on presenting the petition from the county of Suffolk, observed, that it was impossible to describe the general distress of the landed interest at the present time. He gave the chancellor of the exchequer all possible credit for his good intentions towards this interest, and for his plans to relieve them; but he really thought that he was not, up to this moment aware of the unparalleled and shocking state of the agriculture of the country; and he feared that all that was yet proposed to be done for this branch would be of little avail. He must now come to the most painful part of his duty to his constituents, which was to declare that, in what they had stated on the subject of the property tax, he could not quite agree with them. He believed that, under the present situation of the country, no better means could be found than the continuance of this tax, under proper modifications. He was sorry for the inquisitorial power which it possessed, but with all its sins upon its head, he could conceive no better measure could be discovered for a limited time, to enable ministers to wind up the expenses of the war. But if he thought that they meant to make it a permanent measure, he would certainly oppose it, as he would have done by the peace establishment, under a similar opinion. He thought, however, that we ought not to sacrifice one atom of our national honour and independence, which these measures went to maintain. One reason why he should vote for the property tax was, that he conceived the taking off of the tenant's tax would not answer the purpose, unless all the other taxes that pressed upon them were done away. The taking off of the war malt tax would be a much greater relief to the farmer; but as ministers could not possibly remove the property and the war malt tax too, he thought the latter, being more oppressive than the former, ought in preference to be abolished. After the manner in which the people of this country had borne the burthens and privations of the war, it was but just that they should be entitled to some advantages from the peace; and amongst these was the obtaining of good, whole some beverage, and the not being driven to drink smuggled spirits, to the injury of their health and morals. He could state that in that part of the country to which he belonged, the farmers were no longer able to allow their men beer, so that they were either obliged to resort to spirits, to drink water, or to make their own malt clandestinely.

thought the hon. member and the House ought to look generally at what tended to depress the agricultural interest, and not attribute the distress to any one particular tax more than another. Much of the causes would be found in the pressure of the poor-rates, the church rates, the tithes, &c. He should be sorry to see it recognised as a truism in that House, that the landed interest was the only resource that ministers had to look to in time of war; an idea of this nature having been thrown out by the hon. member in the course of his speech.

explained. He did not mean to say that the landed interest was the only resource of ministers: he could never have entertained such an idea; but merely that at all times it was one of their principal resources, and God knew, he wished they had not so far availed themselves of it as they had done.

said, that no gentleman had ever been more unjustly accused of not sufficiently favouring land, than the hon. gentleman who spoke last. He indeed wished to give relief to land-owners at the expense of the other classes. His speech, however, showed that the inducement held out by the chancellor of the exchequer, had made more impression on the hon. gentleman than his constituents. They, it seemed, were disposed to make common cause with the other classes respecting a burthen common to all, which was inquisitorial to a degree, and interfered with the rights and happiness of the subject. The inquisitorial nature of the tax was not felt, indeed, in its greatest extent by the landed interest. Not but they were troubled now and then with inquiries respecting the value of lands not let, and in the proprietor's own hands; but still they had no idea of the trouble to which other descriptions of people were put, in ascertaining the amount of their income. He could not but congratulate the House, that if they had not the support of the hon. gentleman, they had at least the support of his constituents, who were not contented with a partial relief, but, as all honest men ought to do, wished that relief to be extended to all classes. He only wished to observe farther, that the tenant's duty was not to be all taken off by the chancellor of the exchequer. A number of can did gentlemen thought that when they were taking care of the landed interest, all the other classes might be trodden down at pleasure. But he wished to observe, that the tax was merely remitted for two years, and therefore if they now sanctioned this tax, they exposed the whole country to a return of a tax from which all classes were now anxious to be relieved.

said, the present petition was signed by above 1500 most respectable people; but he had already presented seven petitions from Suffolk, agreed to at meetings convened in divisions of the county, and containing between 5 and 6000 signatures. Only one of these petitions was against the property tax. The others complained generally of the oppression of all taxes [Hear, hear!] He did not mean to say, they did not include under this the property tax, or that they did not even point particularly to the property tax.

was convinced that ministers brought forward the property tax from a just feeling of its necessity, and no other motive; and he had no doubt that when the time arrived, the House would do their duty in supporting them.

stated, that a petition against the property tax and a large standing army, signed by a number of respectable inhabitants of the town of Southampton, had been left at an inn for signatures. On Friday last, the room of the inn in which it was kept was forced open, and the petition carried away [a laugh].

