was anxious to give some explanation respecting what he had stated on a former evening, with regard to the conduct of the mayor of Leicester. He had then said, that the mayor refused to call a meeting on the requisition of several respectable inhabitants of Leicester, to take into consideration the propriety of a continuance of the property tax; but he had since received a letter from one of the gentlemen who signed the requisition and waited on the mayor, explaining the reasons of his refusal in a manner which appeared quite satisfactory, and informing him that the mayor had since complied with a requisition free from the objections to which the first was liable.

expressed his gratitude to the noble lord for the candour he had shown in making this acknowledgment. The person alluded to he was satisfied was the last man in the world who would let any thing like party spirit stand in the way of the discharge of his public duty. The fact was, had he complied with the first requisition to call a meeting to "express a decided disapprobation of the renewal, at this time, of war taxes," he would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of public duty. He would call on the noble lord to say if the correspondent from Leicester had not written him to that effect. He would call on the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), who also spoke on the night in question against the mayor of Leicester, and beg of him that he would be good enough, in matters of this kind, first to investigate and then to accuse, if after an investigation he should think it proper to do so. But the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring) had even improved upon the noble lord and the learned gentleman, by imputing to the gentleman in question the malignity of political motives, from which any man who knew him would at once acquit him. He thought there was something unfair in thus bringing forward any man who had not the means of justifying himself. He should like to know by what right they could arraign in this manner the conduct of any man without his being heard. Such accusations could only have the most injurious effects on the public service; for even the strongest acknowledgments, after the discovery of the error, could hardly be considered a reparation to the injured individual.

was very ready to exculpate the mayor of Leicester from any thing like political partiality; but at the same time he considered it also his duty to exculpate the hon. and learned gentleman who had merely spoken upon his statement. He had misrepresented a part, but not the whole of the transaction; for the requisition had not been complied with, and the meeting did not take place.

thought the noble lord's explanation satisfactory, as it was only from what he had stated that his hon. and learned friend had made his remarks; and observed, that a charge against his hon. and learned friend ought not to have been made in his absence.

also lamented that the charge was not postponed till Mr. Brougham was present; but what that hon. and learned member said proceeded on the noble lord's statement respecting the mayor. That statement justified the remarks upon it, but that statement being inaccurate, the noble lord candidly took the first opportunity of setting himself right with the House. As to the hon. and learned member, no fault attached to him.

observed, that so far from thinking his hon. and learned friend's remarks incorrect or censurable in any way, he should have made similar observations, had not his hon. and learned friend's speech made them unnecessary.

maintained, that the statement justified the remarks, and that it would have been more correct to complain of an hon. and learned member in his presence.

begged to explain, that he did not bring on this conversation; and that knowing the mayor of Leicester had been hardly used, he could not listen to the noble lord's counter-statement, without expressing his feelings on the subject.

observed, that the noble lord had made all possible reparation in his power, and that an hon. and learned member ought not to have been made the object of a charge when he was not in the House.

replied, that no charge had been preferred, that the hon. member near him had only vindicated an innocent man, the mayor of Leicester; and he trusted in future, that public men who had not the opportunity of defending themselves on the spot, would not be made the objects of complaints and charges on light grounds.

thought it was due to the hon. and learned member, whose conduct had been condemned, to wait till such member was in his place.

took the occasion to say, that he could not support the property tax, even though it were modified; for he was persuaded that if it were adopted with those modifications, it would be a permanent tax.

on presenting the petition from the borough of Wellingborough, in Northamptonshire, against the property tax, and praying for a strict attention to economy, said, he was particularly instructed to support that part of the prayer of the petition which referred to the pledges of economy given in the Speech from the throne at the opening of the session. He therefore invited the House to the most strict and rigid system of economy, as the only means of saving the country. He was aware that it might not be possible to satisfy the wishes of the people, groaning beneath their burthens, by any practicable reduction that was consistent with the honour and safety of the nation; but he was convinced, at the same time, that great savings might be made, and that it was the duty of the House to carry them immediately into execution. In the civil departments great savings might be made, not only in sinecures, some of which, he believed, ministers themselves were pledged to abolish, but in useless offices, by which he meant those that did not conduce to the public service, or in which there was not adequate business for all those employed. In some offices, for instance, what was now executed by two might be intrusted to one, and in others an establishment of three might be reduced to two. He would not point out those particular departments to which this recommendation might apply, as he thought his majesty's ministers, from their knowledge of the business distributed among all the offices, were the best judges where a reduction might most safely be made; but he could not help pointing out to their consideration the boards of the treasury and the admiralty, as subjects where more economy might be practised. There were at present six lords of the treasury; the first lord of the treasury, the chancellors of the exchequer for Great Britain and for Ireland, and three junior members. He would propose that two of the junior lords should be dispensed with, and that the whole duty should be performed by the three who were necessarily members of the board, and only one junior lord. A similar reduction might take place in the admiralty board, where, as in the treasury, there were at present six members, four of whom could execute the whole of the duty, and thereby allow to the country the saving of the salaries of two junior, or, as they were commonly called, lay lords.

said, he had a question to ask of his majesty's ministers, concerning their intention with regard to the abolition or continuance of the office of third secretary of state. This office had been created on pretence of the accumulation of business during the war. The creation of it was contrary to act of parliament, and in direct violation of the provisions of Mr. Burke's bill. He would ask, therefore, if it was intended to abolish it, or if the noble lord's "intermediate state" between peace and war was to be urged as a justification or a reason for perpetuating this burthen upon the country?

, in answer to the noble lord's question, stated, that there was no intention on the part of the government to abolish the office alluded to, but there were certain economical arrangements about to be made concerning it, which he would soon have the honour of laying before parliament.

asked whether his majesty's ministers would have the temerity to bring before the House the question, whether the profits of all the industry of the country were adequate to pay the taxes which were imposed?

presented two petitions from Glasgow, one against the property tax, and the other praying that it might continue for the two years, as proposed, under certain modifications. The hon. member bore testimony to the respectability of the merchants and manufacturers of the city of Glasgow, who subscribed and instructed him to support the latter petition. The disinterested nature of their principles was sufficiently demonstrated by their conduct in offering to support a burthen which the other parts of the empire were so anxious to throw off. They were all, he believed, liable to pay the tax to which they were so favourable, while he was free to confess that the other petition with which he was intrusted, was subscribed by persons, many of whom were not directly liable. He did not mean, by this description of the petitioners, to say that their prayer was irrelevant, or that, because they did not pay directly, they were without any interest in wishing its abolition. In his own judgment, they were liable to pay a tax which affected their employers, and he would rather support them than the other petitioners. Adverting to the disclosures which the income tax compelled merchants to make, as one of the reasons why it should be abolished, he said, that he by no means thought the chancellor of the exchequer had answered that objection to his measure, by saying, that those engaged in trade might make all disclosures necessary for the purpose of equitable assessment, without showing the actual state of their affairs upon the whole, by laying the profits of the different branches of their concerns before different commissioners. This course, if it were adopted, the hon. member thought, would, in most cases, be injurious, as it often happened that a loss was incurred in one part of a business, while the only profit was reaped in another, which thus might be assessed for the whole of its amount, without allowing a deduction for the loss upon the whole balance. The difficulty of obtaining the proper deductions was a universal subject of complaint. He had been applied to by a poor woman, in very distressful circumstances, requesting his interference for relief with the commissioners. She was the proprietor of a house of twelve pounds per annum, which was the greater part of her income. For this sum she had been assessed; and though she made repeated applications to the commissioners to have the deductions which the act authorized in cases like hers, she could obtain no redress, from some misapprehension of the meaning of the act on the part of those who were appointed to carry it into execution. She was obliged to pay for five years, and had contributed out of this poor pittance six pounds to government before her case was attended to.

