of its appeal, and another to refuse to hear it. It did not fellow that they must adopt its suggestions, or that a member might not be prepared to

523
refute the allegations in it, or that the House would not throw it out. But, how could they know the merits of its contents without first hearing it? Some said that it ought not to be entertained or received, because it was an appeal from the common jurisdictions, for which there was remedy in the courts of law. Now he understood that a part of the prayer of the petition was to alter an oppressive law. The petitioner complained, that he had suffered under the oppression of that law. Would the. House, then, refuse to hear him, because he asked of them to repeal that oppression? The allegations might be true or false; but he offered grounds for his complaints, and petitioned for a remedy. All that was required in the first instance, was for the House to listen. It was an appeal, not to their judicial, but to their legislative functions. To refuse leave to bring the petition up would be oppressive. His own wish was, that his hon. and learned friend should withdraw the petition under the peculiar cicumstances of the case; but, if the presenting of it were pressed, he trusted that the country gentlemen and all the other members would recollect that, in defending the great constitutional right of petition, they were best securing their own rights and interests.
Mr. Canningexpressed a desire to know, whether it was the intention of the hon. and learned gentleman to withdraw the petition or not?
Mr. Denmansaid, he could not give a positive answer, as he understood that an hon. friend would not consent to its being withdrawn.
Mr. Canningsaid, that his wish was that the petition should be withdrawn. If it were not, he must oppose its being brought up, simply on the ground, that it prayed for that which it was impossible for the House to grant, namely, that it would reconsider and reverse the verdict of a jury.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the hon. and learned member seemed to be displeased with him for not reversing the sentence of the Quarter Sessions. With regard to his own individual feelings, he could have no objection to the adoption of that course by the petitioner, with a view to a revision of the case; and if the petition were withdrawn, the case would stand just as favourably as before for that purpose.
Mr. S. Wortleyentreated his hon. friend the member for Surry, not to per-
524
sist in his opposition to the withdrawing the petition.
Mr. Sumnerconsidered the petition a gross abuse of the privilege of the House, and could not yield to the wishes of those who expressed a desire to allow it to be withdrawn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it appeared to him that the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Surry would apply, if the hon. and learned gentleman persisted in pressing the House to receive the petition, but it had no application if the hon. and learned gentleman wished to withdraw it.
Mr. Denmanobserved, that although he knew he had no right to reply, yet as he had had so large a share in this business, he trusted the House would allow him to say a few words. It had been supposed by some hon. gentleman, that he had mixed himself too much up with the merits of the petition. Now, the truth was, that he had not offered any opinion whatever on the disputed facts. But those who made that assertion, seemed to forget that the strongest part of the impression made against the petition, consisted of a number of allegations by the hon. and learned attorney-general, who had acted as counsel for the hon. member for Stafford; and yet the House would not listen to the original allegations against which that counter-statement was made. It was very possible that the allegations of the petition were false; but that was no reason for refusing to receive it. It was enough that the petitioner felt himself aggrieved. If his petition was couched in respectful language towards the House, and distinctly stated the grievance of which he complained, he (Mr. D.) conceived, that any member was bound in duty to present it. He did not mean that the serjeant-at-arms might run after him and insist on his doing so; but he was bound in the ordinary acceptation of the term. According to some hon. gentlemen, however, a petitioner, in such a case as the present, was bound rather to make an application to the lord-lieutenant of the county, and then to the court of chancery, to wait at the door there until all the appeals from other courts, the bankrupt causes, the chancery suits, &c, were disposed of, in order that the lord chancellor might then, perhaps, have leisure to examine whether the magistrate complained of ought to be struck out of the commission. Was not the ship-money case a grievance? yet

525
it was the result of a trial. Possibly, too, the decision of the Judges on that case might have been perfectly legal; yet the House of Commons, of that day, willingly received such petitions: and he maintained that unless the House of Commons, of the present day, received such petitions, as that which he had presented, they would abandon one of the most valuable of their functions. It had been put to him personally, as sometimes presiding in a court of justice, whether he would like to have his decisions petitioned against to that House. He hoped that neither himself nor any other magistrate in the House would wish to escape an appeal to that House, if it were even supposed that he had acted illegally. In the present case, the Trespass act had been improperly put in force, and the punishment had been excessive and oppressive. He recollected an instance in which his own conduct had been pretty sharply arraigned in that House. Indeed, he trusted that, from the highest to the lowest judicial characters in the country, there was not one who was not amenable to the House of Commons for his conduct. Under all the circumstances of the case, however, and seeing the temper of the House upon it, he was disposed to withdraw the petition, dreading lest a majority of that House should establish, by their vote, that such a petition ought not to be brought up, although they had not heard it read, and could not, therefore, be aware of its contents. Whatever became of the petition, he was convinced that the discussion which had taken place would do good.
The petition was then withdrawn.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Sir H. Hardingerose for the purpose of moving the Ordnance Estimates. He' observed, that he was not disposed to trouble the committee with any preliminary remarks on estimates, which, he trusted, would speak for themselves. Without any further preface, therefore, he would endeavour to give as clear an idea as possible of the subject, to which it was his duty to call the attention of the committee." That subject divided itself into three distinct heads—Ordnance, Barracks, and Commissariat of stores. And first, with respect to the Ordnance. The sum which it was proposed to vote this year for Ordnance was 978,342 l.;
526
being 91,658 l. less than the sum voted last year; namely, 1,070,000 l. But, from that apparent diminution must be deducted 24,000 l.; being the expense of the Ordnance Barracks in Great Britain and Ireland, which, since last year, had been transferred from the Ordnance Estimates to the Barrack branch of the department. The real diminution, therefore, of the Ordnance this year, as compared with last year, was 67,658 l. The items under the general head of Ordnance were as follow:—In the ordinary expenses of the Ordnance there had been a diminution of 15,588 l., consisting, among other items, of a reduction of about 6,000 l. in the civil establishments at the Tower and Pall-mall; a reduction of above 1,500 l. in the expense of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich; a reduction of 3,000 l. in the Medical Establishment, &c. In the extraordinary expenses of the Ordnance there was the great diminution of 54,940 l. This, in a great measure, arose from a diminution of expense in the repair of works and buildings in the Engineer department. Although this was very satisfactory as far as it went, yet he could not hope that the reduction would be a permanent one; for, during the last year, the repairs had been so small, that what was absolutely requisite had scarcely been done; so that this sum must be considered as a suspension rather than a reduction of expense. There was a saving of 5,000 l. in the Storekeeper's department; 6,000 l. less than last year had been expended in Stores; and 1,500 l. less in small arms. The Ordnance unprovided services amounted only to 1,090 l.; being 9,572 l. less than the amount last year, namely, 10,662 l. For the small amount of the Ordnance unprovided services in the present year the public were indebted to the new mode of keeping short accounts, introduced by the master-general. This was the more desirable, as considerable jealousy had always been shown in the House, with reference to this particular estimate. These three items, the Ordinary, the Extraordinaries, and the Unprovided, closed the charges for the effective part of the Ordnance in England. The expense of the effective part of the Ordnance for Ireland was 89,768 l., being 10,465 l. less than that of last year, namely 100,233 l. The total charge of the effective part of the Ordnance for Great Britain and Ireland amounted to 757,662 l. being 60,565 l. less than the expense last

527
year, namely, 848,227 l. This sum of 757,662 l. by the deduction of 141,432 l. on account of rents, sales of old stores, savings, and unexpended sums of former grants, in England and Ireland, would be made 616,230 l. To this were to be added three further items. The Military Superannuated 312,572 l., being 5,580 l. less than the charge last year; namely, 318,152 l.—a diminution principally attributable to the reduction of twenty-four ordnance barracks. The Civil Superannuated 48,140 l.; being 1,935 l. less than the charge last year, namely, 50,075 l. In this department, a great reduction had been effected by the Master-general of the Ordnance; 230 clerks having been reduced. By that reduction, the labour of those who remained had been greatly increased; still the old allowances and gratuities were diminished. By these means a great saving had been effected. The last item was the Exchequer fees, 1,400 l., being 66 l. less than they were last year; namely, 1,466 l. If all these items were added together, it would appear, that the gross sum which it was proposed to vote for the Ordnance for the service of the year 1824, was 1,410,044 l.
The next portion of the estimates to which he would draw the attention of the committee, consisted of the Barrack estimates. In these estimates, although there appeared to be an excess beyond the last year, there was in fact, a small diminution. The sum which it was proposed to vote was 114,531 l.; that voted last year, was 100,000 l.; being an apparent increase of 14,531 l. It must be recollected, however, that the ordnance barracks, the charge for which in Great Britain was 19,000 l. had been transferred to this department; so that in fact, the expense was less by 4,500 l. than last year. This reduction had been principally effected by the abolition of 11 barrack stations. During the war, there were barracks for 167,000 men; but they were now reduced to barracks for 42,000 men; being a reduction of barracks for 125,000 men. The expense of the barracks during the war, was 620,000 l.; the present charge was 121,614 l.; being a diminution of nearly half a million. The other items of the barrack estimates were, 14,736 l. for pensions and allowances, being 406 l. less than the sum voted last year, namely, 15,142 l., and 181 l. for Exchequer fees. The deductions for savings, condemned stores, rents of canteens, &c. was 22,000 l. being
528
a credit of 4,000 l. more than that of last year, which was only 18,000 l. The result of the whole of the Barrack estimates for Great Britain was, as he had already stated, the proposed vote for 114,531 l. The vote which it was intended to propose for the barracks in Ireland was 134,376 l.; being an apparent increase of 23,258 l. upon the charge of last year, namely, 111,118 l. If, however, they deducted the 5,000 l. of expense which resulted from the transfer of the ordnance barracks to this department, it would appear, that the real excess was little more than 18,000 l. The cause of this increased expense had been the extensive repairs which the barracks in Ireland had undergone. During the last summer a commission of inspection, composed of engineer officers of great skill and experience, had visited the various barrack stations in that country; and it was in consequence of their report, that the repairs to which he had alluded had been undertaken. A considerable reduction had, however, been made in the number of barracks in Ireland since the war. During the war, there were barracks for 80,000 men in Ireland. Now, there were barracks only for 36,000 men; to which, however, were to be added 3,000 in small houses. The total charge of the barrack department for Great Britain and Ireland, for the present year, was 248,907 l.; that for the last year was 211,118 l.; being an increase of 37,789 l.; for which, however, he trusted he had satisfactorily accounted.
He now came to the last head of charge; the Commissariat of stores. The sum which it was proposed to vote for the Commissariat of stores was 182,795 l.; being 90,717 l. more than the sum voted last year, namely, 92,078 l. This increase arose from various causes, which he trusted the committee would sanction with their approbation. One of these additional items was the sum of 24,000 l. for the expense of 12,000 single iron bedsteads, including new bedding, and the alteration of bedding in store from double to single. At present, and during the war, the soldiers in barracks both in England and in Ireland, were in double births. To continue such a system during peace, however, was not thought desirable; and it was for the purpose of affording to every soldier decent accommodation, that these single iron bedsteads had been procured. These bedsteads were placed on stages, composed of boards; so that five