said, though the hon. member who preceded him had not concluded his speech with any motion, in the absence of his relation he would state what he knew of the petition in question. Three weeks ago, a certain number of persons in Southampton thought of calling a meeting on the subject of the property tax, but they could not hammer out a requisition containing a sufficient number of respectable names. They framed a petition, however, which was signed by 20 or 30 respectable persons, but it was also signed by an immense number of paupers, chimney-sweeps, and persons of that description. He believed when the gentlemen of respectability saw such a number of paupers mixed with them, they grew ashamed, and some of them must have stolen that petition from the public house. Nothing was so easy as for the same persons to frame another petition—they had plenty of time—the mayor said if they brought to him a proper requisition he would at once call another meeting. If the petition were advertised, and a reward offered, he would cheerfully give twenty guineas himself.

denied that the petition lay at a common public house: it was left for signature at the most respectable inn in the place, where it was signed by 400 or 500 persons, but, on Friday morning last, the room that contained it was broken open, and it was carried off. The right hon. gentleman's friends had given it great opposition, but he did not attribute to them any thing farther.

gave notice that he should, on Monday next, submit a motion to the House on the subject of the salaries paid to useless offices—especially on the subject of the continuance of the office of third secretary of state in time of peace [Hear, hear!].

said, that if the hon. member intended to bring forward a motion on the subject of economy, he would advise him to move for the order in council for the continuance of the war salary of the secretaries of the admiralty in time of peace.

then moved an address for the order in council of June, 1815, which rendered permanent the war salaries of the secretaries of the admiralty.—The motion was agreed to.

said, he had a petition to present from the seven incorporations of Dumfries against the property tax. This was the second petition which had been given him to present from the district of burghs in question. It was hardly necessary for him to say that in Scotland a member was not returned by one borough, but by a number of boroughs, each of which chose an elector. The district in question contained five boroughs, of which one before and one at present had sent up petitions against the property tax, and not choosing to deliver them to their representative who, like the representatives of some other places, would have spoken against the prayer of his constituents, they had given it to him to present to that House. The petitioners stated that they had expected relief from the burthens which they had borne in time of war, and had earnestly looked forward to the measures to be taken in consequence of the pledge of economy which had been given in the Speech from the throne, but that to their bitter disappointment the conduct of his majesty's ministers had been in direct opposition to the promise which they had given. What would these petitioners have thought if the extraordinary rumour, to which he could not but advert, had reached their ears before they had concluded the prayer of their petition about economy? This rumour was so extraordinary, that he could not at first lend it the least faith. Notwithstanding the conduct of ministers since the commencement of the session—notwithstanding their utter disregard of their own professions, and of the recommendation which had been heard from the throne—notwithstanding the pledges they had broken, and their eagerness to adopt every measure that was directly contrary to retrenchment and economy, he was utterly at a loss to conceive how his majesty's ministers could, in the face of the proceedings going on in that House, and in the country, urging the most scrupulous regard to every practicable eco- nomy, advising reduction in every department where it could be safely resorted to—one noble member pointing out the propriety of abolishing places in the admiralty and treasury, proposing that the business executed by six lords in each department should be done by four, and that the expenses which were paid during war for some extraordinary war services might now be saved, when no war services were required—another noble lord recommending the abolition of the third secretary of state's office, which had the same pretence for its creation, and was now equally useless—he was utterly at a loss, while these things were going on in the House, and this temper was manifesting itself, that the ministers of the Crown could so insult the nation, as not only to take measures for rendering useless places permanent, but for increasing their salaries. But such was the case—that at this very time, while these discussions were going on, while these advices were pressed with all the weight which public distress and public opinion could give them, his majesty's government were actually employed in raising the salaries of the two secretaries of the admiralty. This was the extraordinary rumour to which he alluded—this was the alarming report which had gone abroad. Not only the secretaries of the admiralty, but the clerks likewise, were to receive an increase of income. At a time when their services were supposed to be diminished,—at a time when all the articles of living were sinking in price,—when every thing could be purchased at 40 or 50 per cent. cheaper than during the war, and when the very distresses of the agricultural part of the community were attributed to the low price of provisions—at such a time these officers were to have their salaries increased. Upon what pretence could ministers justify such a measure, at such a period, and in such circumstances? He would state the circumstances as he had heard them, although the fact was so extraordinary as almost to exceed belief. It was said, that lord Spencer, in 1806, having recommended two different rates of salary for the secretaries of the navy—one for war, and the other for peace (the former of course being higher than the latter)—that recommendation was about to be carried into execution on a late occasion, when peace was established. An hon. secretary having called for his salary, was offered it at the reduced rate. He testified disap- pointment, refused to accept it, and said he would, after a short time, call again. He had soon made the proper application in the proper quarter; for, before he returned to make his demand, an order in council had been issued to give him his full salary on the war establishment. It was to ascertain the truth of this strange? and almost incredible fact that the papers were moved for, containing the order in council. If his statement was not correct, the papers would show, and he would then confess that he had been misinformed. If the truth was as he had stated it, he hoped some hon. member of character and weight in the House, who could make his voice be heard in defence of the rights of the people, would interfere and put a stop to that barefaced and profligate disregard' of economy, to that prodigal waste of the public resources, in a period of unexampled distress, for which the government seemed eager to distinguish itself. There was no measure of censure too great, there was no treatment too severe, for a set of men who acted in so unjustifiable and profligate a manner.

observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman had, with his usual warmth and ardour, brought forward, without any proof whatever, a great number of statements respecting the increase of salaries of secretaries and others; but if he had had patience, this question, about which he had said so much, would have come before the House in the discussion of the naval establishment, and then would have been the time to inquire into it. But the hon. gentleman appeared anxious to endeavour to prevent the House from forming a deliberate judgment on such questions; for certainly after what had been heard, no sober opinion could be formed on them. Respecting the increase just complained of in such violent terms, he could say, in the absence of the right hon. secretary to the admiralty, who had been particularly alluded to, that what had been done was in pursuance of the recommendation of the board of revision. [Mr. Brougham asked whether it was lord St. Vincent's board of revision?] He meant the board of revision of 1805 [Hear, hear! from Mr. Brougham]. He begged the House would suspend their judgments on the subject, and remember that the offices in question had been the only ones in which the salaries were not the same in war and peace.

said, his hon. and learned friend had very properly asked, whether lord St. Vincent's board of revision had recommended that measure, because that board had really meant to bring about a reform in the civil affairs of the navy. The board of 1805 was instituted for the purpose of knocking in the head all reform. Their reports had never been sanctioned by the House, and their suggestions were not at all worth attending to.

contended, that if his hon. and learned friend had attacked the ministers without evidence, the hon. baronet had defended them without either evidence or argument.

said, that from all that had appeared since the commencement of the session, the House and the country would by this time be aware, that there was a regular system on the part of the ministers, to increase the salaries of all the public departments. It was not in one particular department that this disposition was manifested. They had first heard of the increase in the customs and excise, and now the same fact had come out as to the admiralty. Some departments were still to come; but what the House had as yet heard was, that, instead of retrenchment, in every department, respecting which they had received any information, there had been augmentations. Indeed, every instance of the interference of ministers, as to salaries, had been in direct contradiction to their promises.

was perfectly prepared to admit, that when an increase of salary took place in any department, the onus of proving its necessity lay with the ministers who recommended it. The increase which was the subject of the present discussion, was made upon the recommendation of the board of revision, as the hon. baronet had stated. He did not wish, by referring to such a circumstance, to place the justice of the conduct of government upon it, or to bring it forward as a plea in bar to any arguments which gentlemen on the other side might be disposed to employ. He was prepared to contend, that if the place in question required an augmentation of salary, as a proper remuneration for the services performed, there was nothing in the circumstances of the country that could render it improper or impolitic. We were not in such a state of distress as should prevent us from granting what was deemed a proper reward for public services. It would be allowed by the gentlemen on the other side, that when their friends were in office, economy was as necessary as at the present moment—that the country was as unable to support useless or extravagant burthens. They had even declared our situation to be exceedingly depressed, and our resources to be dilapidated; and yet, when they went out of place, they had no less than 150 offices in creation connected with the revenue. There was not only an increase of salary meditated, but new officers to a vast extent, to be appointed. Many of these officers were to enjoy snug, comfortable salaries, and all of them together would have fixed an extraordinary and uncalled-for burthen upon the country, from which it was saved by the sudden appointment of other ministers to guide his majesty's councils. The hon. and learned gentleman, who was always so precipitate in his charges, should have considered the conduct of other administrations, and the circumstances of the present case, before he proceeded to use the language he had thought proper to employ. But it was his habit to accuse and to censure without reflection or examination. Every petition he presented, almost every time he rose, he took an opportunity of coming out with some assumption or assertion, some statement or rumour, on which he enjoyed a triumph of an hour or two, when the effect of his speech was destroyed by some argument or explanation which he had not foreseen. In speaking on the army estimates, he boldly advanced the charge, that the guards were kept merely on account of the patronage which that species of force put into the hands of ministers. The reply given to this assertion was completely overpowering to the hon. and learned gentleman; it put him down, and neither he nor his friends had a word to say in his defence. Government did not now ground the justification of their measures upon the answer they could make to the accusations of the hon. and learned gentleman, or the example of his friends when in office. His majesty's present ministers would not follow one step in the; path of their predecessors, nor defend themselves on the ground that they had in contemplation measures more expensive; but as they had created new offices, they might expect, from those who intended to do so, a patient and can did examination of those reasons which rendered the less burthensome measure of an in- crease of salary advisable. The government would show cause for their conduct, and the noble lord claimed nothing from the gentlemen opposite (who, with all their regard to economy, had been obliged to increase the property tax, from 6¼ to 10 per cent.) but a fair hearing to the plea which he might advance. He never expected any favour from them; he never deprecated their opposition—all that he wished was to meet by fair argument—all that he dreaded was, that clamour which would listen to none. He deprecated the inflammation which they attempted to create in the public mind, by unfounded charges of profligacy and bad faith. When the distresses of the country came regularly to be considered in the House, as on a late occasion (Mr. Western's motion), when their opinions might have been regularly delivered without any party violence, and when they might have suggested plans of relief, their benches were almost deserted, there was nothing of sufficient interest to secure their attendance; but when any topic of inflammation was to be brought forward, or any opportunity occurred of making popular charges against government, they were all in their places cheering and supporting each other.