said, that the same complaint to which he had alluded on a former night, of persons having their affairs exposed by the negligence of the collectors of the incometax, existed in a still greater degree in the town of Shrewsbury, where the amount of their returns were actually circulated about the town in printed bills. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had stated, that this evil had been remedied, but he had to assure him that it was in full force at Shrewsbury a very short time back. He trusted, if the income tax were again inflicted on us, that means would be taken to prevent the recurrence of this enormous abuse.

, referring to his former statement about the returns under the income tax, said, that several other instances of the publicity given to the schedules containing accounts of the state of people's trade or fortunes had come to his knowledge. One of the districts where they were sold was in the immediate neighbourhood of London, another about ten miles from it, where the returns were systematically exposed to sale as waste paper for the benefit of the surveyor and inspector. He had heard this circumstance from one of the commissioners, who expressed his abhorrence of the base transaction, and who declared that he would no longer act as commissioner, though the tax were re-imposed. The commissioners were not to be blamed for these transactions; they performed a gratuitous and a very revolting duty. The persons who exposed the papers containing the state of the private affairs of individuals to public sale were the inspectors and surveyors. Of the conduct of these officers in performing this unworthy act, for the purpose of a little paltry gain of a few shillings, he would not trust himself with expressing his opinion, lest it should be too strong for the decency and decorum of parliamentary usage; but he would say, that if, in five instances which had been mentioned, such sales had been made, no reliance could be placed upon professions or oaths of secrecy. While he was in possession of the House, he would take the opportunity of replying to a charge made against him by the member for Leicester in his absence. This was an extraordinary charge—extraordinary in two respects, as being made in his absence, and as being totally groundless and unfounded. He did not call the charge totally unfounded unadvisedly, or without due consideration, and he would show why. He was uncertain if the hon. member who made it was present when the speech on which he commented was delivered by him. He would now state the circumstances for his information if he was absent, and would recall them to his memory if he was in his place at the time. A noble friend of his (lord Rancliffe) stated that the mayor of Leicester had refused to obey a requisition for calling a meeting to petition on the subject of the property tax, and added some circumstances with regard to his motives and conduct on which he had been misinformed. He immediately left the house. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Babington) rose to explain the conduct and views of the worthy magistrate, and did so to the complete justification of the mayor, and the satisfaction of the House. He (Mr. Brougham), as his noble friend was gone, rose to express his satisfaction at the statement given; and this was called his charge against the worthy mayor—this was the allegation he brought against him—this was the injustice he had committed, for which he was to be arraigned in his absence, and held up as making a wanton and gratuitous attack upon a blameless character. He would now repeat what he then said, that the objection of the worthy mayor to a compliance with the requisition savoured more of the nice distinctions which generally occurred among people of the profession to which he himself (Mr. Brougham) might be supposed partial, than of the plain sense and maxims generally followed by those of his own class in society. He (Mr. Brougham) had, in fact, joined in the approbation bestowed on the conduct of the mayor of Leicester; he admitted then, as now, after further inquiry, that it was perfectly blameless. He hoped the House would excuse the liberty he had taken in forcing a personal matter upon its attention: he had only done so in self-defence, in reply to a grave charge made during his absence. It might happen, on some future occasion, that he should be guilty of an error, but he trusted that censures would be spared until that occasion arrived. If he had overstated what had fallen from the hon. member, the fault was not his, but of the individual who had made the charge in the absence of the person accused.

said, that he might have been mistaken as to the tenor of the hon. and learned gentleman's observations; but if he had, it was in common with some of the publications in which the proceedings of the House appeared. The fact was, that the remarks of which he had complained had reached Leicester, and had excited a strong and painful sensation, not only in the mind of the worthy chief, magistrate, but of those officers by whom he was surrounded and assisted. It was true that the discussion on the former day had not originated with the hon. gentleman, but with a noble lord who was not present when the hon. and learned gentleman spoke; but the mayor of Leicester had been for some time writhing under the unfounded imputations cast upon him; and if he (Mr. K.) had not spoken in his vindication, the consequence would have been, that that most respectable magistrate must still have continued to suffer. What had that night passed would no doubt give him much satisfaction, since it showed that all parties now admitted the correctness of his conduct. The House would do him (Mr. K.) the justice to believe, that he was not forward in making observations of a personal nature; but he had felt it his duty to make the remarks now the subject of complaint, in consequence of communications he had received from the country. He could assure the hon, and learned gentleman, that whatever might be his opinion of the conduct of the mayor of Leicester, those who were more immediately interested, were convinced that he had exercised a wise discretion.

could not help observing, that the hon, member for Leicestershire was rather hardly dealt by, and if he were permitted to advise that hon. member, under similar circumstances, it would be to pursue the very same course he had adopted that night in defence of the mayor of Leicester. He entreated the House to call to its recollection the facts of the case. The noble lord with whom the subject had originated on a former night, made a statement on the authority of a private communication; on the authority of that statement the hon. and learned member commented, with his usual warmth of eloquence, and his observations were such as of course to hurt the feelings of an injured individual. The noble lord who made that statement on a former night, with a candour which did him infinite honour, came forward to- night, to avow his error, and then the hon. member for Leicestershire referred to what fell from the hon. and learned member, as the consequence of that error, and because the hon. and learned member happened not to have been present, the hon. member was accused of having brought forward a charge at a time when he was absent. Surely it must be manifest, that it was not the hon. member, but the noble lord with whom the selection of the time was; and if the hon. member had omitted to use that opportunity, he would have grossly derelicted the duty which he owed to his absent friend, and would have omitted to use the only opportunity which could regularly have offered for that purpose.

defended himself against the charge of having commented with his usual warmth on the subject introduced by his noble friend. He had only expressed his satisfaction at the explanation which had been given.

replied, that the noble lord in the absence of the hon. and learned member had stated expressly, that he by his former erroneous statement, had induced the hon. and learned member to express himself as he had done.

said, that he did not induce his hon. and learned friend to make any comment whatever. His charge against the mayor of Leicester was, that that magistrate had refused to comply with the requisition of several electors of that borough to convene a meeting with a view to petition against the income tax, and that charge was founded. But yet, from subsequent explanation, he was not now disposed to condemn the conduct of this magistrate, although he did not concur with him as to the grounds of his refusal of the first requisition.