529
soldiers slept one above another. The next item by which the increase had been produced in the Commissariat of stores, was above 40,000 l. for stores, not used for military purposes. They were principally for the convicts in New South "Wales, for Sierra Leone, and for other colonial purposes; and the issue of them was sanctioned by the Treasury. These two items of beds and stores sufficiently accounted for a large portion of the excess of expense in the Commissariat of stores branch of the Ordnance. Having thus gone through the various divisions of the estimates, he would not trespass longer upon the patience of the committee, but would conclude by moving his first resolution, viz—"That the sum of 47,233 l. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the salaries to the master-general, and the principal officers, and the salaries, and increased salaries for length of service, to clerks, and attendants belonging to the office of Ordnance, and employed at the Tower and Pall Mall, for the year 1824."
Mr. Humeobserved, that he must do the hon. and gallant officer the justice to say, that in many respects the Ordnance estimates of the present year were much superior, in point of arrangement, to any that had heretofore been prepared. Whatever difference of opinion there might be with respect to the amount of those estimates, whoever looked at them would immediately find himself capable of comprehending all the items and charges without the slightest difficulty. In that respect certainly great progress had been made in improvement, and so far much good had been secured to the public. He thought, however, he could very clearly prove to the committee, that the reduction which had taken place in the expenses of the Ordnance, was by no means so great as they had a right to expect. The committee of Finance, in the year 1817, had given what might be considered an approximation to what they considered was the reduction to be justly expected at certain periods, in every department of the public service. He held in his hand an abstract of the respective amount of the Ordnance estimates voted since the year 1817; and the committee would, perhaps, be surprised to learn, that the grant in 1819 (exclusive of the unprovided services) amounted only to 1,191,905 l.; while the grant for the present year (with the same exclusion) was 1,118,684 l. From the hon. and gallant
530
officer's statement, the committee would naturally have been induced to believe that a much larger reduction had been effected. With regard to the old stores, &c, he had always contended, that they ought not to be brought to this account. Why not follow, with regard to the Ordnance, the same course as that which was pursued with respect to the navy? The introduction of these old stores perplexed those who wished to make an accurate comparison of the different expense of the Ordnance in different years. In 1821, the amount of the ordinary and extraordinary expenses of the Ordnance was 1,326,999 l.; but, 232,000 l. being deducted for old stores, the actual vole was only 1,094,999 l. In the following year the amount of the ordinary and extraordinary expenses of the Ordnance was 1,244,000 l.; but as only 44,000 l. was deducted for old stores, the actual vote was 1,200,000 l.; being considerably more than that of the preceding year; although the real expenditure was considerably less. This showed the artificial inequality which this article of old stores produced, and which embarrassed any one who wished to make a fair comparison between the actual expenditure of different years. The estimate of 1819 (including the unprovided services) was 1,212,000 l.; that of the present year (including the same) was 1,119,774 l.; so that it appeared the Ordnance estimates of the present year were only 92,026 l. less than the Ordnance estimates of the year 1819. He freely confesssed, that if we were to keep up our present preposterous military establishment, the Ordnance ought to be in a fair proportion to it; but, looking at the charge for the Ordnance in comparison with the charge for former years, it was greatly too much. The committee would, be very much surprised to find, that the proposed grant for the Ordnance estimates of the present year was three times as great as that of his golden era, the year 1792. Now, were the circumstances of the country such as to warrant this profusion? He would read to the committee a comparative statement of the Ordnance estimates laid before parliament in various different years. In 1792, they amounted to 444,001 l.; in 1817, to 1,284,035 l.; in 1819, to 1,212,000 l.; in 1821,to 1,326.999 l. in 1822, to 1,214,000 l.; in 1823, to 1,217,920 l.; and now, in the present year, to 1,119,774 l.; being only about 92,000 l. less than last year. He begged to ask

531
whether, after the report of the military commission, the House was not warranted in calling upon ministers to attend to its suggestions, and to reduce the charge of the civil establishment, for which no less a sum than 47,233 l. was now to be voted. On former occasions, he had called upon the committee to refuse more than was thought necessary in 1796; but no measures had been yet taken to accomplish that object, by uniting the two establishments in Pall-mall and at the Tower, whereby alone a saving of between 17,000 l. and 18,000 l. annually might be effected. On this point ministers had shewn more than a usual degree of pertinacity. It might be remembered, that last year he had proposed to abolish the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, and the secretary at war had taken occasion to declare, that the business of the department could not go on without him; that his personal assistance at the Tower was absolutely necessary, and a great deal more, in order to shew that he could scarcely be spared for a single day. Now what had been the fact since that declaration? That high officer, whose duties were so important that his personal presence could not be dispensed with scarcely for a single day, had actually been absent not merely from London, but from England, during a large portion of the past year; he had taken up his residence in Portugal, and there he continued until the present moment. He (Mr. H.) had indeed understood, within a week or ten days, that a new lieutenant-general had been appointed. Whether such were or were not the fact, he did not know; but, if lord Beresford had recently resigned, the present seemed the most proper occasion that could be afforded, for considering the fitness of abolishing the place he had held. It was not to be disputed that he had been for several months together in Portugal; and he wished to be informed whether, during his absence, the business of his department had stood still; or whether it had proceeded in the usual way, just as if he had been upon the spot to lend his most important assistance? If the latter were true, it would only shew that he had been perfectly correct in saying, last year, that the office of lieutenant-general might be abolished, without the slightest injury, to the public service. Experience, therefore, had shewn that he was right, and he called upon the committee to support him in the amendment
532
he was now about to propose, being equally satisfied that it would turn out, in the end, to be well warranted. The military commissioners recommended, that the two establishments of Pall-mall and the Tower should be incorporated; but even separate as they were, what did the House think they had cost the country in 1796, the fourth year of war? The finance committee had reported the sum to be 15,500 l.; but to prevent mistakes he had moved for the official return, by which it appeared, that, with some extra clerks, the charge for the Ordnance department, in 1796, was precisely 18,700 l. What was the charge now, after a long established peace? 47,000 l. The disproportion was enormous. If the country were ten times as rich as it was, and the national debt only one fourth its present amount, such an augmentation could not be justified. Did it appear that any thing was neglected in 1796? On the contrary, the whole department was conducted with as much regularity as at the present moment It was remarkable, that the present was the first occasion on which it had been said by ministers, that the estimates were reduced to the lowest possible amount; and it therefore became the committee, since the charge was now to be permanent, to take the utmost care that it did not exceed the proper bounds. He was willing to allow 36,000 l.—twice the sum voted in 1796. All beyond was unreasonable and needless. If the committee would consent to an amendment to this effect, he would venture to predict, that the whole establishment would be re-modelled in less than a week; and until something of this sort were done, which would trench upon head quarters, no change for the public benefit could be expected. He freely admitted, that he did not consider the clerk of the Ordnance overpaid; but the office of principal storekeeper was wholly useless, and had been so reported by the commissioners. There always existed a strong desire to raise charges, but never a disposition to reduce them; as an instance of this he might refer to the price of admission to see the armoury in the Tower. The fee which, in 1806 was only 1s. was raised suddenly by colonel M'Mahon to 2s. for the entrance of each person; so it had continued, and nearly 1,800 l. annually were paid to the principal store-keeper from this source. The whole sum received yearly on this account might be calculated at 4,000 l.,

533
and 14 s. out of every pound belonged to the principal store-keeper; the remaining 6s. were divided among the inferior attendants. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving by way of amendment, "That instead of the sum of 47,000 l. only 37,000 l. be granted," which would allow for the expenses of the civil establishment of the Ordnance more than double the amount voted in 1796.
Sir H. Hardingethought, that the reduction in the number of the clerks in Pall-mall, and at the Tower, had been quite as great as the quantity of public business would allow. In 1818, the number of clerks was 187, since which time no less than 26 had been removed, although the barrack and commissariat departments had both been transferred to the Ordnance. As to the objection made by the hon. member respecting the old stores, he begged to point out that this was the mode particularly recommended by the military finance committee, and had been adopted in consequence of that recommendation. With respect to the absence of the Lieutenant-general, he could assure the committee that, although the noble lord had been unavoidably absent on private business, the conduct of the Board of Ordnance had been perfectly justifiable. It was well known, that lord Beresford had been connected with the Portuguese Government, and had commanded the Portuguese army. For some time he was separated from it, and on his return from Rio Janeiro, he was not allowed to land at Lisbon. He came to England, and when a favourable opportunity offered, he applied to be allowed to return to Portugal. He went thither in the beginning of October, and about the end of November, the Master-general of the Ordnance wrote to lord Beresford, stating that it would be exceedingly desirable that he should return before the end of December, because the duties of the Lieutenant-general pressed very heavily upon the Master-general, and other members of the Board. Lord Beresford had written back, that he could not arrange his private affairs so soon, and therefore that he must resign. Upon him, therefore, there did not rest the slightest imputation. The duties of his office might be considered in a two-fold light: first it was the business of the Lieutenant-general to act in the absence of the Master-general; and secondly, he had to discharge his own functions as a Board Offi-
534
cer. The Master-general never having been absent, no inconvenience had arisen from the first; but, as to the second, the additional labour that had fallen upon the Master-general and others had been severely felt. His gallant friend behind him (sir Ulysses Burgh) and himself had been compelled, in consequence, to labour from eight to ten hours a-day. If he were asked, why the resignation of lord Beresford had not been accepted in December? he should reply, that the noble lord had shewn himself so useful and efficient in his office, that the Master-general was most reluctant to part with his services. Finding, however, very recently, by a letter from Lisbon, that lord Beresford could fix no early period for his return, his resignation was accepted, and sir George Murray had last week been submitted to his Majesty as a fit person to discharge the duties of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance. That appointment had since received the approbation of his Majesty. It would be presumptuous in him to advert to the distinguished merits of that officer. He could, however, most conscientiously declare, that if the Lieutenant-general were not an officer of ability and experience, the inferiors of the department would be obliged to refer to the Master-general. As to the union of the two establishments at Pall-mall and the Tower, at neither place could the clerks and officers of both be accommodated. The heavier stores, as had been suggested, tied been removed from the Tower to Woolwich, but the others still remained at the Tower. On the subject of economy in the Ordnance, it appeared, by the admission of the hon. member for Montrose himself, that since 1819, there had been a saving of 90,000 l. in the department. In the present year, the estimates were 90,000 l. lower than those voted in the last session, so that there did not seem to be much room for complaint on the part of those who urged a further diminution of expenditure.
Mr. Hume,in reply, said, that he had expected to hear some reason assigned for the magnitude of the establishment of the Ordnance, being reduced as it was to what was termed by the gallant officer the lowest amount. No reply had been attempted to what he had advanced as to the propriety of further economy, it was no answer to say, that 90,000 l. had been saved since 1819, when at the present moment the charge was nearly three