wished to remind the noble lord, that the question was not one between the ministers and the opposition, but between the government and the country; and he assured the noble lord, for whom he felt much respect, that he had extremely regretted that the rumour respecting the increase of salaries had not been contradicted. He should however suspend his judgment until the circumstances were more fully before the House.

replied, that he did not require the suggestion of the hon. gentleman to inform him of this circumstance. It was upon this principle that he had taken up the subject, to prevent the country from being misled by premature assertions.

—I am sure the hon. member for Wiltshire, and every other gentleman who hears me, will take the noble lord's hint. He is not a person who wants their assistance—he can discover the state of every question without it. I hope the hon. member, and all the other country gentlemen, will avail themselves of this warning, and not be too obtrusive of their advice. The noble lord tells us, that a former administration had it in their contemplation to create 150 new offices. It may be so—although I never heard of it. But I beg the chancellor of the exchequer, who was secretary of the treasury at that time, to explain to the House, how many of those offices were created—for what purpose they were created—and on what account, in consequence of what arrangement, they, were suppressed? I hope we shall have a full explanation on this subject; and I trust it will be a more satisfactory one, than the last given by the right hon. gentleman, when his former friends were attacked for their conduct relative to the property tax. The noble lord says he is ready to argue the principle of economy with all the gentlemen on this side of the House. Yes, he is perfectly ready to argue the principle, night after night—he is only indisposed to adopt the practice of it. The noble lord asserts, that when the most important affairs of the country are under discussion, then gentlemen absent themselves from this side of the House; and that, when a committee is to be appointed for examining into the state of the agricultural interest, the benches are deserted. I know that I attended the House, when the motion of the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Western) was discussed, until it was declared that a committee should be granted. What good purpose could be obtained, by waiting, after that declaration was made, until the committee absolutely met, I cannot perceive. Perhaps the noble lord thinks that the eloquence of gentlemen on the other side of the House ought to be a sufficient inducement to keep gentlemen in attendance. I must here really own my bad taste, and state, that I do not feel inclined to remain in the House for the mere purpose of listening to the oratory of the gentlemen opposite, and when that which is called for happens to be granted, I am disposed to retire from this display of eloquence. I think the noble lord will find, that when the committee come to sit, there will be nothing like a want of attendance; and he must know, that until they do sit, no business can be done. The noble lord says, we neglect the important business of the country, and come to the House, for the purpose of exciting clamour and irritation. I am willing to bear my part of this accusation, and I wish the country, the bankers, the merchants, and traders of the city of London, to understand the compliment the noble lord pays them. He treats their opinions on the state of the country as idle clamour. Really, Sir, the noble lord's situation appears to me to have overcome both his temper and his good sense. I did not think a minister of the Crown in this country, would treat the sentiments of the people as he has done. I did not imagine, that, when the great commercial and agricultural interests stated to the House the necessity of economy, their representations would have been spoken of as arising from a spirit of clamour.

