Sitting of 17 March 1824

PETITION OF HENRY DUNDAS PERROTT, COMPLAINING OF ILL-TREATMENT FROM THE ADMIRALTY BOARD.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Mr. Henry Dundas Perrott, late a lieutenant in the royal navy, complaining of the treatment he had experienced from the Board of Admiralty, and praying the House to refer his case to the twelve judges. The hon. gentleman observed, that: while there was any prospect that the injustice: of which the petitioner complained might be remedied in the proper official quarter, he had advised him to abstain, from any application to parliament; but that now, as all hope of that nature seemed to be at an end, he submitted the circumstances of

1199
that injustice to the House. It appeared to be a very hard case. After the most careful examination of the various documents illustrative of the subject, it seemed to him, that by those documents the petitioner's statement was completely borne out. Undoubtedly, there were circumstances which could be thoroughly known Only to official persons; but, speaking; from all the information which he had been able to obtain, he repeated, that be thought Mr. Perrott's a very hard case. It appeared, that Mr. Perrott entered the navy five-and-twenty years ago, when be was very young, For fourteen years he bad been in constant and arduous service; having, during that time, been present at the capture of no fewer than three hundred ships and having been employed, on thirteen occasions, in cutting vessels out of harbour—an enterprise generally attended with considerable danger. In seven of these last instances he had commanded the boats and launches employed on the service, particularly at Boulogne, where he had had to face a very superior force, and was for a long time exposed to a most heavy fire from the enemy. While on board the Hebe frigate, he received a wound, the result of which was the loss of his arm; and he was thus disabled from any of the ordinary means of getting a livelihood. In addition to ail this, he had contributed, during the period he had just described, to the saving a great many lives. For the severe wound he received when he was a midshipman, a pension had been granted him; but that pension he had lost on his promotion to a lieutenancy. It appeared, that, up to the year 1812, Mr. Perrott's services were generally allowed by his superiors, and that he was considered by them to be a very distinguished officer. In that year, however, an action was brought against him, on a charge of having received 23 l. from a man of the name of Robert Bullen, for obtaining him a protection from impressment. Affidavits having been made on the subject, a warrant was issued. Mr. Perrot's residence was searched, and his writing-desk broken open, in which were certainly found some papers, shewing that he had had some money from Robert Bullen. That was not denied; but the question was, whether or not he had received that money as the price of the protection alluded to. The matter was brought to trial, and Mr. Perrott being convicted, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, under
1200
the act of the 30th Geo. 3rd, for receiving money under false pretences. But the petitioner complained, that he had not been able to procure a copy of the indictment until the day of his trial, so that he was wholly unprepared for his defence, and had been unable, to collect such evidence as would have rendered his innocence manifest. The consequence was, that he was committed to prison, and that three days, after, by order of lord Melville, or whoever was at the head of the Admiralty at that time, his name was struck out of the list of the royal navy. At that time, the petitioner was in very embarrassed circumstances. Like many other young men, he had lived too freely; not having sufficiently adverted to what must be the natural effects of his extravagance and folly. The consequence was, that he was very poor himself: and his friends were so little able to assist him, that it was a long time before he could bring his case to a re-hearing in a court of justice. At length, in the course of the year 1814, while he was yet a prisoner, the case came to be reheard in the Court of King's Bench, before the late lord Ellenborough, whose sentence was to this effect: "that, on hearing counsel on both sides, and there appearing to have been errors in the conduct of the prosecution, the verdict must be reversed, the defendant be restored to all he has lost by it, and forthwith discharged out of custody." Affidavits were made by Robert Bullen, his wife, and other persons who had been principal evidences on the trial, proving that the protection which had been found was not filled up by Mr. Perrott, but by a clerk. If, then, these circumstances were true—if the court reversed the sentence under which the petitioner had been dismissed from the navy—it was but common justice to the petitioner that, having served so long and with such distinction, and having lost his limb in the service, he ought to be reinstated in the rank from which he had been dismissed He was of opinion, that the petitioner had been made the victim of an atrocious conspiracy. But, even if the petitioner had been guilty of the offence with which he was charged, he would put it to the House to say, whether, after the length of his services, after he had been wounded in the course of that service, it would be right to leave the unfortunate petitioner in a state of absolute starvation. It had been decided by lord Mansfield and by lord

1201