535
times as heavy as it ought to be, and as it had been in 1796. What he wished to hear was, how many clerks and officers performed the business of the Ordnance in 1796 or 1798, and, if more were wanted in 1824, what additional business had been thrown upon the establishment to render the increased number necessary? The gallant officer had stated that the Barrack and Commissariat Departments had been joined to that of the Ordnance, and this was unquestionably true; but it was not less true that 2,514 l. for the first, and 3,590 l. for the last, had been allowed yearly to pay for persons to discharge the new duties. What the gallant officer had said was, therefore, in truth no answer to his objection. As to the private conduct of lord Beresford, he had never alluded to it; he had no reason to allude to it; his public conduct only was here in question. He had only said, that, if the noble lord could be absent from the duties of his most important office for five months in succession, it fully justified the resolution proposed last year, declaring that the office was a needless expense to the public, as, whatever was to be done could be performed by the Master-general, or by other members of the Board. The fact had turned out to be so; for the Master-general, and his coadjutors had fulfilled all the arduous and important duties of the Lieutenant-general and their own into the bargain.
The committee then divided—For the Amendment, 19—For the Original Resolution, 89—Majority 70.

List of the Minority.

Allan, J. H.

Martin, J.

Althorp, viscount

Monck, J. B.

Benyon, B.

Newport, sir J.

Davies, T.

Rickford, W.

Grenfell, P.

Smith, J.

Haldimand, W.

Sykes, D.

Heron, sir R.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wood, M.

James, W.

TELLER.

Leycester, R.

Hume, Joseph

Maberly, W. L.

On the resolution, "That 35,841 l. be granted for the salaries to the several civil establishments of the office of Ordnance at the Home and Foreign Stations,"
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the committee to the sums included in this last resolution, for officers of the Ordnance in the Islands of Zante and Corfu. This country ought not to be called upon to make good this sum; inasmuch as by a
536
specific treaty, the revenues of the islands were responsible for that purpose. Those revenues were amply sufficient, and ought to be so applied.
On the resolution, "That 247,208 l. be granted, for defraying the expenses of the Royal Regiment of Artillery for Great Britain,"
Mr. Humebegged to repeat briefly the objections he had formerly urged to the vote for so large a sum of money for such a purpose. He thought the numbers of the corps of artillery a great deal too large. It was happily never wanted at home, was never likely to be wanted, and was not sent abroad; so that, in fact, in time of peace, it was wholly useless, and a needless expense to the country. There were 5,691 artillery, besides supernumeraries, making in the whole a force of 7,256 men. This establishment was, at the present moment, considerably more than double what it had been at the beginning of the last French war. The artillery could not be of the slightest use without a large regular army; and if three or four battalions were reduced, there would still remain a larger proportion than was at all necessary for the present amount of the army of the empire. He did not complain of the artillery, which was a most efficient body; but there might be too much of a good thing, and a very considerable reduction might be effected, to bring it to the proportion of the rest of our military establishment.
Sir H. Hardingedefended the propriety of keeping a large body of artillery on foot. It was a corps of all others the most difficult to raise. If a war broke out, it could not be created in a moment; and therefore it was necessary to have a considerable force of that description in readiness.
Mr. Humesaid, he founded his objection on the statement of ministers, who had declared that there was no chance of war. They denied that a war was at all likely to occur; and therefore there was no necessity for such a force.
On the resolution, "That 29,590 l. be granted, for defraying the expense of the Brigade of Royal Horse Artillery, and also a Rocket and a Riding House troop,"
Mr. Humewished to ask for some explanation as to the circumstances under which sir Benjamin Bloomfield had been brought back to the artillery corps, and had been taken from half-pay to the com-

537
mand of a battalion. This step he understood had created considerable dissatisfaction. Sir Benjamin had long retired from active service in the corps, and was now serving as an ambassador abroad, and was put over the head of other officers of much greater service in the corps. He wished to know how this had happened, and whether sir Benjamin had a right to this promotion under the regulation of the service.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that by the regulation of 1814, it was arranged, that the officers of the horse-artillery, should succeed to the brigade, not according to their regimental rank in the corps, but with reference to their brevet rank in the army. In 1818, the Master-general thought it advisable to alter that arrangement. When the death of the commander of the brigade took place, sir B. Bloom-field was, from his rank in the army, the officer next entitled to the command; and as the Master-general felt, that the new regulation would have a retrospective effect with reference to him, he, from a sense of justice, declined enforcing it. It was, however, now settled, that officers should succeed to battalions, according to their rank in the corps, coupled with their general merits.
Mr. Humesaid, he understood a new system had been lately adopted in the artillery. Individuals had been allowed to sell out, in order that others might receive promotion in that corps. He wished to know when that practice first took place; the promotions in consequence; and how far the public expense had been thereby increased.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, the authority to allow artillery officers to sell their commissions was granted last year, for the purpose of assisting the deplorably low state of promotion in that corps, without increasing the public burthens. It was permitted, that a certain number of artillery officers, who had served twenty years, might sell to officers of the line, they being unattached officers on half-pay. Ten lieutenant-colonels, one major, and three captains of the artillery had sold their commissions, which were purchased by officers of the line. The saving by the decrease of half-pay was, 2,463 l., and the increase on the army list was, 2,564 l., leaving a balance of 101 l. Fifty-five officers of the artillery, and 14 officers of the army, had been benefitted by the plan, at the expense of 101 l.
Mr. Humedid not mean to blame the arrangement. He rather hoped, that the same benefit would be extended to an other corps, in which the promotion was in the same deplorable condition—.the marine corps. The statement of the number of years service of several members of this corps would surprise the House; and besides the slowness of the promotion, they had been deprived of 25,000 l. a-year of sinecures (the colonelcies); and which it would be only just to give to the meritorious officers of that corps, instead of giving them to officers of the navy, however deserving they might be.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that on an application from some officers of the marine corps to the Admiralty, they had been informed, that a measure was in progress for their relief, of the same nature as that which had been applied to the artillery; and but for the indisposition of the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, that measure would have been now in operation. The hon. member, had alluded, to certain honorary offices attached to the marine service, which were given to officers of the navy: but the hon. member should recollect that the naval officers who held these commissions gave up their half-pay, and it would be found that when that was taken; into account, instead of 25,000 l. a-year, the expense was not more than 3 or 4,000 l.; a sum which was well bestowed, to keep up the constitutional link between the marines and the navy, which was deemed of so much importance.
Mr. Humeprotested against this "constitutional link," and he had no doubt, out of 100 officers of the marines, there would not be one who did not consider this as a hardship.
Sir I. Coffinwished to remind the House, that four years ago, when the marines were increased to 8,000 men, the hon. member had opposed the increase, on the ground that it would "turn the navy into an army." He (sir I. Coffin) had said at that time, that the marines were a most valuable body of men, who had saved the fleet over and over again in mutinies. But for their steady loyalty, we should now have no navy.
Mr. Humesaid, that whatever the gallant admiral might think, there was no inconsistency in his opposition to the increase of the corps, and his present remarks. The corps had been distinguished

539
for its loyalty and services, and had had the title of "Royal" bestowed on it, on account of their conduct at the time of the mutiny: and yet they had received less reward and promotion than any other corps. He wished to see them well treated, but yet he did hot want to see their numbers increased. There were now 9,000 marines; and how many were there afloat? Perhaps not 2,000. The rest, then, were an addition to the standing army. The treatment of them as to promotion was shameful. In seven years only eight or ten marine officers had been promoted; while, in the same time, there had been 7 or 800 promotions in the navy, and about the same number in the army.
Sir I. Coffinsaid, it was absolutely necessary to have a large body of marines; for in the event of a war, the seamen that could be kept together, were only in proportion to the number of marines. You could not put seamen on board without them; they would go in at one side, and out at the other. The hon. member knew nothing about them. How the devil should he (sir I. Coffin) dislike the marines? Had he not served with them forty years? They were most useful to the navy, and had saved the fleet over and over again.
On the resolution, "That 4,570 l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the establishment of the civil officers, professors, and masters of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich,"
Mr. Humeremarked, that there was in the cadets in this establishment, no such reduction as had been last year promised. It was quite absurd to educate a number of youths at a considerable expense, whom there was no possibility of providing with commissions.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the reduction in the number of cadets was not inconsiderable. Last year, there had been 150. There were now 127, though there were 130 mentioned in the estimates. There were many young gentlemen, who had been educated at the academy, who were highly qualified, and for whom it was yet impossible to find commissions. There had been 108 vacancies in the artillery since the peace, which would have been sufficient to have supplied all the gentlemen who were qualified, with commissions; but so great a number of officers had been brought from half to full pay, that it was impossible to bestow
540
commissions on the cadets. This arose from the system of reduction which parliament had determined to adopt. In no former peace, had any officers of the artillery or engineers been put upon half-pay.
Mr. Humesaid, he by no means complained of the government, that they could not find commissions for these young men. They acted much better in giving them to the officers on half-pay, who were entitled to them. What he complained of was, that they should go to the expense of educating boys, to whom they only held out expectations which they could not realize.
On the resolution, "That 75,524 l. be granted for defraying the extraordinaries of the Office of Ordnance, for the year 1824, after deducting 139,000 l. on account of savings and unexpended sums of former grants, and also of presumed sales of old stores, lands, buildings, &c,"
Mr. Humewished to call the attention of the committee to the various charges for the fortifications, &c. of those islands and colonies, no part of the revenue of which was brought to the credit of the general revenue of the empire, but was all expended on governors, secretaries, and local officers. He thought a general inquiry should be instituted into the means of those colonies to bear a portion of the expenses which were now charged on the people of this country. The sums, taken separately, in these estimates, were not large; there was 1,374 l. for Guernsey, 1,671 l. for Jersey, and so on, but, taken altogether, they formed a considerable sum. As the Ordnance branch of the expenditure of these islands formed a very small part of the whole, he should not now press the subject; though he had no doubt that a committee of the House could find the means of relieving the country from the entire expense. For the establishment at Feversham a sum of 2,031 l. 9s. 9d. was set down. He was convinced, that the works there were utterly useless, and could never be used as powder-mills again. As to the sum set down for the expenses of Canada, he wished to know what difficulty there was in Canada paying the expense of its own establishments? We took nothing from Canada in the shape of taxes, and yet we paid all the expense of its military establishments. This was perfectly unnecessary. If we gave Canada a free government, the people would be quite ready to