denied that he had imputed clamour to the country, although he might have done so to the gentlemen opposite; and he thought a better illustration of what he had said, could not be found, than in the speech which they had just heard. The right hon. gentleman said, that he had charged the country with acting clamorously. He had done no such thing. The opinions of individuals, in every part of the empire, though frequently not in unison with his own, were respectfully received. But it was a most extraordinary mistatement, and a most pregnant instance of the want of argument under which the right hon. gentleman laboured, to state that he had attributed clamour to the merchants or bankers, Or to any other class of his majesty's subjects. He could assure the right hon. gentleman that he applied the observation to the particular circumstances attending recent discussions within the walls of that House. He said, that he would meet the right hon. gentleman in fair argument, but he deprecated that spirit of clamour, which was busied with anticipations unfavourable to the measures of his majesty's government. With respect to the absence of gentlemen from the House, on particular occasions, although he had concluded the right hon. gentleman in the larger sense, he was free to admit that he saw him in his place at one period of the evening on which the subject of the agricultural interest was discussed.

when the noble lord disclaimed having made any accusation against the people, wished to refer him to the recollection of the manner in which he had designated their anxieties, as "an ignorant impatience for the relaxation of taxation."

would assert, that whatever observations the noble lord had made to this effect, he never did apply them to any of the petitions generally or collectively. The noble lord had attributed to the gentlemen opposite a propensity, before the distresses of the country could be relieved, to encourage the people to look with an ignorant impatience to the relaxation of taxation.—[Cries of No, no, from the opposite side.]—He would contend that this was the sense in which the words were used, and certainly not in that attributed by the noble lord's opponents. And as to the hon. gentleman's saying that ministers had no object but the raising of salaries, there were far more proofs of this practice having been adopted by their opponents, as well as of their total dereliction of economy. He would ask the hon. gentlemen opposite, would it have been fair in him, if the noble lord (Castlereagh) had been appointed first lord of the admiralty, and immediately on coming into office had added 2000l. a-year to his salary, to arraign him for this augmentation, after what had happened in the time of their own administration?

said, he had to apologize to the House for not being in his place when this discussion began. But an hon. gentleman opposite having expressed himself anxious to know when certain papers could be laid on the table of the House, he had gone to inquire about them, and had but just returned. A subject, he found, had been introduced in his absence, with which he was intimately connected. Without knowing what had been said on this subject, he would state what the circumstances of the transaction were. In the year 1786, a commission was appointed for revising the expenditure of the public departments. Its recommendation was sanctioned by an order in council; and it it was then thought equitable to extend to different offices of government, concerned in military exertions, a rule, by which the salaries of the officers, in time of war, were to be greater than in time of peace. Whether or not that principle was a just one, he could not say; but it was never proceeded on, except in the single case of the admiralty office. By the order in council of 1786, it was settled that the salaries of the secretary of the admiralty and his clerks should vary one-fourth between the time of war and of peace. Every one knew that a war broke out soon after, and from that time to the present the country, with very little intermission, was engaged in hostilities. In the year 1806, another commission was appointed, for revising, as it was called, the civil department of the navy; and that commission in its report stated, that it did not recommend the system of a war and peace salary being acted upon with respect to the officers of the admiralty, because, in time of peace, they would not be more able to apply themselves to other avocations, for the support of their families, than they would be in time of war. Thus it continued till the late French war; and it was then thought necessary, that the naval department should be placed on the same footing as the other branches of the public service, for the principle of the order of 1789 had not been extended to the navy office, to the victualling office, &c. At the time Buonaparté was in Paris, last year, his Majesty, by his order in council, looking to the injustice of the recommendation of the commission which confined this principle to one branch of the public service, thought proper to do it away. By this means he, the second secretary, and their clerks, received the same salary as during the war. He could only say, that he did not solicit this favour. He conceived the regulation to be very fair, with respect to subordinate officers. He thought it was dreadful, after they had spent many years in the department, to see them obliged to quit it, in consequence of the reduction of their salaries, in time of peace. If this alteration had not taken place, the secretary of the admiralty would have been the only civil officer in the country to whom the regulation would have applied. It was intended to be applied to all the departments of the public service, but it never was acted on. Whether the principle were right or wrong, he would not say. He never did express an opinion on the subject, either in that or any other place, and he was now prevented from expressing his sentiments, on account of being employed in that particular office. But, unless some strong reason could be shown, for keeping the secretary of the admiralty in a different situation from every other officer of state, he thought it was not improper, in his majesty's government, to make the alteration they had done.

said, the order in council, alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, was not promulgated in the year 1786, but long subsequent to that period. He understood that the salary of the officers of the admiralty, at that time, was very small, but that it was made up by fees, which, in time of war, were, of course, much greater than in time of peace. An arrangement was then made, by which the fees were taken away—and, in lieu of them, a greater salary was given. The principle, therefore, seemed evidently to require, that the salary should not be the same in a period of peace, as in a time of war. This was the feeling of earl Spencer, who, considering the amount of the, fees taken away, settled the salary of the secretary at 4,000l. in time of peace, and 3,000l. in time of war. If he were correct in this statement, and he knew he was, then the House must see, that what the new committee of revision (on the conduct of which, at a proper period, he would speak at large) suggested, was really absurd. Unless it were shown that the salary was not a commutation for fees, it ought to bear some proportion to the fluctuations of that source of emolument for the removal of which it had been granted.