Kenyon, that the half-pay to officers was given as a reward for services; and it was contended, that there existed no right to take away the half-pay of an individual officer. The case of the petitioner was one of the most cruel that had ever come within his knowledge; and he hoped it would receive consideration. He was aware that it might be more regular to move for certain official documents in order to ascertain whether every statement in the petition was exactly true, and then to submit a specific motion on the subject, but he was satisfied that there would be but little chance of carrying any motion against the wishes of ministers. Now, it was very true, that a court martial had sat upon Mr. Perrott, previously to his indictment; and that three charges were exhibited against him, for going ashore after sunset; for saying, on one occasion, upon deck, that the first lieutenant of the ship was a dangerous man; and for disobedience of orders, in refusing to send the men aloft. Upon two of these charges the court acquitted Mr. Perrott; but on the other they certainly pronounced him guilty. But he could not imagine, that that finding ought to have had any influence upon the Lords of the Admiralty in considering another and a later charge which was brought against the party in a court of justice, for obtaining money under false pretences. And yet, that such an influence did operate on the Admiralty, he was warranted in inferring from their conduct in respect of the accusation which a foul conspiracy had preferred against this individual, "that he had taken money in order to obtain a protection for a man named Bullen; he having no power to obtain it, and well knowing the same." The petitioner now stated to the House, "that for several years past he had been scarcely able to obtain a meal, and was in want of almost the common necessaries of life;" and he concluded his prayer in these words:—"Let not a nation so famed for its generosity, allow a man, whose limbs have been mutilated in its service, to suffer from want of that bread which it accords so freely to the natives of other kingdoms." He (Mr. Hume) had taken great pains to make himself master of all the facts which were alleged in this petition; but he had not had access to the records of the Admiralty, so as to be able to see what colouring they might receive from other sources [hear]. The petitioner con-
1202
cluded, by praying, "either that the House would be pleased to refer his case to the twelve judges, in order that it might be ascertained what compensation should be granted for his past services, considering his present inability to obtain any other livelihood; or that it would grant such other relief as its wisdom might deem proper.
Sir George Cockburnlamented, that the hon. member had gone so much into detail on this occasion, inasmuch as it compelled him to do so too in replying to his statement; and he lamented the circumstance the more especially, because he had received letters from some members of this party's family, requesting him not to go into the full exposure of his case. Had the hon. member thought proper to content himself with merely bringing the petition up, he (Sir George) would not have felt it necessary to take the step which he was about to do. The hon. member's proceeding, however, compelled him to it; and the case itself was so monstrous as to leave him no choice. The facts were simply these:—This Mr. Dundas Perrott, being a lieutenant in his majesty's navy, informed a person that he could get a protection from the impress. That person was a poor unfortunate servant-woman, who really imagined that Perrott could procure a protection for her husband, Robert Bullen. He required an advance of money for the purpose; and she gave him that money. He soon afterwards pressed her for more, which she again furnished. He still applied for money, in order, as he said, to fee the clerks at the Admiralty. She had parted with all the cash she had, and borrowed a sum to meet his demands: but still the man wanted additional funds. The poor woman was unable to raise them; but she happened to possess a small furnished house of her own, and actually took away her furniture and sold it. In conclusion, the man was pressed; and the unhappy wife, after having vainly sacrificed her all, went before a magistrate. That magistrate considered it proper, upon a hearing, to send the matter before another tribunal; and evidence was then gone into, which clearly proved, that a more iniquitous case was never yet produced before a court of justice. The Lords of the Admiralty, and the service generally, were filled with indignation at the detection of such misconduct in an officer who had the honour of bearing a commission in the

1203
royal navy. The House bad already heard that the petitioner was sentenced to a long imprisonment. After he had been in prison some time, it was discovered that there had been such a flaw in the indictment, that the lord chief justice held him to be entitled to his release. Upon this, the Admiralty, who had conceived no previous indisposition towards the party—(a fact which was established by the previous circumstance, that though, by reason of the sentence of the court-martial, he was already under martial law, yet had they reinstated him in the service, under that favourable feeling towards a wounded officer which they would always entertain)—the Admiralty immediately sent all the law proceedings to their legal advisers, and asked them, whether there was any thing in them which might have the effect of doing away with the legal crime that Mr. Perrott had been supposed to have committed. The Admiralty counsel and solicitor were of