541
relieve this country from the expense. As to the Ionian Islands, the charge on this country was most unjust. This country had nothing to do with the Ionian isles. The Greeks who lived there should defend them, and would be leady to do so. They now cost 25,000 l.; he was quite satisfied they need not cost a single pound. However, he should not now propose any amendment. Considerable reductions had been made; and, next year, he hoped to get further considerable reductions.
Mr. Humesaid, he observed a sum of 9,000 l. for the trigonometrical survey. He wished to know how far this work was advanced, and how long it would be ere it was concluded?
Sir H. Hardingesaid, a third of the survey of Great Britain had been printed; two-thirds were completed, the whole of the country had been triangulated, and the work would probably be complete in three years.
Sir J. Newportwished to know whether the long projected survey of Ireland was to take place on the trigonometrical plan. If they were to wail as long for this survey of Ireland, as they had done for the completion of the same survey in Great Britain, he should protest against the measure. Valuable as the survey of Ireland would be for the distribution of the grand jury assessment—in other words, for equalizing the taxation of Ireland-he thought the trigonometrical plan perfectly inapplicable. When completed it would be nearly a nullity and of little use, compared with a parochial survey and valuation.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that, as a motion was soon to be brought forward on the subject of a survey of Ireland, it would not be necessary for him to enter into explanations, further than to say, that the government was satisfied of the necessity of the measure; that they had communicated with the Master-general of the ordnance on the subject, who had made arrangements for carrying through the survey with a rapidity far exceeding that with which the work had proceeded in England.
Sir J. Newportsaid, it was now nine years since he had brought down a recommendation from a committee for this survey. He was about to bring in a bill on the subject, when the government undertook to proceed with the measure; but not one step had yet been made.
Mr. D. Gilbertsaid, that the trigonometrical survey of Ireland, singly taken, would give a very insufficient idea of the value of the country. It would, however, be a considerable step. He thought the country might be triangulated in one year. The details would be afterwards filled in by degrees. The survey of Great Britain had been most creditable to the officers engaged in it, and had raised the country in the eyes of the scientific world.
Colonel Trenchwas glad to find the survey was to be undertaken in a scientific way; which would be much superior to the loose parochial surveys.
On the resolution, "That 312,572 l. be granted for the charge of the office of Ordnance, on account of allowances to Superannuated, Retired, and Half-pay Officers, &c,"
Mr. Humeobjected to the unnecessary-expense imposed upon the public for keeping up the powder-mills at Ballin-collig, in Ireland. He wished to know whether it was the intention of ministers to persevere in their demands for that establishment from year to year? It appeared that the public paid 1,200 l. a year rent for those mills, in addition to which it cost 950 l. a year to pay the superintending officers. The whole was completely useless in a period of profound peace.
Sir H. Hardingestated, that the superintending officer was a man of great talent and experience, who had obtained the appointment with an allowance of 600 l. a year. This was the provision made by government for his services; so that the mills could not be given up without a breach of that agreement.
Sir J. Newportdid not deny the talents of the officer alluded to, but he denied that such a consideration could justify the government in keeping up a set of mills at a large expense, which were found to be wholly unnecessary. The proper mode of rewarding his services would be by a pension, and not by an agreement of the kind alluded to.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, it was not in the power of the Board of Ordnance to break the agreement with him, on the faith of which he received 600 l. a year.
On the resolution, "That 1,400 l. be granted, for defraying the expenses of sums to be paid at the Treasury, and at the Exchequer, for fees, on the amount of the Ordnance Estimates,"
Mr. Humeasked the hon. secretary for the Treasury, whether the country was ever to be released from the absurd practice of paying its own servants an extra salary for doing their own business? It was strange indeed, that the Treasury could not disburse the public money without exacting fees for it. Besides this vote of 1,400 l. nearly 30,000 l. had been voted away in the Army estimates for the payment of these same fees. He considered such payment to be a dead loss to the country, as well as the occasion of great complexity in the accounts of the various departments. He had understood the chancellor of the Exchequer to say, on a former occasion, that the whole subject of fees taken by the Treasury was now under consideration. Might he ask what was decided on, with regard to these particular fees?
Mr. Herriessaid, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged by indisposition to leave the House, and that the subject referred to was one of such difficulty that he was not himself exactly prepared to answer it. The hon. gentleman must recollect, that some of those fees, were established by patent, and that therefore the persons to whom they were payable had such a vested interest in them as prevented their immediate abolition. Others of them were paid on other grounds to which it was unnecessary for him to allude further than to say, that considerable delicacy ought to be used in meddling with them. With regard to the complexity of the public accounts, he could only say, that it was the earnest wish of the chancellor of the Exchequer to simplify them as much as possible.
Mr. Hume,in reply, observed that if the chancellor of the Exchequer would grant him a committee next month, he would go into the business of it with great pleasure. As to the patent fees, he had no hesitation in saying, that he should recommend them to be bought up.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the hon. member did not appear to be aware, that many of these fees were very beneficial to the public, and absolutely made up a fund out of which many contingent services in the Treasury were paid. The subject was of a complicated nature, and he therefore trusted that the hon. member would not be surprised that he did not give him any further answer in the absence of the chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Humesaid, that so long as these
544
fees should continue to be taken, the House would never be able to learn the exact expenditure in each department of the public service.
On the resolution, "That 114,531 l. be granted, for defraying the charge of the Ordnance barrack-department in Great Britain,"
Mr. Humesaid, he could not allow such a sum to be voted without some observation. The House was not aware of the situation in which the country was placed, from its being studded all over with barracks as it was at present. In the year 1797, when we had as many troops as at the present moment, the whole expense for barracks only amounted to 29,000 l. for Great Britain, and 12,000 l. for Ireland. He thought it wrong that the extraordinary scale on which things had been carried during the extraordinary war in which we had recently been engaged, should be continued during a period of profound peace. The House was now called upon to vote a sum for these barracks which was much above the average sum voted in any year from 1817 to 1823. He had formerly contended, and he must still persist in contending, that if the government were determined to keep up its barracks in an untenanted condition, it ought to keep them up at the least possible expense, and that it ought not to pay fifteen or sixteen shillings a day to barrack-masters, when it could find half-pay officers willing and even joyful to perform the duties at 5s. a day. He was of opinion that the country ought to be relieved from the payment of half the sum voted for this purpose. He likewise objected to the payment of 65,000 l. for the repair of barracks. What was there in the state of England which required such a sum to be expended on such an object at the present moment? He could see no reason for granting 7,000 l. for erecting a riding-school at St. John's-wood, after the sums which had been expended on the riding-school at Pimlico. Unless he received a satisfactory explanation regarding the expense incurred for the repair of barracks, the payment of barrack-masters, and the riding-school at St. John's-wood, he should be obliged to offer to the House some amendment on the present grant.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the barrack-masters were paid as low as they could be, consistently with the purpose of keeping them respectable; for no one who

545
considered the importance of having persons of some station and character in these situations would object to ten, seven, and five shillings a day as being extravagant. With regard to the buildings, if they were to be kept up at all, they ought to be kept in repair; and he could assure the hon. gentleman, that the estimates had been taken at the lowest possible scale, and by persons in every way qualified to discharge their duty to the public. If, however, contrary to his opinion, any fraud had been committed, the Board of Ordnance would be much obliged to the hon. member if he would point out the case, and by so doing enable them to correct it. His objections to the amount were so general that it was impossible to answer them; but if he would particularise any case of excess, that item might be either explained or remedied. The establishment at St. John's Wood was considered necessary as a branch of useful military instruction, and the whole expense was 5,000 l. for the Riding-school, and 2,000 l. for the repairs of the barracks already built in the neighbourhood.
Colonel Daviesthought, that the barrack-masters were immoderately paid, especially as, in many instances, they were attached to barracks where there was no troops. It would, he thought, be for the benefit of the country that such barracks should be deserted altogether, and allowed to go to ruin. The hon. baronet had challenged them to put their fingers upon items. The task was not easy, as they had not the details before them; but perhaps, if they were furnished with as minute particulars as it was in the power of government to afford them, many items of gross extravagance would appear. He was surprised to find the sum of 84,000 l. demanded for barracks in Ireland, where the army were mostly quartered, and where, from the very nature of the service, it seemed necessary that they should be so. Whatever credit ministers might take to themselves for any reductions that had taken place, if the House did not continue to attend to these matters, abuses would rise up, and the old extravagance would soon return to all the departments.
Sir H. Hardingeobserved, that the repairs of the Irish barracks were made under the inspection of a committee, and if government had taken care to send over gentlemen of great experience and
546
honour, what better security could they have that the estimates were correct It was impossible that the hon. gentleman could judge of their proceedings, however minute the items laid before him, unless he was on the spot to which such items referred. As to the employment of officers in the situation of barrack-masters, it should be recollected, that according to the regulation, they could not retain their half-pay on accepting such appointments.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he would appeal to any military officer, whether many of the barracks in Ireland were not improperly constructed. A great number of them had been built during the last fourteen years, and if they had been well built, could scarcely have required such I incessant and expensive repairs.
Mr. Goulburnwished to remind the right hon. baronet, and those who had spoken on the same side, that they had no want of intelligence to complain of It was only last session, or the session before, that a detailed statement was laid on the table of the House, containing all the particulars connected with every barrack in the kingdom. Besides, a reduction of the barracks had taken place in Ireland since the war: during the war, there was accommodation for 87,000 men; whereas now there was only accommodation for 36,000.
Mr. Hobhouserose to make some remarks on a subject which was particularly interesting to his constituents, and on which he had before put a question to the secretary of war. Seeing an excess of expenditure, amounting this year to 14,000 l. more than last year for the barrack department, he begged again to draw the attention of his majesty's ministers to the barracks in the King's Mews. He wished them to reconsider this question. The people of Westminster were much alive to it. He wished the government should I take no measures to repair the Mews. He knew it was too late to discuss the constitutional question which this involved; and, indeed, the noble secretary at war had the other night given him a proper lesson about introducing a subject at an improper time. He felt, indeed, that it was wrong to discuss things out of their place, and that a good cause was often injured by being brought forward at a wrong time. A few years ago, nineteen or twenty votes might be obtained on the constitutional question of having barracks