said, he was not quite prepared to speak exactly as to dates, but he had guarded himself from the imputation of mistatement, by observing, that it was at the commencement of the first French war, that the order in council, founded on the recommendation of the former committee of revision, was sent forth. The right hon. gentleman was quite correct in saying, that the alteration took place when the fees were abolished. But he would recollect, that the secretary of the admiralty then received, by fees, from 10,000l. to 18,000l. per annum, an enormous sum, which was very properly reduced; and he would also bear in mind, that earl Spencer, or whoever proposed the regulation, meant that it should be extended to every branch of government, which principle had never been followed up

observed, that, in former times, the secretary of the admiralty, in consideration of giving up fees, received 4,000l. per annum, in a period of war, and 3,000l. in a period of peace. Why, he would ask, should more be now given?

after other further observations, contended that 3000l. a year was not sufficient remuneration for the secretary of the admiralty in time of peace.

remarked upon the singularity that although the hon. gentleman professed, in the first instance, that he was quite unprepared for this discussion, yet in a few moments afterwards, his prepara- tion appeared to be complete; but still he would maintain that at a period when the duties of this office were so materially reduced, it was not equitable to increase the salary of the officer.

was of opinion, that the present was a most unfortunate moment to propose an increase of any salary whatever; and he thought that nothing but absolute necessity could justify the extension of the salaries of public officers. If such necessity could be shown, of course it would be sufficient to justify the proceeding now under discussion. But, to see how far that proceeding was necessary, he should advise his hon. friend, the member for Wiltshire, to move for a document that would be very useful in the discussion of which he had given notice, namely a return of all public officers of government, who had offered to throw up their situations in consequence of the inadequacy of their salaries.

thought, that in addition to the order already made, a copy should be laid before the House of the order alluded to, for settling the salary of the secretary of the admiralty at a former period.

expressed his acquiescence in this proposition.

said, that at the piece of Amiens the salaries of the secretary and under secretary of the admiralty was not more than what was settled by the arrangement alluded to, and that no increase whatever of those salaries took place, while he presumed that the duties of those officers were not now more onerous than they were on that occasion.

in allusion to what had fallen from Mr. Fitzgerald, observed, that the reflection he had cast on the conduct of a noble earl (Grey) when at the head of the admiralty, was not justified by the circumstances. When lord Melville filled the situation, he found the salary inadequate, and, to make up the deficiency, had procured a sinecure of 2000l. per ann. The conduct of earl Grey was very different; under the sanction of parliament, (which saw the necessity of preventing the recurrence of so disgraceful a proceeding as that to which he had first alluded), 2000l. per annum was added to the regular salary of the office.

denied that he had cast any reflection on the noble earl. He thought it fair to ask from others, that justice which he would willingly render to them. If the first act of the noble earl was to add 2000l. to his salary, he had a right to contend, as it passed without any accusation of extravagance against the government of that day, that the mere fact of an increase of salary in the present instance, unaccompanied by any evidence of waste, should not have given rise to the animadversions that had been made on it.

took that opportunity of reiterating his opinion, that the proposed establishment and the proposed relief to the agricultural classes, could only be accomplished by strictly attending to the real amount of the revenue, as affected by the state of the currency and by prices in general. He should be sorry indeed to say any thing that might be supposed to indicate a want of due regard to the interests of our army, but it was undeniable, that both military officers and all other public servants were at present great gainers by the distresses under which the country was labouring, and which distresses rendered it absolutely necessary that the country should have its service performed at the cheapest rate.

asked whether it was intended to reduce the salary of the deputy comptroller of the navy, or whether the duties of that office would in future be performed by a commissioner, at a salary of 1000l. a-year?

replied, that there was no intention whatever to reduce the usual salary of the office alluded to, but it was under consideration—whether that office might not be dispensed with during peace.

said, that he could not conceive how the statement of the hon. gentleman could correspond with that of the hon. baronet, who was a lord of the admiralty. For it appeared from the latter, that while the salary of other officers was to be increased, that which was usually held by a naval officer was likely to be reduced. Thus the interest of the navy was, as had been too much the custom of late, totally neglected, while every advantage was to be granted to the hon. secretary, and other civil officers connected with the admiralty.