, on presenting the petition from the freeholders, justices of the peace, commissioners of supply, and heritors of the county of Edinburgh, expressed his satisfaction to find that his sentiments with regard to the property tax concurred with those of his constituents. For at this meeting which was originally called to petition against the property tax, resolutions were adopted approving of that tax, with certain modifications respecting agriculture, as a better plan for raising the supplies than to resort to a loan, which would serve to render it more difficult for landholders to obtain pecuniary accommodation. The Peti- tioners further prayed, that some allowance should be made to those landowners who had not been able to obtain any rent. Upon this point, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer on a former evening, because that showed the disposition of government to grant every reasonable allowance to the landlord who had received no rent, and to the agriculturist who had had no profit. With such modifications, he had no doubt that the property tax would be found the best plan of finance that could be devised under existing circumstances.

thought it necessary to state what had come to his knowledge with respect to the meeting, from which this petition was presented, and which the hon. baronet professed himself so happy to think concurred with him in opinion. This meeting of the county of Mid-Lothian consisted, in fact of only 87 or 89 persons. It was not a meeting specially convened by the sheriff, but held at the quarter sessions; therefore, if the hon. baronet had no more constituents than those which attended this meeting, he must at the next election find himself, to say the least, rather hard run. Yet the petition in the hands of the hon. baronet was carried only by a majority of three or four. When a petition for the unqualified repeal of the income tax was proposed, the previous question was moved by that gallant officer lord Dalhousie, and on this question being carried, an hon. gentleman brought forward certain resolutions, which formed the bases of this petition. But, after all, this petition did not support the opinion of the hon. baronet. For if he was not mistaken the petitioners took special care to pray that if the property tax were renewed, they themselves should be exempted. This meeting composed, as he understood, of about 89 landholders, did not appear to be very candid; for according to the language of their petition, they distinctly say—" The property tax is extremely unjust and unequal, but yet you may impose it on others if you relieve us from its operation." Therefore the difference between the petition in the hands of the hon. baronet, and that of others on the table, was not as to the character or equity of the tax, but as to the view of the petitioners, the gentlemen seeking only to relieve themselves from its pressure, while other petitioners sought to relieve the country at large.

The petition was then read. It pro- nounced the property tax unjust and unfair in its principle as it regarded the agricultural interests, and prayed, if any bill were brought into parliament upon the same subject again, that modifications would be adopted, which would impose a tax not upon nominal, but upon real profits.

explained, that all he had stated was, that properly modified, the property tax would be a great relief to the agricultural distresses. He referred to a minute of the proceedings at the meeting, which had been transmitted to him, to show that it was there the prevailing sentiment that a loan would be most injurious to the landed interest.

put it to the House, whether the petition as read, did not verify his observations. It was, in fact, against the property tax, unless it were made no tax as applied to the individuals who had signed it.

remarked, that the objection to a loan in the country was, that it would depress the funds, and therefore, the best mode of giving satisfaction to the agriculturist was, to abandon the property tax, the effect of which would be an immediate elevation of the funds.

remarked, that this was decidedly a petition against the income tax of 1815 and 1816, describing the evil effects which its existence had produced. With respect to pecuniary accommodations to landlords and tenants, the country banks, however well disposed, would not lend any money to either landlords or tenants, and the money of those banks was no doubt in the funds. Thus government must see the facility of obtaining a loan; and the property tax being removed, the country bankers would lend with more confidence to their country connexions. Thus the public and individuals might obtain relief by a measure to which he trusted that the country would urge ministers to accede.

The several petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

said, he thought it necessary, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether in the event of the rejection of the property tax, he proposed to borrow money in the ordinary way, or to resort to the sinking fund, under that clause in the 26th of the king, which was commonly called Mr. Fox's clause, and thus make the commissioners for theredemption of the public debt the contractors for the loan?

replied, that he could not allow himself to anticipate such an event as the hon. gentleman stated. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no necessity of resorting to either of the alterations alluded to, but should the necessity arise, it would be then time enough for him to state the line of policy which he proposed to pursue for supplying the public exigencies. He requested the House, however, to recollect that last year, when it was proposed to repeal the property tax, the funds had fallen considerably.

inquired whether the debt of one million to Portugal, for which we were paying 6 per cent. interest, had been forgotten, or whether it was to be included in the miscellaneous services.

was happy to be able to assure the right hon. baronet, that a considerable portion of the commissariat debt of Portugal had been paid out of the supplies of last year, and that the whole was in a fair course of liquidation by the judicious arrangements made.

observed, that the raising money by loan or by exchequer bills must be productive of pretty similar effects. The people, when they heard from so weighty an authority as the chancellor of the exchequer, that by dispensing with a loan great advantages must accrue to the money market, naturally placed implicit confidence in such a declaration. His own opinion certainly was, that a direct loan, the interest of which should be charged upon the sinking fund, was the most eligible mode of meeting the financial difficulties of the country.

wished to know when it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman to bring forward the question of the property tax.

replied, that the bringing forward that measure would necessarily depend upon the course which public business might take during the present week. He had great doubts, however, whether it could be brought forward so early as Wednesday, and he thought Friday the more likely day.

said it would be a material convenience to the House if the right hon. gentleman could name any day when he was quite sure it would come on.

observed, in answer, that it was certainly his wish to have the proposition discussed as early as possible, but as it was evident that the debate on the remaining estimates would be protracted to a considerable length, he thought it would be better, in order to avoid disappointment, to name Monday next at once.—That day was accordingly fixed for bringing forward the question.

moved that the Paper No. 9, of those which had that day been presented to the House by Mr. Lushington, should be printed.

suggested whether it would not be much better that all of them should be printed.

said, he could have no other objection to printing that voluminous mass of papers, except the expense which it would incur. With respect to the particular paper in question, he considered it to contain matter which rendered it desirable that no delay should take place in the printing of it, in order that the subject to which it referred might be brought under the consideration of the House.

urged the propriety of not printing the whole of the papers upon the principle of economy.

said, he was glad to find the hon. gentlemen opposite at last disposed to some degree of economy in the article of printing papers which were presented to that House. He certainly did not wish to add to that expense, but as he had not looked over the papers in question, he could not say how far it might he necessary to have the others printed, either wholly or in part.

The motion was agreed to.

rose to submit a motion to the House. He said, that having noticed the attendance of a gallant officer in that House on a former evening, who had accepted a place without vacating his seat, which he did not conceive came within the meaning of the statute of queen Anne, it not being a commission either in the army or navy, he wished to bring the question distinctly under the notice of parliament. He should abstain from all observations at present, and merely move as a ground for a future measure. "That there be laid before the House a copy of the Appointment of Sir Thomas Boulden Thompson to be treasurer of Greenwich-hospital." Ordered.