547
at all; but now scarcely one could be got [hear! and a laugh]. The country did not now mind these things, and thought that the principle which our ancestors had so strongly contended for, of not separating the soldier from the citizen, was of no manner of consequence. But, let them look at the consequences in point of expense. Since the year 1815, no less a sum than 1,299,000 l. had been expended on barracks in England, and in Ireland no less a sum than 1,314,000 l. making, together, for the single article of barracks, upwards of 2,600,000 l.; and this too, let the House remember, at a period, when not only the country was enjoying the most profound tranquillity, but when they were assured, repeatedly assured, that the peace of Europe rested on a basis not to be shaken. This enormous sum was expended for doing that which no Englishman who called himself a freeman, or who valued hrs freedom, ought ever to permit to be done. Compliant as this House of Commons was, they must sometimes ask themselves to what extent this system was to be carried? How long were the King's Mews to be continued as barracks? How long were soldiers to be kept in the heart, and about the suburbs of this metropolis? He recollected very well the circumstances under which the soldiers were placed there; but they might be wanted for other occurrences, and they might be used for other occasions. It was now plain to every man, that the troops were kept in the midst of the city to be ready to act against the people. This was the single, the only motive, for placing them there; and he defied the gentlemen opposite to deny it. If they did—if they put forth any other pretext—no man would believe them, for every one would see it was void of all foundation. The House might depend on it—although there was no spirit now alive in the people to question this matter—the time would come, when they would find it insupportable to have barracks scattered over the whole country. There was now no excuse for it. The country was in a state of tranquillity, and Europe was at peace. They had been lately told by ministers, that the people were orderly, grateful, obedient, and happy: every thing that a government could wish. Why, then, he would ask, was this system of planting a military force throughout he country continued? That force, it was true, had done the work of their employers; but
548
here, as elsewhere, it might become fatal to them. But he would not now discuss this great constitutional question; he would confine himself to the question of converting the Mews into barracks. This was a great evil to the city of Westminster. Many of the citizens did not like to have? soldiers in their vicinity. They were disturbed at night, and in the morning, by drums beating, and other things which, though deemed necessary to military discipline, were a great annoyance in civil life This was a thing which ought not, for a moment, to be allowed, and a petition had been prepared against it by the inhabitants of Westminster. He had thought it better, however, not to present it, until the great constitutional question came before the House. He doubted if the government had a right to convert the Mews into barracks. There was a thoroughfare through them which had been so long a custom, that the Crown had no right to stop it. Property in that neighbourhood had been very much injured by this proceeding; and he knew several persona who had left their houses, because they were no longer profitable, and who had been obliged to seek a living in another neighbourhood. He should not at present go further into the matter; but he was bound to tell the House, before they voted. 114,000 l. for barracks, that the spot to which he had alluded was chosen in opposition to the best feelings of the people. There was an excess this year over the vote of last year of 14,000 l. for the two countries, and for this excess he saw no reason whatever.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the hon. member had made his whole speech under a mistake. It was true there was an estimate of 14,531 l. more for barracks, but if the hon. member would turn to page 29, and look at the note, he would find that the Ordnance Barrack expenditure for Great Britain for 1824, had been transferred to this estimate, amounting to 16,500 l., so that there was not an excess, but a saving of 2,000 l. When the hon. member talked of the military being kept in barracks, though he (sir H. H.) was as. little disposed to discuss the constitutional question as the hon. member, and could not flatter himself with being able to do it so well, yet he begged to ask him, who it was that wished the soldiers to be separated from the people? who but the people themselves? Did they not, in. Charles the First's, reign, petition that,

549
soldiers should not be billetted on them? Did they not put it in the Bill of Rights? But, would the hon. member who was so jealous of the soldiers send them to learn patriotism, honour, and morality in the pot-houses of Westminster? Would the soldiers be made better freemen by being billetted on a parcel of tap-houses in the purlieus of Westminster, which were notorious haunts for all kinds of profligacy, beggar, and vice? If the barracks were thrown down, and the soldiers were billetted in these houses, many respectable men, many who now came into the army from the country, would be compelled to associate with the dregs of the metropolis. For the benefit of the country, as well as for the discipline of the army, he thought it not right to throw down the barracks.
Sir R. Heronsaid, that all the mischief arose, not from the soldiers being billeted on public-houses, but from so large a standing army being kept up in time of peace, and collected in such great numbers in and about London, to overawe its population.
Mr. Humesaid, that an attempt had been made to fix a mistake on his hon. friend, without any good ground. The vote for this year was 136,351 l., while the vote for last year was 118,000 l.; then it must be recollected, that 20,000 l. must be deducted for old stores, &c. with which the House had nothing to do. For these old stores, rent of canteens, &c. the amount was 4,000 l. more than last year; so that, in fact, the expense, instead of being less, as stated by the gallant officer, was considerably more even than it had been stated to be by his hon. friend. The amount this year for Great Britain alone, as slated at page 29, was 136,531 l. making an aggregate for two years only of upwards of 250,000 l. He should move to reduce this estimate. There was 7,000 l. appropriated for a riding school at St. John's Wood, which was unnecessary, and he thought 7,000 l. might be cut off from the barrack-masters. He was for taking off this 14,000 l., and would therefore move, that instead of 114,531 l., 100,531 l. be substituted.
On this question the House divided; when there appeared, for the Amendment, 38; Against it, 95; Majority, 57.

List of the Minority.

Allan, J. H.

Bright, H,

Althorp, viscount.

Denman, T.

Baring, A.

Evans, W.

Bernal, R.

Guise, sir B. W.

550

Haldimand, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Heathcote, G. J.

Philips, G. H. jun.

Heron, sir R.

Price, R.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Pym, F.

Honywood, W. P.

Portman, E. B.

James, W.

Rickford, W.

Jervoise, G. P.

Smith, J.

Johnstone, W.

Smith, R.

Kemp, T.

Sykes, D.

Lockhart J. J.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Maberly, J.

Webbe, E.

Maberly, W. L.

Wood, Matthew

Martin, J.

Wyvill, M.

Monck, J. B.

Newman, R. W.

TELLER.

Newport, sir J.

Hume, J.

On the resolution, "That 182,795 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Commissariat Store Branch of the Office of Ordnance,"
Mr. Humebegged to have some explanation of a charge of 40,000 l. on account of New South Wales, &c. So large a vote for any colony should be the subject of a separate item. Of course, this charge was not included in the specific estimate for New South Wales, and he wished to have some explanation what part of this 40,000 l. was to be devoted to New South Wales, what to Sierra Leone, and what to presents to the Indian tribes.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, he could not give a detailed answer to the hon. gentleman's question. As to the stores to which the vote related, it seemed most advisable and beneficial for the public service, that they should be furnished from the commissariat department.
Mr. Maberlyobjected altogether to that branch of this department, which consisted in store-houses in London. The great depot for the army should be Woolwich. The store-houses in London were a very unnecessary expense. There would be a great saving by sending all the stores to Woolwich. There they might all be embarked at once on board ship, and a large army might be fitted out in a short time. The London establishments were absolutely useless, and were kept up, he believed, only to create influence. A heavy expense must necessarily be incurred, if stores that were to be sent abroad, and had to be procured at different parts of England, were sent first to London. They had no business to come to London at all, but ought to be sent direct to the port where they were to be shipped. If economy were at all desirable, he was sure these store-houses should be done away. By getting rid of this branch of the com-

551
missariat, and the foreign-store houses, a great sum might be saved to the country.
Sir H. Hardingethought the hon. member was not correctly informed. It frequently happened, that great coats I were to be sent to one place, shoes to another, and hats to a third: and all such articles were necessarily sent to the place where the ship which was to take them on board was loading. Now, as this was in many cases the West or East India Docks, it would cost a great sum of money to employ lighters to bring these stores from Woolwich.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that the Tower stores had supplied all the small stores for the army during war, and were now sufficient for the purpose. He was sure that nine-tenths of the store-houses were at present unoccupied, and were kept up only for the sake of patronage. If the House really wished to abate expense, they would find ample opportunity of doing it by inquiring into the Commissariat, Store, and Ordnance departments.
The several resolutions were agreed to.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
On the order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill.
Sir R. Heronput it to the learned Serjeant, whether he would bring forward his motion at that late hour, when the House was exhausted, when many members had been present nine hours, attending to the business of the House, and who wished to take part in the discussion. He trusted the learned Serjeant would not press the measure.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, that if the hon. baronet had been in his place on Friday last, he could not have made this request. It was then expressly agreed, that the subject should come on this night. He should certainly not accede to the hon. baronet's request.
The question being put, "That the order of the day be now read," the House divided: Ayes 85. Noes 31. On the question being put," that the Speaker do now leave the chair,"
Mr. Robertsonrose to oppose the motion. He began by stating, that under the Roman republic, the rate of the interest of money declined as the wealth of the country increased, down to the time of Justinian, in whose code laws against usury were established, limiting different rates of interest to the different classes of the
552
community. In the flourishing state of the Italian republics, during the middle ages, the usury laws established a fixed rate of interest according to the rate of commercial profit, and under these regulations the Italian republics formed one of the most flourishing commercial communities in Europe. When these republics were overturned, the sovereign princes who obtained possession of them abandoned these wise regulations, and leagued themselves with the monied men of the country to oppress their subjects by usurious contracts. To that circumstance, he contended, the downfal of those states was chiefly to be attributed. It was true, indeed, that the church issued edicts, prohibiting usurious interest; but the clergy of Rome were themselves the most grinding and rapacious of usurers. He had heard it stated, from high mercantile authority in that House, that there were no usury laws in France, or in Holland, or in Hamburgh. This was certainly not the case. The laws of the German empire fixed the rate of interest at 6 per cent, and those laws were strictly enforced at this moment at Hamburgh, where no man could lend money upon landed, or other security, at a higher rate of interest. Mercantile men were generally misled on this subject, because bills were allowed to be discounted at any rate at Hamburgh. This was an exception to the general law, made in favour of mercantile transactions, to which he had no objection. In Holland, before the introduction of the Code Napoleon, which did not enforce the usury laws, it was difficult to ascertain the precise state of the law with regard to this subject; because, under the republic, each of the seven United States enacted its own laws. In the sixteenth century, although Charles 5th had enacted a law, that no person should take more than 12 per cent interest, the evil arising from usurious transactions was so great, that the States General passed several laws on the subject, the preambles of which set forth the deplorable state of the country arising from the system of usury then in force. With respect to France, it was true that mercantile men evaded the laws there as well as in this country, but this did not disprove the beneficial operation of legislative restrictions. Mr. Preston, who had given most valuable information on this subject before the Committee, although upon the whole, the Report was most defective, had pointed out a mode of evading