denied that there was any intention to reduce the salary of the office alluded to; but in consequence of that office being now vacant, it was intended to consider whether it would be expedient to fill it up under existing circumstances.

stated, that if the vacancy were supplied, there was no inten- tion to make any reduction in the usual salary of the office.

said, that he should not upon this occasion enter into the consideration of the charges which he had conceived it his duty to prefer against the noble lord (Castlereagh). A day would come, and that at no distant period, when the noble lord would have to make his defence. Until that day should arrive, when the noble lord would be put on his trial, the noble lord would have to prepare his defence. In this instance, however, he (Mr. Brougham) was upon his own defence, for he was charged with bringing forward accusations night after night against ministers, which according to the noble lord's assertion, turned out to be mere assumptions, and had no foundation in fact—which, truly, the production of authentic papers served to falsify. But where was the evidence to sustain the noble lord's assertion? He had on this occasion charged ministers with the wasteful and profligate expenditure of the public money, in making an unnecessary addition to the salary of the secretary of the admiralty, and this addition was admitted by the noble lord himself, and also by the secretary alluded to. So far, then, the charge was confirmed; and as to other cases, he wished to know whether, in any instance in which he had moved for papers with respect to similar advances to other public officers, there had been made a return of nil. True it was, that to his motion, with regard to certain offices in the excise and customs in Scotland, the return was, that no increase had taken place in the offices to which that motion referred. But what afterwards turned out to be the fact? Why, that although the return was dated upon the 20th of February, it appeared from the admission of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the increase to which he alluded actually took place upon the 9th. It was often observed, that "ill news was swallow-winged;" but in this case it appeared that those good people in Scotland received good news very slowly indeed, as they were not aware on the 20th that ministers had, at the public expense, been so bountiful towards them on the 9th. So much, then, as to the alleged groundlessness of his charges against ministers. But he would challenge the noble lord to adduce the instance in which he had preferred a groundless charge, and it no such instance were adduced he would leave the House and the country, which from one end to the other complained, as the petitions on the table showed, of the prodigality of ministers, to decide between the noble lord and him. The noble lord had said a good deal about clamour; but the noble lord himself had on this and on other occasions had recourse to clamour, with a view, no doubt, to divert public attention from the real merit of the measures under discussion. For the noble lord, instead of endeavouring to justify his own conduct, made frequent attacks upon those gentlemen on his (Mr. Brougham's) side of the House, who were formerly in office, and who were, truly, accused by the noble lord of having also intended to make an increase of public offices. But this accusation, even if well founded, could avail nothing to the country, which universally complained of the enormous public expenditure, and the severe taxation incurred by it. The noble lord alleged, that the administration alluded to, proposed to create 150 new offices, and that he and his colleagues, upon their accession to office prevented the execution of this project. But what did the chancellor of the exchequer say to this allegation? for to him he would refer the noble lord for an explanation of the conduct of his colleagues. The right hon. gentleman who was then in office as secretary to the treasury, could surely speak to this subject; and, from the nature of his office, was best competent to account for such a measure. With every thing that took place during that administration, the right hon. gentleman was no doubt perfectly acquainted; and how could he sit silent while his colleagues were attacked? How could he sit silent without saying one word in vindication of measures in which he bore a part? The right hon. gentleman must have been confidentially apprised of the proceedings of his colleagues; and why not even whisper to his noble friend something to mitigate his censures? If the administration alluded to were engaged in any jobs, the right hon. gentleman could scarcely be unaware of them. Indeed, from the nature of the office which he occupied, he was the fool of that administration. It behoved him to explain, for the defence of his own character; and if guiltless to answer the charges of the noble lord. The right hon. gentleman might answer the noble lord in private, and so settle the matter without troubling that House upon the subject. But with respect to the charge against the adminis- tration referred to, of intending to create 150 new offices, he would take leave to say a few words. From his knowledge of the character of the individuals concerned, he firmly believed that if even such an intention were entertained, these offices would be found not to have proceeded from any indifference to economy, or from any desire to augment patronage, but that, on the contrary, they were designed to watch the expenditure of the public money—to superintend the audit of public accounts, for instance, which was a measure notoriously necessary—that, on the whole, these offices would turn out to be rather productive of great advantage than of any detriment to the country. Such was his opinion; but whether that opinion was well-founded or not, it was for the chancellor of the exchequer to show. To him belonged the duty of justifying himself and his colleagues; for that House and the country had no concern in the accusation; still less did such an accusation avail to himself, and many other gentlemen about him, who had no connexion whatever with the administration alluded to. But let the chancellor of the exchequer, who was connected not only with that administration, but with every administration that had existed since the right hon. gentleman's introduction to public life, explain to his noble friend the conduct of his colleagues.—Now, with respect to the conduct of lord Grey, against whom a charge was preferred (and a charge he would advisedly call it), that he did from the public purse make an addition of 2,000l a year to his salary, as first lord of the admiralty. Upon this point it had been already stated, that the noble lord so acted in pursuance of the general understanding of the House upon a certain discussion. If the statement of the noble lord's advance was not originally meant as a charge, the right hon. gentleman would have an opportunity of explaining it. The right hon. gentleman, no doubt, disclaimed the intention of making any charge against the noble lord; but then that disclaimer very much resembled the policy of Mrs. Candour in the play: for if the right hon. gentleman's statement were not meant as a charge, it availed nothing to his argument on the present occasion, the advance of lord Grey's salary having no analogy to the case under consideration. If the noble lord's advance were held a justifiable measure in that House, at the time it took place, from the general im- pression that the important office of first lord of the admiralty was before inadequately remunerated, how could that advance be cited to warrant the increase of the salary of the secretary of the admiralty at the very moment that the duties of that officer were so materially reduced? But, in fact, the former had no analogy to the latter, and still less had it any analogy to the case of the late lord Melville. For what was the conduct of that nobleman? Why, that instead of making any addition to the salary of the office of first lord of the admiralty, which was generally held to be inadequate, he augmented the revenue of a sinecure in Scotland, which he must enjoy during life; while lord Grey more manfully added to that salary which he could only enjoy during his tenure of the office to which it appertained. Were the two cases, then, in any respect similar? In the one case such an addition was made to the salary of a public officer, which was conceived to be necessary according to the sense of that House, on a fair consideration of public duty; while in the other a public officer evidently consulted his own personal interest. But to return to the charge of the noble lord, he hoped that noble lord would in future consider that that House and the country would not be biassed by the conduct of one party or the other, but judge impartially of the merit of public measures; and that stronger grounds must be advanced to influence that judgment, than could consist in the mere reiteration of personal or party attacks, about which, in fact, the public could feel no concern.