opinion that there was not. The affidavits which had been tonight brought to the notice of the House, were transmitted to Mr. Jervis, the counsel for the Admiralty, and to the Admiralty solicitors, that they might look into the whole of them again, and see whether they contained any thing which might mitigate the petitioner's guilt. As to that part of Mrs. Bullen's deposition which the hon. gentleman relied upon, the House would recollect, that she made an affidavit of the criminatory circumstances in court, and upon oath. Her voluntary deposition, now made, could be of no importance, therefore, to the question. As to the Admiralty, they would have been very happy if Mr. Perrott could have made out the case he now brought forward; for as it was, it had cast a stigma upon the service. It remained, however, to be added, that after Perrott was seized, there was found, among his papers, and in his own handwriting, a forged discharge. In answer to what was stated about the petitioner's losing his former pension, it was to be observed, that it was very true he had, while a midshipman, enjoyed a pension on account of the wound he had received: but when he was promoted, he gave up the pension, according to the well-known custom of the navy. Now he was dismissed the service, he got neither that nor his half-pay. But this was matter of course. If a person who had been a clerk in a public office, afterwards was pensioned, and it should ap-
1204
pear that he had misbehaved himself in so extraordinary a manner, that his pension should be taken away, he could not go back and demand his clerk's pay. As to this petition being brought up, he did not know whether it was worth while to oppose it; but he should do so, unless the House should wish to hear it read, in order to be more fully informed of facts to which, he presumed, he had now given a sufficient answer.
Mr. Hume, in explanation, contended that the question was, whether the facts that had been sworn to against the petitioner were proved or not. By the affidavits which he held in his hand, it appeared, as he maintained, that they were not proved. This petition had been handed to him by sir Edward Perrott; and in answer to a question which he had put to sir Edward, as to whether he was prepared to meet any statement that the petition might occasion in parliament, sir Edward had replied, that he was quite willing to do so; and that he was most anxious it should be presented without loss of time.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that it bad come to the knowledge of the Admiralty, that some members of the petitioner's family had tampered with Mrs. Bullen before the trial, and offered her the money out of which she had been defrauded, if she would not appear against the petitioner. After the verdict, it was not a question for the Admiralty, whether the indictment was found deficient on technical points, but whether the petitioner was morally guilty.
Sir Isaac Coffinwould be glad to know, whether gentlemen could suppose that any Admiralty in the world would be so inhuman, as to refuse relief to a man who had suffered so much in the cause of his' country as the petitioner appeared to have done, if there did not exist some strong case against him.
Mr. Crokerassured the House, that had there been any doubt in this case, the Admiralty would have given the benefit of that doubt to a person in so interesting a situation as that of a wounded officer. He would mention a single fact, which, he thought, would go far to satisfy the minds of gentlemen upon the merits of this case. It was a fact that took place, he would assume, without the knowledge of either of the parties, but while this fraudulent negotiation was going on between Perrott and the poor woman. Perrott now denied that there was either

1205
fraud or negotiation on his part: whilst Bullen and his wife asserted, that there were both. It did happen, however, in the meanwhile, that application was made at the Admiralty for a protection, and by whom? By sir Edward Perrott. To sir Edward he imputed no improper design; and all that this circumstance imported was, a hope, perhaps, that the respectable name of a baronet might give the application an additional chance of success. Such an application, however, was made for a protection, and for whom? Why, for Robert Bullen; and when the whole matter as to Perrott'a conduct came out, among that person's papers, there was found a forged protection for Robert Bullen, in Perrott's own handwriting.
Mr. Agar Elliswas bound to state, that such a case as that brought forward by his hon. friend he had never heard. The explanations of gentlemen opposite must have quite satisfied the House, as to the impropriety of proceeding further in the matter.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the petitioner was found guilty by a jury, and he now appealed from the decision of a jury, stating that he was innocent of an offence of which that jury, on their oaths, had said he was guilty. This, he believed, was the first attempt that had been made to establish a precedent, the dangerous consequences of which it was not necessary to dwell on. With respect to what had been said about affidavits, four out of five of the affidavits which parties made, complaining of the administration of justice, were framed in the same way. There was one plain answer to these affidavits—why were not the persons by whom they were made examined in open court? No, they shrunk from such examination; but were ready enough to come forward with affidavits, where they were not exposed to the penalties attendant upon perjury.