553
the law, by borrowing a sum of 10,000 l., and agreeing not to draw more than 5,000 l. from the lender's banker. In this transaction, money was in effect borrowed at ten per cent, and the law was completely evaded. The usury laws were evaded in a similar manner at Hamburgh, by Jews and other persons, but this was no argument against their utility, in affording protection to the community at large.—Having stated thus much, by way of historical detail, he begged leave to call the serious attention of the House to the consequences which would result from an alteration of the Usury laws in our own country. These laws were first enacted at the time of the Reformation, in the reign of Henry 8th; but they were not carried into effect until the reign of queen Elizabeth. Now, what was the state of this country before the enactment of the usury laws? We had not a ship of our own; we purchased ships from the Hanse Towns, which had usury laws. Since the usury laws had been in force, we had gone on in every succeeding age, flourishing in wealth, industry, comfort, and every blessing which a nation could possess. It was true, indeed, that Edward 6th abandoned the laws which had been enacted by his father; but the consequences of their repeal were found to be so pernicious, that Elizabeth, his enlightened successor, re-enacted them. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to those countries where there were no usury laws in operation. The most pernicious consequences flowed from this source at Rome, until usury was re-strained by the Sempronian law. The virtuous Brutus borrowed money at the rate of 48 per cent in the province of Cilicia; hence arose his quarrel with his friend Cicero, who would not give his sanction to the usurious contract. He begged to correct himself with the House; the virtuous Brutus did not allow his own name to stand in the foreground, but employed an unprincipled agent, named Sanctius, for that purpose. Europe furnished no instance, at present, of states, from which examples could be deduced, of the ruin which resulted from the absence of usury laws, and he was, therefore, compelled to resort to distant times, in order to satisfy the House of the danger of a repeal of the existing laws, and to prevent them from being hurried into so ruinous a measure. These laws were repealed, indeed, by the National Assembly, and the most mischievous consequences ensued, until
554
the Code Napoleon was established, in 1807. The people of India, who had no usury laws to protect them, suffered miseries from this source, which he would not pretend to paint to the House, and which, in fact, it was beyond the power of language to describe. Money was not lent out at interest by the year in India, but by the month, the week, and the day, and the wretchedness which this system produced was beyond all conception. Another country, whose whole government was a system of policy founded on the deepest knowledge of human nature, he meant China, while it allowed a rate of interest which in effect amounted to a repeal of the usury laws, adopted a very salutary regulation, which restrained the injurious effects which might otherwise arise from such a system. The Chinese allowed a rate of interest at 2½ per cent per lunar month, or 33 per cent per annum; the consequence of which was, that property was thrown into the hands of a few wealthy monopolists; but then, if the borrower was unable to pay, they did not allow the lender to imprison him, but he might insist upon the punishment of the debtor, provided he, the creditor, submitted to double that punishment. If the House abandoned the usury laws, some such measure as that adopted by the Chinese ought to be resorted to in this country, in order to protect the unhappy borrower from the extortion and cruelty of the usurer; for usurers had in all times been cruel, and it was the nature of avarice to be callous and merciless.—The evil arising from usurious contracts in annuity bonds had been alleged as a ground for the repeal of the existing laws. Mr. Preston, however, had stated, in his evidence before the Committee, that while mortgages on land amounted to many millions annually, the amount of money lent on annuities for lives, did not amount to more than one million a year. There was one year, indeed, in which Mr. Preston remembered five millions to have been lent on annuities; but this was a solitary instance: This argument, therefore, afforded no ground for the repeal of the usury laws. It was said, that the interest of money was now below the legal rate of interest. This was true with respect to considerable capitalists but it was not true with respect to the lower and middling classes of people, and these classes would be the great sufferers by a repeal of the usury laws. He was convinced in his own mind, that the people of this country did not believe that the

555
House would listen to a proposition for their repeal, and that if they had supposed it would have been entertained for a moment, the table of the House would have groaned with petitions against it. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to evidence which was much better than his own; he alluded to that of Mr. Rothschild, a man whose knowledge of this subject was as sound and practical as the goodness of his heart was exemplary, and whose opinion could not fail to have great weight. If there was one man in the kingdom who was more likely than another to derive pecuniary advantage from the repeal of the usury laws, it was Mr. Rothschild. Yet, what was the opinion which he had delivered before the Committee? He had declared, that he thought the operation of the usury laws, as bearing on the value of money in England, of great importance to tradesmen. Small tradesmen and manufacturers in this country possessed many advantages which were unknown on the continent, by drawing bills at a short date on their friends and connexions, which were negociable at the legal rate of five per cent interest. "If the usury laws were repealed" continued Mr. Rothschild, "it was impossible to say what might be the consequences to this class of tradesmen; the probability was, that they would be under the necessity of resorting to some lender, who would not accommodate them at less than two or three times the legal rate of interest. Should the House unhappily be induced to repeal those laws, evils incalculable must be the effect, even before parliament would have the power of re-establishing the antient system. Let the House recollect the reputation and the efficiency which had characterised this country, under all the difficulties with which it had had to contend. He would therefore implore them not to abandon such solid ground for a system, which, wherever it was introduced, debased the character of the nation, and sacrificed the interests of the many to the few. He should therefore move as an Amendment, "That the Bill be committed on this day six months."
Captain Maberlyobserved, that in rising immediately after the hon. member who spoke last, it was not his intention to follow him throughout the very remote and barbarian retrospect which he had taken. In legislating under the present state of Public improvement, he should restrict Himself to the consideration,—were these
556
laws which the bill went to repeal just and, politic? and, if they were just and politic were they efficacious? He would ask the hon. member, or indeed any supporter of the usury laws, this plain question—could the government know the interest of the parties in any contract as well as the parties themselves? If it was true, as the hon. member had assumed, that the borrower was always at the mercy of the lender, and that such mercy was denied unless the law interposed, how was it that the interest of money at that moment was below the legal rate? But, said the hon. gentleman, a very great injury would be inflicted by the repeal of these laws. Now, if such would be the result, it must be evident that the passing of those laws had imparted to that interest a very great benefit; then, why should any distinct class in the country derive a partial benefit, from any law at the expense of other classes? What would those who hold a contrary opinion say, if there was a law introduced which expressly provided against the raising of rents? That House had entertained even such a proposition for, in 1797, Mr. Main waring had submitted a measure to prevent regrating and forestalling in the buying of cattle; in other words, to prevent the rise of prices in the sale of cattle; and Mr. Alderman Combe had supported the measure on the principle, that when a maximum was put upon money, why not also put it upon other species of property? But, allowing all that was said in favour of the principle of these laws, how could their continuance be considered useful, if they were proved not to be efficient? And, that that was the case the House had the fullest evidence. The fact was to be traced in the practice of borrowing money in continuation and in those ruinous annuities which had had such a fatal extension. With respect to the constitution of the Committee, and the evidence adduced before it, he must say, that he never met a more conclusive mass of information than was to be found in their Report. Agreeing with them, he should give his decided support to the original motion.
Mr. Alderman Heygateobserved, that although indisposed, he was most anxious to offer a few observations on the present question. It was said by the advocates for the repeal of the usury laws, as stated in the report of the committee, that at that time the alteration would produce no great effect. That was stated on the 30th of June, 1818; and its fallacy was esta-

557
blished by the fact, that if the repeal of the ancient law had been then effected, within two months after that period the most prejudicial and fatal effects would have followed. And these effects would have ensued, not from any political occurrences, not from war, but from certain alterations in the currency of the country. He knew well the great stress that was laid upon the authority of the witnesses—men who recommended this change. With every disposition to give them due estimation, he would still request the House to recollect that they were composed of great lawyers and great capitalists. Now, though disposed to attend to their opinions with every deference on many subjects, on the usury laws they were not the very authorities which he should select to guide his judgment. And, as to committees of that House, he must also be allowed to say, that even their reports should be viewed with great circumspection. He spoke under correction; but, what was the general impression in appointing them? The courtesy of the House gave a committee generally on subjects not political, to any honourable member. As was natural, the mover placed upon that committee those individuals whom he considered favourable to his own view of the subject, with a few other persons interspersed to give a colourable impartiality to the appointment. And, as to the evidence generally produced, he, long before he had the honour of a seat in that House, had reason to know the principle on which testimony was sought. He had been asked to give evidence before parliamentary committees. In answer he had stated, "My opinion is quite different from yours on that subject." "Oh then," said the individual who wished in the first instance for his testimony, "for God's sake, my dear friend, stay away" [hear, hear!]. One passing? observation he begged leave to make on the witnesses produced before the committee, whose report recommended the repeal of these laws. Twenty-one witnesses had been examined, eight of whom were the greatest capitalists in the country; with a number of attorneys, whose engagements were chiefly in annuity practice [no, no!], and bill-brokers of immense wealth. He knew the parties well; and without making any unjust and undeserved reflection, these he knew were the individuals who gave the constituent parts of that evidence. But at least one fact was to be found esta-
558
blished in their report, and it was this—that usury laws were in force in France, in Holland, and in Prussia; and what will the philosophers say, when it is recollected, that it was and is recognized by the Code Napoleon itself? If we compared England with those nations where no such law existed, it would be found, that while they had become degenerate and debased, this country had maintained her prosperity, her reputation, and her strength.—Then, it had been asked, in what consists the use of laws whose provisions can be evaded? The answer to such an objection was, that there never was a law or laws which human ingenuity could not evade and, therefore in estimating the force of such an objection, we were bound to compare the cases of evasion with the mass of instances in which these laws were complied with [hear, hear!]. That, in a variety of instances in this metropolis, these laws were often evaded, but in the great mass of business in the country they were obeyed and respected. In what a difficult situation would trustees be placed under such a system; at present trustees had the security, under the protection of the law, of getting 5 per cent for trust-money. But change that system, and you leave no defined course for a person thus situated to pursue. Whatever course he should adopt, he will be subject to the imputation, either from the minor, when arrived at maturity, or the old lady, that other persons had seven, eight, or nine per cent for their money, and why had not they? If was to be recollected, that there was no market in this country for money as for corn and other commodities. The greatest confusion must be the result. Next, with respect to mortgages. Suppose a scarcity of money in a period of war, in what way, under the repealed system, would their interest be affected? After having at a vast expense for stamps, &c. submitted the title deeds, they would be placed at the mercy of the lender, and obliged to make an arrangement at 9 or 10 per cent. But then it was said that in theory the proposed repeal was well founded. He would not argue that proposition generally. There were, however, many things, which, though untenable in theory, were found to be most salutary in practice. Who that looked at the constitution of that House could upon theory, defend it?—for instance two members for Old Sarum, and only two for Yorkshire,—but yet the thing worked