rose, pursuant to notice, to submit a motion for dividing the general vote proposed on the estimates for the service of the army into separate questions, according to the different services to which the gross amount of force was to be applied. This proposition was founded on the ancient practice of the House, as it was observed down to so late a period as the peace in 1802. It was unquestionable, that the course of proceeding he now recommended might produce inconvenience in time of war, by causing a disclosure of the destination intended for a particular branch of military force. In peace, however, nothing of this kind could be apprehended, and the great utility of thus dividing the consideration must, he thought, be very evident. They had been obliged at once to debate the whole amount of force to be kept up in Great Britain, Ireland, and the colonies, and the probability was, that one vote would be proposed for all the items included under No. 1 of the estimates. The House, however, ought to look at them separately. The whole charge of the household troops in 1808 was only 332,248l. In 1809 it was nearly the same; and it was impossible that this calculation could be advantageously taken with that of the forces serving in the colonies. He was desirous of bringing this matter forward, not with a view of creating prejudice on any one question, but for the sake of mutual convenience. He should therefore move, "That it be an instruction to the committee, that they do make separate provision to defray the charge of his majesty's forces serving abroad and at home under the heads of 1. Household troops. 2. Cavalry serving in Great Britain, Guernsey, and Jersey. 3. Infantry, ditto. 4. Cavalry serving in Ireland. 5. Infantry, ditto. 6. Troops serving in the colonies and plantations. 7. Recruiting service. 8. Contingencies in Great Britain. 9. Contingencies in Ireland."

was extremely willing to give every information he possibly could to the members of the House. Without following the minute classification of the hon. gentleman, of which he saw no utility, he considered the object he had proposed might be better attained by the following arrangement: 1. A general estimate of the forces employed in Britain and Ireland, which necessarily included the household troops, cavalry, infantry, waggon train and contingencies: 2. A general estimate of the troops on foreign service, excepting those in France and India: and 3. A general estimate of the corps to be reduced, which; obviously were included under the head of contingencies. He was of opinion this would ultimately be found the better mode of proceeding, as it brought the whole subject at one view under the notice of the House without dividing their attention to every minutia, which was in fact a mere prolongation of debate without any good to the public.

was far from wishing to tie up the hands of his majesty's government, but he thought it better for the public service, that each sum should be voted separately, as gentlemen might naturally be supposed to have different opinions respecting the particular bodies of troops to be discharged. He was extremely anxious that the House should discuss each particular sum by itself, without blending it with others, because then it might more easily be ascertained what particular number of troops in each description were to be kept up.

thought the principle laid down by his noble friend would answer the object which the last speaker wished to attain. But he could not consent to the question being taken up separately, as the hon. gentleman had suggested, because this would evidently break down the votes of the House of Commons, and confine their attention to local inquiries, instead of objects of more importance. He thought the more generally the vote was proposed, the better it would evidently be for both parties.

said, that his hon. friend's meaning was, that he wished to move a reduction of the household troops; whereas at present all the troops were voted in a mass. If, however, he wished to reduce the cavalry one half, it was only deducting that sum from the whole amount. The same course might be adopted with respect to the regiments of the line; but if he proposed to take every charge separately, the estimates must be entirely new modelled, for which there appeared no necessity.

observed, that the object of his hon. friend was, to propose a reduce- tion of money; and if he took any particular sum, for instance 100,000l. from the gross amount, it would not appear for what purpose it had been deducted. That was the material point which they had in view.

said, that if the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion, he would present his estimate, and then move that it should be referred to the committee of supply.

wished to move a reduction of the charge for the household troops. The only way in which he could then do it was, by proposing that a sum less by 100,000lshould be taken from the whole amount. He did not understand, however, how they could make separate deductions, without having separate votes.

said, that if the hon, gentleman thought the charge for the household troops too large, he could move a smaller sum. The question would then be put for that sum.

was not sure that he understood the noble lord. Did he propose one vote for Great Britain, Ireland, and the colonies; or did he mean to propose separate votes?

replied, that he intended a separate vote for Great Britain and Ireland.

said, that if there were no objection, he would prefer taking the vote for England distinct from that of Ireland, not because he objected to the amount of the grant for the establishment in the latter country, but to its duration. Instead of its being for twelve months he would prefer it at six months, in order that the House should, before its adjournment, examine into the state of Ireland—which state no man who heard the statement of the right hon. secretary for Ireland a few nights ago, could contemplate without feeling it his duty to the House and the country, to call for a speedy inquiry into so paramount a subject. This investigation was on all sides called for, and the only way to ensure it was, to bring the duration of the proposed Irish establishment within six months.

said, that a right hon. baronet had given notice of a motion for the 28th instant which would involve much of the consideration which the right hon. gentleman was anxious to have introduced. The House was at liberty to inquire into, or negative such a proposition, whether the 25,000 men were, or were not voted for Ireland. The subjects were, in his opinion, distinct.

said, that he rarely observed a motion effective which originated on his side of the House. Now, on the state of Ireland, both sides concurred in the necessity of inquiry. The motion of his right hon. friend might do something, perhaps; but he would rather prefer the present vote to be limited to six months. If that were granted, an inquiry might arise; if not, he feared it was hopeless.

said, that nothing connected with the consideration of the estimates, important as it was, was half so interesting as the recent statement of the right hon. secretary relative to Ireland—a statement believed by many to be an exaggerated one—he alluded to the unfortunate avowal, from authority, that a force of 25,000 men was necessary in Ireland. He should very much wish this part of the estimates to be kept distinct, because gentlemen could then precisely understand upon what principles they gave their votes. It was rather hard to assume, that Ireland required such a force for the maintenance of her tranquillity, and equally unwise to postpone the discussion upon the merits of this subject. From the feeling of both sides of the House, there was at present every appearance of a concurrence in the motion for this inquiry, and they had better take advantage of the moment when they were likely to agree, than defer the consideration until they might probably differ.

asked, whether the noble lord intended to move a particular sum for the household troops, or to include them in the whole amount?

said, he meant to vote the whole at once; it would be competent for members to move any deduction.

said, that when any gentleman wished to move an amendment, it would be done practically by naming that the deduction was for such a particular species of force. It might be right to return to the usual manner of voting, but in this instance it would lead too much into detail; for it would be necessary, after stating each particular branch of service, to have a sub-division of almost every description of troops.

asked, if he were to propose that a sum of money should be deducted from the charge for the household troops, and then another sum for dragoons, in what way would those deductions be made distinctly to appear?

said, his conception was, that the grant would then be reduced to that sum.

said, that was his idea; but this did not answer the object which he had in view.

The motion was then read again from the chair, and strangers were ordered to withdraw. No division however took place, Mr. Wynn's motion being agreed to. The House then resolved itself into the committee. On the first resolution, that a sum not exceeding 385,279l. 9s. 6d. be voted for the household troops for 366 days, being moved,

said, that having heard no satisfactory reason for the great amount of the household troops, he thought it not an unreasonable proposition that, they should be reduced to the establishment of 1791. These were merely parade troops, and the number then retained was quite sufficient for such a purpose. It had bee" urged, that the household troops were a valuable and experienced corps: but that was no reason for their increase, it not being particularly necessary to employ experienced troops in the mere duty of the metropolis. He should, therefore, propose to reduce the household cavalry from 1744 to one-half of that number, and they would then be 100 more in number than they were in 1791. As to the foot-guards, their duty also was merely parade duty. We sent them to Chatham because they had no employment in London; and when they came to Chatham they had as little to do there; in time of peace they took no colony duty. In 1791 they were considered strong enough at 3,765; they were now 8,100 in number; he should, therefore, propose 4,050, which would leave them somewhat stronger than they were in 1791. At present one regiment was almost as strong as three then. He would not trouble the House by enforcing his proposition, but would contend, that no adequate ground could be stated for this very large increase. He would therefore propose, as an amendment, that instead of the sum 385,276l. 9s. 6d. there be substituted that of 192,638l. 4s. 9d. for the purposes in question.