Mr. Humesaid, he would not press the House to a division, but he thought the petitioner intitled to the commiseration pf the country.
Mr. Peeladded, that he might have objected to the reception of the petition, on the technical ground, that it prayed for pecuniary compensation.
Mr. Monkrecommended Mr. Hume to withdraw the petition; and the latter, with the leave of the House, complied with the request.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT—PETITION OF MR. WORGMAN SUGGESTING A PLAN.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he held in his hand a petition praying for a Reform in the Representation of the people in parliament. Though favourable to the principle of parliamentary reform, he certainly could not concur in the prayer of his constituent, from whom this petition, came; still, however, as the petition was, drawn up in language respectful to the. House, he thought it ought to be received. The petition was from Mr. George Worgman, a jeweller, in the Strand. He prayed that the House might do away with the complex machinery at present used in borough elections—that they would repeal the acts against bribery and corruption at such elections. By these means, he thought the higher orders would be duly represented. It was the higher orders, the petitioner thought, and not the lower, which were not duly represented in that House. He further thought, that if the laws against bribery and corruption at elections were repealed, that influence might be openly exercised which was now carried on through, dark and secret channels; that an advantage would arise from giving to men of property sufficient to purchase the patronage of a borough, that fair representation in parliament to which such property was entitled. He also prayed, that the House would sanction bylaw the open purchase and sale of seats in that House. It was well known, the hon. member observed, that such bargains daily took place, and he could see no objection to making those seats, which were now the objects of secret bargain and sale, open to the public competition of such as might be disposed to expend their money in that way. The petitioner, in speaking to him on this subject, had stated, that this was the only kind of reform to which it was likely the House would agree, and he thought it would be attended with many advantages. The last prayer of the petitioner was, that large towns, such as Birmingham and Manchester, should be empowered to return members, in order that the balance might be kept true by the representation of the popular interests, and in order to keep open the channels for aspiring candidates who might wish to advance to official appointments. The plan of Mr. Worgman was therefore no wild or visionary project, incapable of being rendered intelligible, but a plain, comprehensive

1207
scheme, which certainly had some plausibility to recommend it. The petition was very respectfully worded.
The petition was then brought up and read; setting forth:
"That the House, during the reign of Edward the First, and for two centuries following, was summoned chiefly to vote supplies to the Crown, and to sanction the public acts of the ruling power; while so doing it exercised the right to protect the interests of the people, by promoting judicious laws, consequently the vital interests of the Crown and of the Barons (the great landed proprietors) were deeply concerned in its decisions; that the Crown and the Barons, in those early times, by means of their high stations and their landed possessions, influenced the electors in very many boroughs, and took especial care that the members returned should be parties interested in guarding their high privileges in the House; and moreover, that by those means it has occurred, that the great majority of Boroughs were never under the influence of the popular interest; that during the fatal conflict between the houses of York and Lancaster, the great power of the Barons was considerably lessened by the ravage of war, and by attainder, and further by the policy of the house of Tudor, which tended to enrich the Commons, and to repress the ancient Nobility, by opposing the growing power of the House to the unruly licence of the Barons, and by tacitly acquiescing in its assumption of new and great privileges, and legislative authority, which the Sovereign, by means of his great influence, occasionally made use of as an engine of state; that during the reign of the Stuart Family, the popular interest in the House obtained so firm a hold on public opinion, by its successful endeavours to reform the government, that it was enabled to outvote the members deputed expressly to guard the interests of the Crown and of the Nobles, which curb upon the representatives of the people being reduced below a useful standard, the popular interest propelled the machine of government into the most unwarranted excesses; that at the glorious Revolution of 1688, the coercive power of the government (consisting of King, Lords, and Commons) was combined, and became indissoluble in the House, principally through the wisdom of their proceedings, and the singular spirit of the representative system, which intro-