559
well. He should say the same of the usury laws. Experience had proved them to be salutary. But he would ask on what grounds money was to be exempted from regulation by the State more than any other property? There was no abstract right either to hold or to deal in money. It was an artificial system, and was subjected to the regulations of the State. Besides it was untaxed; it did not, as dry money, contribute as land did to the establishment of the church, the poor rate, &c. It was also to be recollected that under the operation of these laws the government was enabled to borrow money on better terms, and the war was conducted at a lesser expense [hear, hear, hear!]. He knew that he had great authorities opposed to the view he took of the question, but he had the gratification to feel that he was supported by the concurrence of Adam Smith. He might also ask how it was if such a measure was considered beneficial, that not a single petition was forwarded in favour of the proposed change. One remark more, and he should finish—the measure would give, he feared, encouragement to those projectors from every part of the country who cared not in the furtherance of their views at what rate they obtained money to go on. Indeed, he had never heard of any one of that class, who, no matter whether the rate of interest was 10 or 20 per cent, did not consider the accommodation beneficial. Besides, the question was not, how the measure would affect the great monied men, but the small dealer who wanted accommodation. If a farmer went to a Country bank for money, what was to prevent the banker from charging him any interest he pleased The man, perhaps, was known but at that one bank; perhaps there was no other within a considerable distance. Again, with reference to the arrangements of government, could any man doubt that if the usury laws had been repealed twenty years back, the national debt would have been many millions greater than it was? we were now in a situation in which the repeal of the laws would perhaps do no great harm; but we should not count upon remaining in that situation for ever. As to authorities, they were not all on one side. There was a writer of the name of Adam Smith, whose talents were once as much renowned as any of those who had since written in favour of unrestricted usury. There was, however, one evil which he admitted in
560
the existing law; it imposed its penalties with great inequality. The fine was treble the amount of the loan, so that the fine for taking 20 l. too much upon a loan of 1,000 l. would be 3,000 l., while the fine for taking 50 l. too much interest on 100,000 l. would be 300,000 l. This enormous inequality was highly objectionable, oppressive, and absurd. He pledged himself, should this bill fail, and no other member took up the subject to bring in a bill for the more equitable adjustment of the penalties of usury. He might be asked, why he did not support this bill, which would save all further trouble on the subject. There was; however, a great difference, in his apprehension, between doing away with laws which were essentially wise and well-founded, and doing away with absurd and oppressive penalties imposed under those laws.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the hon. alderman who had just sat down had, in the course of his speech, stated, that nothing was so fluctuating as the value of money; now, it appeared to him, that this was a strange beginning to a speech, the object of which was, to continue laws to fix the rate of interest. He was as indisposed as any man to make alterations in the existing laws on account of mere theory, but here there was a great practical evil. One of the justifications set up for these laws was their high antiquity. That, no doubt, was a respectable title; but, let it be remembered, that they had their origin in times, when our ancestors made it a practice to meddle and interfere in all transactions of buying and selling every article of provision. At that time it was not deemed beneath their notice to regulate the price of cloth, corn, and even poultry, and the one law he thought just as wise as the other. He was by no means a friend to innovation; but although he could not become a convert to the scheme of decimal calculation, still he thought it prudent to make those wise alterations which were consistent with the enlightened spirit of legislation, which characterized the present age. He would not adhere to an an dent law merely because it was antient, unless he also found that it was wise; he could not, for instance, recognise the policy of continuing a law, which enacts that, if a man commit a crime, not himself alone, but his entire family should suffer a penalty. The one law was just as old as the other. He conceived that a man with money had as good a right to dispose of it in the

561
most profitable manner, as any other commodity. The hon. alderman had complained, that the committee, from which this bill had originated, was composed almost entirely of great capitalists and great lawyers; but surely this could be no objection; for the great capitalists must naturally be well acquainted with the question, and to what better authority could they refer than eminent solicitors; for if a gentleman of large fortune wanted to raise a sum of money, his solicitor would be the first person to whom he would apply? He therefore thought that these two classes were the very best from whom the committee could get information. Now, one of the arguments most frequently urged against the repeal of the usury laws was, that it would encourage extravagance, and that young men would sink their estates before they arrived at years of discretion. But, he would ask, was there the least difficulty for any man who was extravagantly disposed to raise money to an amount infinitely beyond any thing he could ever have hopes to repay. If a man were disposed to pay excessive interest, he did not think the raising money, in the least degree, more difficult now, than it would be if the law were repealed. Could not cases be mentioned where individuals without any property beyond perhaps 20,000 l. had been able to raise money to the amount of half a million, to carry on particular projects? The right hon. gentleman then recounted particular cases of the difficulty arising from the existing laws relating to mortgages and annuities, and mentioned one, in which a gentleman of real property, but who had occasion to raise money, and had not been able to obtain it by way of mortgage, was compelled to pay 10 per cent by way of annuity. The worthy alderman had appealed to the authority of Adam Smith, and seemed to place great reliance upon his opinion. Now, he would not deny, the eminent talents of Dr. Adam Smith; but he must in candour confess, that his argument had been for ever overturned by Mr. Jeremy Bentham, in a work of as much ability as ever was displayed by the head and pen of man. It was, perhaps, the most perfect specimen of logical accuracy, in all its parts, that ever was written; and he had it from an authority so high, as to place it beyond all doubt, that even Adam Smith confessed himself mistaken. He was convinced that the time was come for the abolition
562
of those absurd statutes which incumbered the books.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he was perfectly sensible of the disadvantages under which the House discussed this question at so late an hour of the night; and he confessed he was some what surprised that when a few nights back, five of his majesty's ministers had voted on this important question, they had not thought fit to favour the House with their presence this evening. It appeared to him, that it would have been much more satisfactory to this House, as well as to the country at large, if, when they meant to support it, they would make it a cabinet measure; for he felt persuaded that no subject would be brought forward during the present session, that affected more extensively and deeply the interests of the community at large. He confessed that he expressed his opinion on this question with great apprehension, because he differed always with regret, from his hon. friend near him (Mr. Baring), whose extensive knowledge and great practical information, gave to his opinions such weight on these questions. But, when he looked to the evidence of history, his opinions acquired additional strength. He there found that for the last three hundred years the country had prospered under the system of Usury Laws, and he found that at each successive reduction of interest our prosperity had increased more and more, according as it had been regulated by statute. All the great writers on this subject recognised the value of each successive reduction from Henry the eighth downwards till the time of Anne, when the interest was settled at five per cent.—And now he would come to consider the consequence' of the repeal of these laws, from which so much benefit had been expected by some gentlemen, but which he contended would be so detrimental. One of the very first effects of the repeal would be, to unsettle the minds of men, and shake all the securities of the country. All the lenders would immediately commence watching the variations of the money market, and the borrowers would be trembling for the bargains they had made, and would be in perpetual fear of the threats of the lenders. It was very true, as had been said, that engagements were made for a term of years; but was it probable that henceforward any capitalist would be so foolish as to lock up his money for a term of vears? His right

563
hon. friend who spoke last, had said, that, much as he was opposed to change, still he could consent to an alteration of the usury Laws—and why? Because, he said, he had discovered a practical grievance, which would justify their repeal. And, what was the great practical grievance? The difficulty which the landed interest found in borrowing money. Now, it might be very true, that, in times of unparalleled difficulty, when government was borrowing money to a greater extent than ever they had done before, or ever would do again, that which was called a practical grievance, certainly did arise—the landed interest could not borrow money on mortgage. One instance had been stated by his right hon. friend, in which an individual was compelled to borrow at ten per cent. But, he would just ask this question—If you repeal those laws, are you sure that the landed interest, instead of borrowing on annuity at ten per cent, will not be compelled to borrow on mortgage at the same rate. Let the House recollect what was the evidence of the late Mr. Ricardo. He had said, that although government borrowed money nominally at 5 per cent, yet sometimes they paid 6 or 7, or even 9 per cent. Now, if government were compelled to borrow at 9 per cent, he should like to know what individual could borrow money on such advantageous terms? What gentlemen proposed to remedy by the repeal of these laws, was the exception, not the rule; namely, the case of those persons who, in times of difficulty, were driven to borrow at a disadvantageous rate. But, legislate as they might, the great proportion of annuity transactions would go on as at present, and they would destroy all the mortgage arrangements by this Utopian plan of remedying extreme cases. The error was this. They were endeavouring, by human legislation, to attain perfection. The thing was impossible; for they never could include in any one act of parliament all the cases which it might be desirable to provide for. And what do they do instead? They effected a measure, the consequence of which must be, to disturb all the mortgages and commercial transactions of he country. Was it probable that the great capitalists would embark their money in trade, when they Could get such profitable interest? No; they would remain behind the curtain: they would not undertake the burthen of
564
trade, but they would lend but their money to adventurers at a high rate of interest, who would, by their skill, be enabled to derive, and be content to receive, a small profit. But, surely this must materially endanger the security of all commercial transactions. If it were possible that any serious mischief could be prevented by the repeal of these laws, that would be a good reason for enforcing the measure; but, as the country had flourished under these laws, he conceived they belonged to that class which should be continued. If authorities were of any value upon this subject, he might quote: the high opinion of Dr. Paley. The opinions of Adam Smith had been referred to, and he really was unable to say whether he had been confuted or confirmed by Jeremy Bentham; but he would just read the sentiments of Dr. Paley, which he considered of high importance. "The policy of these regulations is, to check the power of accumulating wealth without industry; to give encouragement to trade, by enabling adventurers in it to borrow money at a moderate price, and of late years, to enable the state to borrow the subjects' money itself." Now, it was possible the doctor might have been wrong; but he thought he was a substantial name to mention, when his hon. friend (Mr. J. Smith) said, he never knew a man, of sound understanding, who advocated the continuance of the system. He was one of the twenty-four stupid, and unthinking and prejudiced people, who opposed the measure, and he had had a very extensive correspondence on the subject, and could assure the House, that the question had excited great agitation in the country. Gentlemen were greatly mistaken if they supposed money was so plentiful in the country as it had been represented. It was supposed that plenty of discounts could be had at 2 and 3 and 4 per cent.; but, if a country gentleman were obliged to go to a country banker, he would be expected to pay 5 per cent, and he begged his right hon. friend, who had such a horror of innovation, to consider well before he gave so decided an opinion against the stupid, ignorant, prejudiced country gentlemen. However, certain it was, that they were all of opinion, that the measure would be detrimental.—He had said, that this measure would unsettle the minds of men; and as soon as the bill was passed, we should hear shouts of—"huzza!—success to usury." The character of the