apprehended that the hon. gentleman had not stated the question rightly, or consistent with the opinion entertained by the House; for he had attempted to do two things at once. The House had already come to a vote for a certain amount of force to be kept up. It was the wish of the House to keep up this number; but the hon. member now attempted to counteract the vote of the other night, by withdrawing 5,000 men. If he were disposed to take the sense of the House upon his amendment, he ought to move the difference between the number and the amount of charge, and it would be competent to any member to refuse to vote the sum required; but it was inconsistent to vote for the reduction of household troops and the guards, when the vote as to number having passed the House, that number must be made up by raising new ordinary troops of the line. He wished to submit to the House the merits of the case. It had not been usual to denominate the guards household troops—they were composed only of the heavy cavalry, and not of the guards. He denied that they were kept for the purposes of parade; for a great portion of the guards were certainly kept at present in France, performing the ordinary duties, conformably to the arrangements in that country. It was fully explained, the other night, that the guards were not meant to be brought home. The hon. member was therefore perfectly wrong in his notion that they were to be brought home for the purposes of parade. He would say, that the household troops proved themselves the most useful cavalry in the service, and it would be of the greatest advantage, instead of disbanding any part of them, to have always the power of sending, in case of any new war, six or eight squadrons of them abroad. The hon. member had fallen into an extraordinary error to suppose that the household troops were kept only for the purpose of parade and attending on the royal family. As to his proposition for reducing them, he apprehended the experiment would produce the very reverse of economy, and he would tell him why. There was not a single objection that could be made in the House to those troops. If the hon. gentleman's object was to put down that description of force, in order to substitute regiments of the line, the House would have to consider what direct military loss would be sustained by so doing. When there were deducted from the army all the men whose time of service was about to expire, and those who were obliged to retire from infirmities, it would be seen that, in point of fact, the army would be far from complete; nor was it so at the present moment to the amount required. If gentlemen were to think what expense would be caused by sending adrift four or five thousand men, each of whom had probably cost the country about 100l., they would see that the result would be very different from economy. But what also would be the effect of turning away men who had so admirably fought our battles? Where should we find the" equals? We must go again into the market to look for as many peasants to supply their place, only for the purpose of saving an assumed difference between the expense of the guards and as many men of the line. The guards were as fine men as any in the world. To disband any of them would only entail an additional expense on the country, for the pensions of such as were entitled to them, and the expenses of recruiting, and we should break down the best props in the service, and have to replace them with green soldiers, and new troops of the line. To say that the home service required no more duty than was necessary in 1791, was an assumption without proof, and such as no man could maintain who looked at the different situation in which the country now stood. The hon. gentleman had said, that the guards were sent to Chatham to do nothing. So far from this being the case, the duty of the fortifications and dockyard of Chatham always required 1000 men. All the saving that would take place by the reduction proposed in the household cavalry, would be the trifling sum of 13,000l.; and besides giving pensions to the men, we should be obliged to sell half the fine horses of the establishment at a vast loss, while we should be obliged to raise cavalry of a different description, to make up the number, under every disadvantage of expense, and inexperience in the men.

said, he must confess, that of all the speeches he had heard from the noble lord, he had never listened to one in which he was so completely driven out of the field of argument. He seemed to have forgotten on what point the sense of the House had already been taken; it was only as to the reduction of ten thousand men. But the noble lord's speech would go against all reduction whatever. "What," said the noble lord, "will you part with those brave troops, after they have so gallantly distinguished themselves in action?" To be sure we would. This was the natural consequence of their bravery, and the reason why we should, part with them. Those actions had led to peace, and peace required that we should reduce our establishment and expenses. Why ought we to have more guards now than in 1791? The noble lord had only said that we ought, but had given no reason for it. The statement respecting the number of guards that were to remain in France had been corrected since the debates on the estimates had begun. This was the scrape into which ministers had got, by first asserting that those 2000 troops were coming home; and it was also known from other authority, that these troops actually were at first coming home; the fact was assuredly so understood on this side of the water. Now, if they had been brought home, it was clear that we should have had 2000 more than we wanted, and consequently they would have had nothing to do. He must be an idiot who would require what was impracticable; but what the gentlemen on his side wished to do, was, to endeavour to obtain something for the people, in the way of reduction of expense. He must repeat, that the noble lord's argument went against all reduction whatever. If we were to set up the fineness of the men and the beauty of the horses as the plea for keeping up the establishment, no reduction would ever be attended to.

thought it was a misrepresentation to say, that the noble lord was against all reduction; the House had decided what number of men should be employed, and if the House remained in that opinion, and was not disposed to diminish the total amount, then the question would be as to the difference of the expense between household troops and troops of the line. The saving, then, gained by reducing half the amount of the household cavalry, and converting them into heavy dragoons, would be 13,000l.; but even this saving would be counterbalanced by the expenses of bounty and the purchase of horses. And what, then would be this economy for which we parted with the best force we had? The same argument applied to the exchanging foot-guards for troops of the line. As to the alteration in the destination of the 2000 guards, stated to be coming home, the error was entirely his own, arising from the hurry of business. He had misunderstood the arrangements, in the first instance, but he could assure the House that no alteration had been made in them, and that it was never intended that they should be brought home. The foot guards were available for service to all parts of the empire. Already they had been to Ireland, and it was intended to hold them ready for any service of a similar description. They were the finest body of men we had; and the House could not desire to exchange experienced, disciplined troops for raw levies, paying for the change, and receiving a useless instead of a perfect force. He had heard an anecdote, that when the guards marched out in the rebellion of 1745, they were met by parties of citizens, who exlaimed, "There go our brave guards! There go the pillars of the state!" Aye, replied one of them, but when we have licked the enemy, the cry will be, "there go the caterpillars of the state!" He must finally observe, that by the reduction proposed, we should lose more than we could possibly gain.

thought the arguments of the noble lords opposite indicated that the expense ought not to be saved, because it was trivial. He thought the noble lord (Castlereagh) in proving too much, had proved nothing. He wished to know in what country the noble lord thought the danger likely to arise, which would require the eight squadrons to be sent abroad When he saw the monstrous establishment that it was determined to keep at home, in a time of profound peace, he had no hesitation in delivering it as his opinion that it was unnecessary.

said, the two noble lords had made the most extraordinary mistake he had ever heard in that House, except that of the chancellor of the exchequer" when he made a mistake of a million and a half. When the noble lord said, that the whole saving would be 13,000l. he should have said 35,000l. He would refer to the two last charges of dragoon regiments, those of general Tarleton and George Anson, the first of 1,151 men, the other 712, total 1,863—total charge 77,618l.: total charge of the household troops, containing 1744 men, being 150 less than the former, 113,554l. The dragoons were 150 more in number, and 35,000l. less in expense; and this miscalculation had been repeated with the utmost confidence.

explained the manner in which he had made his calculation, and said that the inaccuracy was but in the difference between 27,000l. and 37,000l.