1208
duces members deputed by the King, Lords, and Commons, to guard their rights and all other preponderating interests; even those great dependencies on the Imperial Crown of these realms that have not the legal right to elect members to protect their interests in the House, do, by dint of property and connexions, through the medium of Boroughs, introduce Deputies, by which happy facility impartiality is secured, and the House has become the efficient governing Senate of this extended Empire, and diffuses the coercive power over its vast and disjointed territories; consequently, it is no longer the representative assembly of the Commons, charged principally to vote supplies to the Crown; that a more efficacious Senate could scarcely be constituted by any modification of the Election Laws, yet, the petitioner is of opinion, that there exists a strange anomaly between the letter and the spirit of those laws; the letter of the laws ordains, that by means of County, City, and Borough Elections, the people of the united Kingdom, or the popular interest, shall be represented in the House, without ordaining any mode of election for many other great and valuable interests that equally require direct representatives; and further, it declares, that it is a crime to vote from interested motives, when such motives are the springs to all worldly transactions, and that the most solemn oaths shall be taken to ensure the due performance of those laws which are morally bad, because requiring a factitious virtue in man contrary to his nature; now these oaths are well known to be ineffectual, and to produce much immorality and subterfuge (as was evinced by the late disgraceful proceedings at Grampound), because opposed to that strong and honourable feeling of self-interest which pervades human nature; fortunately, the spirit of these laws, or the Borough system, has introduced a counterpoise to the popular interest, and the secret working of that system paralyzes those laws that attempt to impede its progress by obstructing patronage and influence, which are the honourable appendages of property and possessions; impartiality results from the practical working of the Borough system (which enables all weighty interests so carefully to guard their rights and possessions by their respective Deputies, that the public good becomes the basis of their proceedings), not from the choice of unbiassed

1209
members, who cannot be actuated with sufficient zeal, nor possessed of adequate knowledge, to advocate with effect the interests of others, although they may be good umpires; the petitioner, being convinced that the machinery of the system is susceptible of great amelioration, that the scandal, meanness, and immorality, attending many Borough Elections, may be done away with, and that a more honourable and direct mode of representing the higher interests may be resorted to, prays, That the House will take into its serious consideration the propriety of assimilating the election laws to the spirit of the representative system in operation by repealing those laws that attempt to obstruct patronage and influence at elections, but which only force them into a secret and degrading channel, and bring odium on all parties concerned; and that the House will confer on the landholder possessing the power in close Boroughs to depute members to the House, the legal right so to do, without the intervention of nominal electors, who have long since been deprived of the use of their right by the tide of events, and which the petitioner considers more available to the purposes of good government in the hands of the possessors of the land, who now exercise that right; the petitioner further prays that the purchase and sale of a limited number of seats in the House may be declared legal, that being the only mode many great interests in this extended Empire have of introducing deputies, and it is extremely desirable that none should be excluded the benefit of an advocate in the House, whose interests are so important as to induce them to make the necessary sacrifice; lastly, the petitioner prays, that the right to elect members to the House may be granted to very populous towns, to protect the popular interest, which may be prejudiced by the reform proposed, and to keep open the channel through which aspiring candidates, dependent on popular favour, hope to obtain useful distinction, and to advance to official appointments; and for any further reform which, in the wisdom of the House, they may consider conducive to plain dealing and honourable conduct at elections."
Ordered to lie on the table.

STOCK-PURSE OF THE FOOT GUARDS.