565
usurer, and the extortioner would no longer be disgraceful. It might be a vulgar prejudice, but he should lament to see our great capitalists become extortioners, or our eminent solicitors engaged in a traffic in which now they would be ashamed to embark; but then they would have the sanction and protection of the law. When this measure was passed, he should compliment his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Serjeant Onslow) on the glory he had acquired. His name would be handed down to posterity and would be immortalized, for having let loose all those salutary restrictions, which had been so wisely imposed upon the avaricious propensities of man. To him would belong the honour of having given free scope to the exercise of low, base, vile, grovelling, despicable avarice. That low simplicity, which lends out money at five per cent, would then be despised, and the man who would endeavour "to reduce the rate of usance" in London, would be scouted from all good society. If a man were to lend his money at five per cent, he would be accosted by his wealthy neighbour—"Why, you fool, don't you know serjeant Onslow's bill has passed. Pooh! five per cent indeed! you should get 6 or 7 per cent. at the very least. Why, you pay no attention to the enlightened measures of our parliament and administration. You may now take all the interest you can get, and mind—don't give the borrower time, and get from him all the interest you can, for 'the law allows it, and the state awards it.'" [hear, hear!]—The hon. member then proceeded to animadvert on the evidence received before the committee. He had been represented as a member of that committee. He found his name amongst the list; but he had no recollection of having attended its proceedings, although the learned serjeant had endeavoured to convince him, that he had cross-examined some of the witnesses. He could only say, that if that were the case, he was the only person on the committee who had done so, as would appear from the evidence. He considered the evidence of Mr. Preston, Mr. Rothschild, and Mr. Samuel Gurney, as of great importance. Mr. Gurney stated, that during the war he had never any difficulty in getting commercial bills to discount at five per cent. But, if another war were to take place, and these laws were repealed, he doubted very much whether Mr. Gurney would have that story to tell. Before the House
566
passed a bill which affected the interests of the entire community, he thought it would be advisable to go more into detail, with a view to procure information, and that the House should institute a more solemn and extensive inquiry. He thought the measure of such importance, that government should make it their own and pass it, if it was to be passed at all, upon their own responsibility. He would put it to the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Huskisson), whether that would not be the more proper course to pursued The right hon. gentleman might say—"I am here as a member of parliament, and as such I support it." He wished he could say so; but he saw how material a difference it made in the division the other night, when the chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in favour of the measure. In fact, these gentlemen could not divest themselves of their official character. In France, Prussia, and Holland, they had had the proof of the benefit of these laws; but the learned serjeant, notwithstanding his well-regulated mind, seemed disposed to imitate the ominous French Convention of 1793; for they declared, that money was a merchandise, and ought to be bought and sold like any other commodity. But the consequence was, that the declaration produced the greatest confusion in that confused country. And, how long did the House think the project lasted? The law was passed on the 11th of April, and it was repealed on the 4th of May. And this was the measure which gentlemen wished to introduce into this great empire, notwithstanding the experience they have had of it in an adjoining country. At that late hour of the night, he should not trouble the House any longer, but he would again recommend, that before this measure passed, the learned serjeant should again send it to a committee, which would institute a full and general inquiry into the whole subject.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he had been happy to hear the worthy alderman address the House with so much energy, notwithstanding his indisposition, although he could by no means agree with him in the view which he had taken of the subject. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had called upon him to state in what capacity he supported this measure, and had said that it should be brought forward as a government measure. But, it would be very strange if the government were to take it out of the hands of a gentleman who

567
had had the management of the subject for years and who was peculiarly qualified, having been the chairman of the former committee. But, the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, if it were not made a government measure, that all persons connected with government should be precluded from voting on it. Now, he sat there as a member of parliament, like the hon. gentleman himself, to discharge his duty to the country, to the best of his abilities, and he would be the last to describe any of those gentlemen who differred from him as dull, or stupid, or prejudiced. It was a subject on which men might very widely and very conscientiously differ, without deserving any opprobrious names. Because, after the best application he had been able to give to it, his opinions were in contradiction to those of the hon. gentlemen opposite, was that a reason that he should be taunted, as that hon. gentleman had been pleased to taunt him? The view that he took of the question was shortly this; but he by no means pretended to say that he must be right. He thought, that any law attempting to limit the rate of the interest of money was oppressive to those who wanted to borrow. The hon. gentleman thought the law advantageous to the borrower; and yet, by a strange inconsistency, he maintained, in describing the relative situation of the borrower and the lender, that the borrower was the party obliged to yield to the terms of the lender. The hon. gentleman had also alluded to the obloquy that attached to those who lent at a large rate of interest. That obloquy was, as the law now stood, an aggravation of the misfortunes of the borrower, who was obliged to pay the lender a premium, in order to induce him to submit to the obloquy. Nor was it obloquy alone for which the borrower was compelled to pay the lender. He was also obliged to pay for the whole course of evasion to which the existing law necessarily gave birth. From the evidence in the report of the committee of 1818—from all that he had observed in other respects—and from all the reflection which he had had an opportunity of bestowing upon the subject, he was perfectly satisfied, that the usury laws were oppressive and injurious to the borrowers of money. He was not much surprised that individuals connected with the landed interest should have expressed their dissent from the proposition for repealing the present laws. In the first place, the landed always felt a much
568
greater indisposition to a change of any kind, than the commercial interest did. For his own part, however, he was convinced that the law, as it stood, must, in the course of years, put the interest of landed proprietors to great hazard. It was well known, that in consequence of these laws, it had become quite impracticable, during the late war, to obtain money by mortgage on land; and the consequence was, that the value of land had become unduly depreciated. But, finding so much indisposition on the part of the landed proprietors to agree to the repeal of the laws, he must say, that he attached so much value to the change in the law, by which it was attempted to regulate the value of money, that, if the gentlemen who had mortgaged their estates at five per cent, wished for a clause in the bill, providing that those mortgages should not be affected by the alteration of the law whatever he might think of such a provision, he, for one, would consent to its admission. Much had been said of the existence of laws similar to the usury laws in other countries. But, was there any resemblance between them? Did the usury laws in Holland empower any one to sue a man who had been guilty of usury, for penalties trebling in amount the principal which he had so lent on usury? All the advocates for the law talked of the ingenious evasions which took place respecting it. It was of those evasions that he complained. Those evasions were frequently ruinous expedients; and he charged the law with them. Adverting to the argument which had been used by an hon. gentleman, to show that those who derived their income from money matters did not contribute so much to the revenue as the landed interest, he contended, that nothing could be more opposite to the fact, and that he was utterly at a loss to conceive how any one could, for a moment, suppose that, from whatever source income was derived, whether from the land, whether from the funds, whether from commerce, or from whatever other quarter, it did not pay equally in taxation to the revenue.
Sir R. Heronmaintained, that the proposition of the hon. and learned Serjeant tended to reverse the policy and morality of our ancestors, and those of almost every nation in every age. It had been denied, that there were any usury laws in Holland and Prussia. In Holland he understood they had been repealed five and twenty years ago: and the fact was, that the

569
country had never prospered since, although he did not mean to say that all the misfortunes of Holland were attributable to that circumstance. As to Prussia, it was well known that money transactions were not free in that country. If a man wanted to borrow a sum of money and another wished to lend it, they could not transact the matter between themselves, but must go to a government office, where the one party was fitted with a borrower, and another with a lender. He was persuaded, that if this bill should pass, it would greatly injure, if not ruin, the landed proprietors of this country. He was quite astonished to hear the President of the Board of Trade say it would benefit them. He did not imagine that any great injury would result to them in the present state of the money market, but if money again became scarce, the proposed repeal of the usury laws would affect them mast seriously.
Mr. T. Wilsonacknowledged, that his original opinions had been in favour of the repeal, but that the arguments which he had heard in the course of the present evening in opposition to it had very much staggered him. He thought, in the then state of the House, that it was by no means expedient to drive the question to a division.
Sir J. Sebrightexpressed his perfect conviction that the law, as it now stood, was extremely injurious to the landed proprietor. As a landed proprietor, therefore, he expressed his thanks to his hon. and learned friend who had proposed its repeal. The fact was, that he had never heard but one good argument in favour of the usury laws, and that was from a friend of his, certainly no great political economist, who, in a discussion which he had had with him on the subject, exclaimed, "Why, every body knows that five per cent is the natural interest of money." But as, after all, this argument was not perfectly conclusive, he should certainly support the bill.
Mr. Baringsaid, he was extremely unwilling to trespass on the patience of the House; but the question was one of such great importance, that he begged to be allowed to say a few words upon it. The opinion which he at present entertained upon it, was the opinion which he had entertained from the moment that he had been able to think at all; and he had not had the advantage enjoyed by the hon. member for London, of hearing any thing that
570
night to alter his sentiments. The fact was, that the present was the first occasion on which the subject had been discussed. It was the first occasion on which they had heard a defence of the usury laws; and a defence, of which it was impossible to deny, that it contained some very cogent arguments. When it was considered, that all dealing in money was liable to great suspicion and obloquy, it would be evident that it was difficult to renounce prejudice, and to come fairly to the consideration of a proposition of this nature. He had had no share in bringing the present bill into the House; he was not a member of the committee on whose report it was founded; but it was before the House; and, convinced as he was that it would confer great benefit on every class of the community, he should certainly give it his support. One argument which had been urged by the opponents of the repeal was, that the lender had the command of the rate at which he would lend, and that the borrower was therefore at his mercy. No more so than the buyer of corn, or the buyer of any other commodity, was at the mercy of the seller. What was the case at this very moment? That, in consequence of not having any such compulsory power, the money-lender was obliged to come down to four per cent in his demand of interest. Upon the freedom of capital depended the freedom of all other branches of trade. If, therefore, the House were disposed to maintain free principles of trade—and the expediency of doing so could not be too strongly impressed upon them—they ought to be made aware, that there was nothing so necessary to the freedom of trade as the freedom of capital. Much had been said of the enormous usury that prevailed in India. The people in India had borrowed money from this country at 7, 10, 12 per cent. So much the better. What had been the result? They had been enabled to employ the capital thus obtained so advantageously that they now borrowed money at 5 per cent. The same principle would be applicable to Ireland. From the insecurity of property, or from some other cause, it so happened that there was a want of capital in Ireland. If, however, the interest of money were not limited to 5 per cent—if it might be contracted for on any terms, capital would flow into that country, and the most beneficial consequences would result. Whether, therefore, he reasoned on general principles, or on particular ca-

571
ses, he was still persuaded of the importance of getting rid of the present system.
The question being put on the motion,
"That the Speaker do now leave the Chair, the House divided, Ayes 43. Noes 34. the House then resolved itself into the committee; after some verbal amendments hail been agreed to, the Chairman reported progress.