thought he could point out another inaccuracy of the noble lord. In arguing on the amount of the guards, he stated that 1000 guards on the lines of Chatham would not cost more than 1000 other men. He would point out to the committee the difference of expense between the guards and other regiments. Of the guards it would be seen that 2251 men cost 75,863l., while the two regiments, under the command of the duke of Kent, consisting of 2033 men, cost only 59,496l., making an excess of 16,367l. This was the difference between one corps and another. He would not enter upon the argument which the noble lord had taken. His object was only to see how, by a reduction of men, we could diminish the general expense of the estimates.

said, he never had assumed that 1000 of the guards were nearly equal in point of expense to as many troops of the line. He had assumed that the guards were more expensive than those of the line, in the proportion of a fourth. But he had contended, that by dispersing the guards, and raising troops of the line in their stead, the country would lose in one way more than they gained in the other.

said, that though he had on a former occasion stated his opinion upon the estimates generally, yet he was then anxious to give it on them in detail, as a defiance had been thrown out to gentlemen on his side to go into such examination. He accepted the gauntlet which had been thrown down, and he believed that the more minutely the House examined the several items, the more objectionable they would find them. He objected, in the first instance, to the great number of guards, which were intended to be kept up, and even to the new-fangled French name of household troops, which had been given them. Had the noble lord made out a case to the House, to prove the necessity of raising the number of those guards to more than double what it was in 1791? If such a case had been proved to the House, he should not have opposed the motion. But the fact was, that with all the anxiety evinced by the noble lord (Castlereagh) and his friends to go into the examination of the estimates, item by item, they had failed in producing any one proof of the necessity of the increase which had been made. The House had advanced to the present stage of the debate, and no one allegation had been made to show this necessity. It had indeed been said, that 2400 of them were to be kept up in France, but allowing this, there were still 7600 to be accounted for. What proof had the noble lord given that the increase of even 3600 men in the establishment since Mr. Pitt's time was necessary He wished to be informed, what had happened since that period to render the number of guards nearly double what it was then? England was at present more peaceable than in 1792. At the latter period, though the people were not in rebellion, yet the country was every day assailed with reports of plots and dangerous associations. Addresses and votes of the House agreed in stating, that some public danger did exist, and yet with all these threatening appearances, Mr. Pitt did not think it necessary to propose a greater force in the guards than 4000 men. What he would ask, did the noble lord see in the state of the metropolis at the present day, to make a force nearly double that number necessary? The people of London were never at any former period more obedient to the laws or more peaceable than they were at the present moment. His hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, whom he then saw in his place, could attest this, for he believed that his hon. and learned friend had not, for the last two years, resorted to an ex-officio information. There was now no jacobinism, even the very word had scarcely been mentioned in the House for the last five or six years. Whence then, was this danger to come from, which could render the proposed force necessary? But he much feared that it was not merely to keep the peace of the metropolis, that this force of guards was kept up. There was more of empty show and parade in it than real necessity. It was a mockery to talk of internal danger in the present state of the country. The noble lord driven out of the argument of necessity, had had recourse to another, and said that those troops had distinguished themselves in the late campaigns. He would ask, which of our troops had not done so? The same argument might, if it were of any force, be urged against thé disbanding of a single soldier; for they had all distinguished themselves most gloriously; and though some of them had not the same opportunities of making themselves conspicuous as others, who from their situations in particular actions had borne the great pressure of the enemy, yet it did not follow that they were less brave, or had less claim to be kept up. It would be unjust and dangerous to say to any of those troops "You must be disbanded, because you have not distinguished yourself as much as others." Such language he held to be dangerous and unconstitutional. It would, in the mind of the soldier, associate the idea of his being disbanded with that of his being disgraced. He could never assent to such doctrine as that which the arguments of the noble lord seemed to imply. He could not consent to keep any number of troops on foot, for no other reason than that they had distinguished themselves when their services were necessary. He could not agree with the noble lord in letting it be thought for an instant, that soldiers disgraced themselves by becoming citizens. He would speak the language of the constitution, and would say to the soldier, "You have faithfully performed that duty for which you were called forth; return now, and be again a citizen" [Hear!]. This was the language of the constitution, and if the time was passed when such language would be held in that House, he still hoped that out of it, no one would dare to say that a soldier was degraded by becoming a citizen [Hear, hear!]. It had been said by some gentlemen on the other side—" Is this a fair return for the services of those troops, that when you no longer want their exertions, you shall turn them adrift, and suffer them to become scavengers?" He wished no such thing. He did not wish to see them unrewarded for their services, but he could not for a moment think that they would be degraded by returning to that state of society from which they should not have been called in the first instance, but by necessity. The hon. and learned gentleman then contended, that, in an economical point of view, troops of the line should be substituted for a great portion of those guards; for that comparing the expense of 2000 guards with that of 2000 of the line, the balance would be upwards of 10,000l. against the former, and though the saving would be but small, yet in the present state of the country, no possible reduction of expense should be thought too small to be attended to. He also contended, that the committee had a right to correct the vote of a former evening, if they conceived they had then voted too much; and though they could not do so directly by reducing the number of men then agreed to, they might do it by not voting a sum sufficient for their support. The committee were no more precluded from a correction of their former vote in such a way than the House would be from rejecting a bill in its third reading, all the particulars of which they had sanctioned in its preceding stages. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded, amidst loud cries of hear, by repeating his former argument, that there existed at present no greater necessity for the proposed number of guards than there did in 1792, and that the only end which their existence to so large an amount could answer, was the gratification of a childish and contemptible passion for military parade—childish it might be called, though not altogether contemptible, when its dangerous tendency was considered.