Mr. Humereferred to what had passed on two former evenings respecting the Stock Purse of the Regiments of Foot Guards,
1210
when a statement made by the Noble Secretary at War had been contradicted by various officers. He had however some reason to doubt the correctness of the information from which those hon. officers spoke, and for this reason he again brought the subject forward. He then stated the mode in which he supposed the stock purse was formed. Mr. Windham had endeavoured to effect an alteration in the manner in which the accounts of the Guards, or household troops, were kept, but without effect; but the present noble secretary at War had corrected, as he understood, many irregularities in the management of the stock-purse. The principle of the question was of the greatest importance. The House voted certain sums for the pay and support of the army, and for the Guards as a part of the army; and it had a right to be informed what was done with that money. The household troops were in some respects peculiarly circumstanced; as a sum in the gross was voted for them, while for the other regiments of the line it was voted in detail. The Guards had a stock-purse, which arose principally from the pay of a certain number of men borne on the list, but non-effective: he believed that there were eight men to each company so circumstanced—men only upon paper, and for the five regiments of guards the number would be 464 men, at 13 d. per day. The pay of these men was thrown into the stock-purse, and out of it the expenses of the hospital and recruiting service were discharged. He had been told, that the regiments of Guards were more economical than those of the line. This might be, but still, though the money might be properly spent, the House had a right to inquire into the expenditure. He made it a distinct charge, that irregularity did exist, and he knew that in so doing, he was open to the often-repeated slanders, and to be told, as he had been on a former night by an hon. officer, that he had been imposed upon by the malicious misrepresentations of some libellous informer impeaching his comrades. He would, however, state in what way he had obtained his information on this subject, that the House might judge. Two individuals in the Guards had come to him last year, and had asked him if he was aware of the prevalence of a practice in the Guards, different from other regiments, as to the proportion of pay of men confined. He had replied in the negative; they went on to say, that

1211
be ought to know. Though it was not carried to any great extent, that the money-stopped from the men went to the officers. If this were so, he felt that it was wrong; and, as there ought not to be even the appearance of secrecy on such a subject, he had determined to inquire into the fact. He had, therefore, taken occasion to ask one or two officers what the stock-purse of the Guards was; and their answer was, that it was some fund managed by the captains, with which the subalterns had nothing to do. In order that he might not bring the subject forward, without sufficient grounds, he had gone to an officer of the Guards, stating that he had heard such and such assertions made and inquiring it they were founded in fact. He had asked first, whether there was a stock-purse? The reply was, that there was. Are the stoppages of pay from men under confinement put into it? was his next question; and the answer was in the affirmative. What, then, became of the 7½d per day; did it go back to the public from the stock-purse, or was it permanently added to the funds of that stock-purse? The officer admitted that he believed it did not go back to the public. He had since understood, that the surplus of the stock-purse, after the charges upon it were paid, was divided between the captains and the field officers. This subject therefore, merited investigation; for no account of any regiment ought to be closed from the investigation of the Secretary at War. The public confided the subject to him, and he was responsible for the misapplication of any of the money of the public. It was not a sufficient answer for the officers to say, "We in the Guards do not proceed like other regiments; we do all by contract; we have a certain sum, for which we undertake to do certain things, and you have no right to know how it is spent." What he wished to know, in the first place, was, whether there was such a fund as the Stock-Purse? He did not suppose that that would be disputed; it was, indeed, admitted on all hands. Then he inquired, from what sources was it supplied? If it arose from ineffective men, only borne on paper, and not existing in fact, he begged to be informed, whether these 464 men were part of the number annually voted? If so, then so far it was needless; and the people ought not to be called upon to pay for men, that the money might be put into the stock-purse of the Guards. He had
1212
thought, from what had passed of late years, that none but efficient men were included in the votes, and that paper men were totally unknown in the army at present. He was satisfied that it would redound much more to the credit of the Guards if this subject were left quite open to inspection. At present, certain notions prevailed among the men regarding it. They might be erroneous; but the good of the service required that the men should be convinced that they were mistaken. What he asked for, was by no means unreasonable. If the noble Secretary at War was ignorant of any facts touching this stock-purse, it would be advantageous, in that point of view, that the question should be brought forward and discussed. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House, a return of the number of men confined under sentence of Courts Martial, general or regimental, or by the civil power, in each battalion of the Foot Guards, in each year since January 1816, together with the periods of their confinement: also an account of the amount of pay stopped from these men in each year, and to what purpose applied: also, an account of the income of the stock-purse and the contingent account of each of the regiments of Foot Guards, from what source derived, and how the same has been applied and appropriated in each year since January 1816."
Lord Palmerstonthought he should be able in a few words fully to explain all that had puzzled the hon. member for Aberdeen. Previously to the year 1783, all the regiments of the service were on the same footing as the Guards at present. Pay was issued for the full number of men voted, and the difference between the pay issued to the establishment and the effective numbers, in other words, the pay of the ineffectives went to form a stock-purse, the mysterious term which had so confused the hon. mover. Out of this stock-purse were paid the expenses of recruiting, of hospitals; and the remainder, if any, was divided among the captains of companies. When Mr. Burke brought in his bill which abolished the stock-purses in the regiments of the line, and provided that pay should be issued for the effectives only, the Foot guards were excepted from the arrangement. The hon. member had said, that Mr. Windham as well as himself (lord P.) had wished to extend the system of the rest of the army to the

1213
Guards. What was Mr. Windham's wish, he knew not; but as to his own intention the hon. gentleman was misinformed. Each system had its peculiar advantages, and from the fixed head-quarters of the Guards, and other circumstances, he believed that the stock-purse arrangement was as economical as that which prevailed in the regiments of the line. As to the pay stopped from soldiers in confinement, it was known to the hon. gentleman, that, under the mutiny act, the pay of men confined under sentences of court martial was sacrificed; but it was not provided to whom that pay should be given. Undoubtedly, the pay so forfeited was, legitimately, a part of the stock-purse, because it formed a part of the difference between the establishment and effectives pay, in the same manner as the j pay of those who had died or deserted. On inquiry into the subject, he found a diversity of practice existed in the different regiments of Guards. It was to be observed that according to the mutiny act, there was a power in the secretary at war, to remit to the men who had been so confined, the whole or any part of their pay. In the regiments of Guards three different practices prevailed. In some cases, the officers commanding regiments exercised the discretion which, according to law, should strictly be vested in the secretary at war, of remitting, to the persons who had been confined, the whole, or any part of their pay. In other cases, credit was given to the public in the regimental accounts; in other cases, the money was left in the hands of the agent of the regiment, ready to be paid to the paymaster-general if it should be soclaimed by him. But, in no one case, was any part of the money so stopped from persons confined under sentences of courts martial, divided among the officers; though, as legally forming a part of the stock-purse, they would have been entitled so to have divided it. After what he had stated, it was impossible that the supposition could exist, for an instant, that such a body of men as the officers of the Guards would pervert the course of justice, from the miserable motive of adding to their dividends a few shillings from the forfeited pay of the men imprisoned. Really, the amount that would have accrued to them in this way was so small, that to each officer it would have been counted in shillings; but, as it would be more satisfactory to the feelings of the officers of the Guards
1214
to clear themselves of all suspicion of being operated on by such motives, he should consent to so much of the motion as called for an account of the amount of pay forfeited by the soldiers of the Guards imprisoned under courts-martial, and the manner in which it had been disposed of; the result of which would be, to shew, that in no instance had it been divided among the officers, though legally, the captains were entitled to it. And he was authorised to say, that though this pay was a legitimate part of the stock-purse, and should be applied to defray the expenses of the hospital and regimental contingencies, yet that the officers of the Guards were perfectly willing that, in all cases, it should go to the public; except in the instances where it was deemed proper to remit it to the men under sentence. As to the amount and application of the stock-purse, the accounts moved for would be extremely bulky and not at all instructive. All the information that was necessary on the subject was before the House. He would therefore move, as an amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "Return," in order to add the words, "Shewing the amount of pay forfeited under the provisions of the mutiny act, by men of each regiment of the Foot-guards, imprisoned by sentence of court-martial, in each year since 1816, and stating how the same has been disposed of," instead thereof.
Mr. Bernalstated, that the explanation given by the noble lord must be as satisfactory to the House as it was creditable to the regiments of Guards. Nor did he think the gallant officer opposite him had any occasion to be dissatisfied with the statement of his hon. friend, who had brought the matter forward.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that if the hon. member had made the other night a statement similar to that which he had now made, he should not have expressed himself with any warmth; but certainly the imputation that the officers of the Guards put into their own pockets the pay of the imprisoned men, was one which he felt it necessary to repel. The allowances of the officers in the Guards were far from being extravagant, as compared with those of the rest of the army. He was ready to show the hon. gentleman the accounts, by which he would see, that the expense of the officers of a battalion of the Guards was 700 l. less than that of a battalion of the line.
Colonel Dawkinssaid, he thought it unnecessary to add any thing to the explanation of the noble lord, which had proved so satisfactory.
Sir J. Shelleysaid, the Guards would be found as little expensive in reality, as any branch of the army.
Mr. Humeexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation given, and observed, that he could not have been expected to know what was the manner in which the money was disposed of, as the noble lord had only known it by inquiring, since the subject had been mentioned in that House.
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.