said, he hardly thought it necessary to rise for the purpose of defending the estimates, as he trusted what had been said by his noble friend on the subject had already satisfied the House of their propriety. The hon. and learned gentleman, instead of confining himself to the question immediately before the committee, had gone generally into the estimates, in order to repeat the statements which he had thought it his duty to make on the first night. He had accordingly again told them, that these estimates were such that they went against the best principles of the constitution, which they would be likely to destroy, if those who produced them should succeed in gaining for them the sanction of that House, and he had again said in substance, though he (Mr. W. Pole) did not know that he had in words that night, that it was the intention of ministers to establish a military government. Much notice had been taken of what had been formerly said with respect to the course the gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to pursue while considering this question. He remembered it had been remarked, that it was not extraordinary they should feel inclined to indulge in general declamatory statements without going into particulars. This he still thought was naturally enough the line of conduct which they would prefer on this occasion, as in looking into the items of these estimates, it was impossible to find any thing there by which these general statements could be borne out: it was impossible to find any thing that went against the principles of the British constitution, or that tended, to show that it was in the comtemplation of ministers to establish a military government. He congratulated the committee on the manner in which the debate had been conducted, and on the result which it had already produced. It was his opinion, that a great deal had been gained by the mode in which these estimates had been discussed. In the first place, the principle of the arrangements suggested by ministers had been adopted by that House. The question had been decided in a very full committee, where it had been carried by a large majority. It had thus been declared, that the full amount of the force proposed to be maintained by ministers was necessary, and as small as with prudence it could possibly be made. The House had agreed to the resolution, and the patient and liberal investigation which the subject had received afforded him the highest satisfaction. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite and his friends had not received that support from hon. members that they had been led to expect. After the hon. and learned gentleman himself had made his broad statements against the government, his opinions had remained unsupported in the committee. Gentlemen as fond of the constitution as he could be, had not seen the danger which he thought he had discovered; and it was satisfactory to him to know, that those gentlemen on whose support the hon. and learned member might have calculated, had not imputed to ministers a design to infringe upon the constitution, or to govern by military force. Though they differed from government as to the amount of the establishments, it was gratifying to him to find that none of them had supposed that it was the intention of ministers to do other than that which they had conceived to be necessary for the safety and prosperity of the united empire. The question to which they were now come, was only a question of degree; the principle for which ministers had contended having been generally admitted. It was remarkable that gentlemen on different sides of the House, not professing to agree exactly with the views of himself and his colleagues, when they came to go into the details, had never been able to agree exactly with each other. They had concurred in acquitting ministers of any design upon the constitution; had believed the system recommended by them to be that which they thought best for the country; and some hon. members had admitted, that on further information, they might be brought to think it that, which in the present circumstances of the country, might be acted upon better than any other. This liberality and confidence on their part, made it more than ever the duty of the government to look narrowly at the expenditure of the country, and from that time forward to labour unceasingly to make every possible reduction consistent with the public service. He believed he might assume that ministers had successfully proved the present establishment was not the permanent peace establishment; and that parts of the present plan had nothing to do with any peace establishment at all. In another year it would be for the government to ascertain what would be the amount of expenditure to which our peace establishment might be limitted. It would then be for them to endeavour to lower the estimates as far as they should be practicable, without hazarding the public security. This they would particularly owe to those hon. gentlemen who had treated them with such liberality on the present occasion. He had proved that with the exception of the hon. member who had so boldly ventured on his charges in the first instance, none, from what appeared on these estimates, were disposed to impute to them a wish to overturn the constitution. This was one subject of gratification, and another was the manner in which this question had been brought before the House, and had gone forth to the country. From these circumstances the people had been enabled to appreciate the value of the pacification which had been effected. They saw in the peace concluded, how much the true interests of England had been consulted. Nothing but this debate could so well have proved to them that their interests had been properly taken care of. It was now understood that stations of importance to England had been secured in almost every part of the habitable globe—that there was scarcely a point that the soldier or the merchant could desire, that was not in the possession of Great Britain. They saw that if the new colonies caused some expense by the demand for an additional force which they created, that these acquisitions were such as to give the country benefits in various parts of the world (as his noble friend had said), which former statesmen wished Great Britain to possess, though they dared not hope to see such projects realised. This debate had done good, as it had led the public calmly to consider whether the force which it was proposed to keep up for the security of the mother country, and the defence of the colonies, was or was not too large. They had also had time well to consider, whether, what had been proposed was at variance with the true principles of the constitution, and whether it at all portended the establishment of a military government. Before the people were led to believe this, he trusted they would look to the experience of the past, and compare it with their knowledge of the present, and to the character of those who had formed the estimates, and to that of those who opposed them. Doing this, they would be enabled to judge who would be most likely to compromise the interests and violate the constitution of the country. They would, perhaps, recollect that those who now opposed the plans of ministers, were those who formerly declared while we were engaged in the Peninsular war, that there was no hope for Spain;—that they had even designated the day by which all the British would be driven from that part of the continent, or become the prisoners of France; they would recollect that these were the persons who had incessantly called upon us to make peace with Buonaparte, while he was in the zenith of his power; that even when that tyrant returned from Elba to France, in the last year, this advice was still reiterated. They had wished us then to submit to a pacification with him, rather, than standing on the energy and valour of the country, and those of its allies, to make head once more against his aggressions. Above all it would be remembered, that when, on the occasion to which he had last referred, ministers, grateful for the liberal supplies confided to their care, had expressed a hope that these would suffice to bring the war to a successful termination; these persons had not failed to assert that the country ought not to be satisfied with such a statement, and had endeavoured to damp their spirits by declaring that it was likely similar sacrifices would be called for, year after year, and that it was possible the new war would last as long as the former had done. He trusted these prognostications would be borne in mind—that these forebodings would be remembered, and that the country at large would do justice between those with whom they had originated and the present ministers.

conceived that nothing could be more foreign to the question of a peace establishment than any reference to such topics as those to which the right hon. gentleman had adverted. It was a certain proof of a weak cause, and that he had no better ground to stand upon. The hon. member then entered into some statements to show the additional expense that would attend the increase of the guards. He maintained, that even the small saving which might now be made was an object, and that if they could not effect more, they were bound in duty to their constituents to accomplish this at least.

complained, that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, did not sufficiently acknowledge the services of the guards. He did not recollect their services in America in 1776, in Egypt, and on the continent. It appeared to him, that the hon, and learned gentleman entertained the idea of the guards serving only as a parade or show in the metropolis. He would ask any reasonable man, was it fair dealing with those men, who had been so honourably serving their country, as soon as they had done fighting, to turn them adrift upon the world without any support? Even on the home duty at this moment, the men were in bed but one night out of three. It was one of the most efficient and gallant corps in the service, and had been sent every where that active service was to be performed.

explained that he never undervalued the services of these troops, but had always spoken in the highest terms of those services: what he maintained was, that they were now useless, and ought to return to their old employments. The navy had been paid off; and why should not the army be put into the same condition? He would remind the hon. general of a fact. Lord Nelson's ship, the Victory, in which that great commander had fought some of his most distinguished battles, and in which he had fallen, was now laid up in ordinary, and the crew turned adrift.

also wished to explain a misconception which had arisen as to the name given to the guards. An exception had been made to the term of household troops; they had certainly been so termed in Mr. Burke's bill, but they had since that period materially changed in their character, and had been brought more into the field of war. The hon. and learned gentleman had endeavoured to impress upon the House, with the utmost of his ingenuity, that the government had some motive of patronage in bringing forward the guards. Now he would state to the House the increase of the numbers since the year 1792. The number of battalions of guards remained precisely as they were in 1792, The increase of the companies was not much in favour of the hon. and learned gentleman's argument. In 1792 there were 64 companies, and now there were 72 companies, making an increase of eight companies. This was the mode in which the debate was to be discussed: it was assumed that patronage was the sole view of government, when, in fact, only the good of the country was at heart.

said, that the House had now gone through seven nights debate on these estimates, and could judge how much ministers were to be relied upon, end what was the true meaning of all their flaming professions. There might be those who believed the statement of government as to the quantity of force necessary for our foreign possessions. He confessed that he had not been convinced in the smallest degree; but 25,000 men had been voted for England, which were said to be 8,000 more than were kept up in 1792, and the noble lord had asserted, that 8,000 men were no more than the exigencies of the country required; but he begged the House would bear in mind, that in the present discussion we had nothing to do with the reliefs, a point which had been so strongly urged, but merely to consider the amount of the household troops to be kept up for the purpose of the splendour of the court, and the duty in the metropolis. Did any one pretend to say that that duty had increased since 1792? At any rate it could not be said that the people were now more disposed to riot or rebellion than at that period. He really believed that if double the number could be made to go down the throats of the public, plenty of employment would be found for them, for nothing more was requisite than to double the force usually placed at the Opera-house, the Theatres, or at the routs. But at this crisis it was ridiculous to think of such schemes; the day of retrenchment was come, and he defied any man to lay his hand upon his heart, and say that any alteration had taken place in the habits of the people which could render the reign of the Prince Regent different from that of George 3rd [Hear, hear!]. London, in a military point of view, was no greater now than it was in 1792; for the Tower had had the good fortune to escape all the operations of the ordnance, and was not militarily greater than in 1792. He hoped gentlemen would feel this as they should feel it. Let them bear in mind that what they were voting was intelligible to every man in England. The noble lord had attempted something like argument on the present occasion, and the amount of this argument was the services of the guards. Why, no man ever doubted their services. From the first hour of their constitution down to the present day, they had been the wonder of Europe; nor had they ever been employed where they did not distinguish themselves. But from what number did these guards spring? From 3,000 only. They might be reduced again to that number, and, if it should afterwards be found necessary, they might be increased with the same elasticity. The horse guards had also distinguished themselves on all occasions. The noble lord had said, Will you turn all these men adrift?—" I cannot, said Mr. Tierney," turn them adrift, because they would be retiring on pensions; but this is what I cannot comprehend—the noble lord tells me they are cheaper serving than retiring." The noble lord had drawn another argument from the beauty of the horses: he dared to say they were fine horses—very fine horses. But very fine horses generally fetched a very fine price in the market. The noble lord, however, did not know what they could do with so many horses in the market at once; the market would be glutted by them. But if this sort of argument were to be allowed to prevail, he did not see where it could stop. Supposing it for instance applied to another part of the army which had united the acclamations of all parties, he meant the Scotch regiments. The noble lord would say to them, what would then become of the philibegs and bagpipes? The market would be quite overstocked with them—there would be no purchasers—there would not be a sufficient number of admirers of these commodities to take off the whole stock [a laugh]. While all this jealousy was entertained at the smallest reduction of any part of the army, not one single voice had been raised in defence of the navy. But when they touched the foot guards, all was alarm. If they once touched any part of the favourite horse guards, which lined both sides of the streets through which the Prince Regent had to pass, the whole country was exposed to destruct- tion —all would be swallowed up by France. In 1792 there was much greater cause for alarm than at the present moment. He would only state to the House, that if in this vote he should be defeated he despaired of doing any good in the way of economy. The noble lord seemed to have a curious notion of numbers: he called 150,000 men a small army, and he called 68 a great majority. Now, he thought this, on the other hand, a very small majority; and above all, they ought to take into account that it was a decreasing majority at every step. This was rather a poor compliment to the eloquence of the noble lord. On the first division the majority was 120—by one speech alone of the noble lord, he lost 20 votes; and altogether the noble lord had been going on losing votes, at the rate of eight and a fractional part for every hour spoken by him [a laugh]. If he were disappointed in this, he had but little hopes of good from any opposition, however successful, to the property tax. He could not but wonder to see gentlemen, who had made most flaming speeches in the city against the property tax, now voting with ministers for the establishments. He owned he attached ten times more importance to the present question than to the property tax. The one was a question of mere money; but this was a question of vital importance to the country—whether it was to change its whole form and constitutional system. When he said this, he did not mean to impute to ministers a deliberate system of overturning the constitution—he acquitted them of entertaining a deliberate system on any subject. But though they might not deliberately plan the overthrow of the constitution, he would say that the measures they were pursuing put the constitution in great danger. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Grant, jun.), on a former evening, had enlarged on the quality possessed by our constitution of making an adequate resistance in every great pressure. He should doubt, however, whether the London part of the constitution was fit of itself to bear the pressure of 9 or 10,000 troops. But, at all events, he saw no reason for making the trial. If they were to have a peace without any of the blessings of peace—if they;were to be cursed with a large standing army—if this was the result of all the sacrifices which we had made, he would defy any man to show whence we were to draw our resources for war. The mere saving of the 5,000 men which, in the first instance would be effected, was not all; they would find other savings to depend on it—they would not need, for instance, the same number of officers on the staff. He laughed at all the estimates of the men absolutely necessary for this or that duty, because he knew the quarter from which they came, the head staff at the horse guards. He had the highest respect for the duke of York, but no man would convince him that at the meetings at the horse guards any great zeal would be manifested for a reduction in the number of our troops. If there were no enemy to be apprehended, why keep up 111,000 men for the defence of the British empire? They might say, that such and such a number were necessary to defend this or that place in case of attack; but when we had no enemy to apprehend, why were we to presume an attack on every one of our possessions? The House, however, ought to bear always in mind, that the men now proposed to be reduced, had nothing to do with the force necessary for our foreign possessions—their service did not extend beyond a limited circle round London. When he first heard of the necessity for such a number of men to be stationed along the coast of Devon, he had asked a military man if it was requisite to have all these men to keep the French from landing at Dover?—No, he answered, it was not; but if the French should come somewhere else, such a force would prevent them from getting back again that way. He repeated, there was no occasion for one man more now than we had in 1792. Again and again he wished them to bear in mind the effect which would be produced out of doors—that every man understood the question—that it required no military skill—that these troops were merely so many assistants to the police, and, what was more, to give a new degree of splendour. It was a question between the country and the court, and nothing else. Let gentlemen support the court if they would, but let him tell them they were supporting the court. If they would not practise economy here, he wished to ask when they intended to practise it? If they would not now reduce the establishments, when and where would they reduce them?

would not trouble the House with any new argument or statement, but would only reply to some of the remarks that had fallen from gentlemen on the other side. Their great error was, that they supposed the establishment proposed for this year to be an establishment that was to be permanent. A great fallacy into which the right hon. gentleman who spoke last had fallen, was, that he imagined the increase of the household troops was intended for the mere purpose of parade. A little consideration and knowledge of facts would have set him right in that particular. The number of these troops in the country in 1802 was greater than at present; amounting in the former period to 5200, and being now only 5000. There were two questions before the House—what was the smallest number of troops with which the safety and honour of the country might be secured? and what was the smallest expense at which they might be maintained? It did not appear to him that any troops could be deducted from the proposed estimates. The household troops were not intended merely for London, but for the whole empire, if their services were required. Gentlemen on the other side had ridiculed the idea of the existence of a spirit of Jacobinism, and he wished it was as completely annihilated as they represented it to be; but whatever opinion might be entertained upon this subject, we were justified in keeping up such a force as would defend the empire against it, or any other danger. It should always be recollected, that the establishment was only intermediate.

The committee divided on Mr. Calcraft's amendment:

List of the Minority.

The original motion was then agreed to.

While strangers were excluded, the second resolution, that 530,520.l be voted for paying 12,567 dragoon guards and dragoons, was proposed, when Mr. Wynn moved an amendment, that the difference between this and the last estimate, or nearly 3000 men, be deducted. A division took place, when there appeared.

The third resolution, having for its object the infantry of the line, was then proposed; and upon a division taking place, there were found,

The resolution was then carried, and the chairmen was ordered to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.