denied that any charge against earl Grey had been made from that side of the House, and also denied that disregard of economy ought to be inferred, from the mere fact of salaries being augmented. The hon. and learned gentleman was the first person he had seen in that House who had persisted in an imputation founded on words used in debate, after these had been explained. Mr. Fitzgerald said, he had not insinuated any thing against the gentlemen opposite or their friends. He had brought forward charges against them as broad and as distinct as any which they had brought against the government.

thought, at the time, the statement made with respect to earl Grey had been brought forward to inculpate that nobleman. But he believed the explanation of the right hon. gentleman, and was satisfied his words had no meaning but that which he himself had described them to have.

said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had called another hon. member to order, and had displayed much virtuous indignation at language being used, which was very similar to that which the hon. and learned gentleman did not scruple to use himself. While speaking of his political opponents, he had described them to be in "the trammels of party." This assertion might be correct, or it might not; but why was such language to be held on one side of the House, if those who used it could not tolerate it on the other? The terms in which the hon. and learned gentleman frequently expressed himself were such, that it would seem he considered common honesty was not to be found in those who voted with ministers. The language in which he indulged meant, if it had any meaning, that the supporters of government were profligate, dishonest, and corrupt. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, he was now put upon his defence. It was surely to be expected that those whom he thus accused would be led by their feelings to retaliate where they had an opportunity of doing so. The hon. and learned gentleman had said that the charge he had made, which was that of a profligate waste of the public money, was admitted. This he denied. Because it was admitted that some augmentations of salaries had taken place, it did not follow that the epithet used by the hon. and learned gentleman was at all applicable to the case. The hon. and learned gentleman had a right to make his charges, but he had not a right to assume, because the increase of salaries was acknowledged, that the charge founded on this circumstance was admitted.

said, it could not be supposed, when he asserted the charge to be admitted, that he meant to say ministers acknowledged their profligacy. He was quite satisfied with what they had said; the fact of an augmentation of salaries being admitted he held the profligacy to follow of course.

spoke to order. The hon. and learned gentleman had already spoken twice on this subject, and could have no right to be heard again.

contended, he was not out of order. Having made a motion, after hearing what others had to say on it, he had replied.

The petition was brought up, and read. On the question that it should lie on the table,

resumed the argument in which he had been interrupted. The increase of salary being admitted, he would prove the imputed profligacy followed; unless it could be shown, that peace was not re-established, and that the necessaries of life were not greatly reduced in price. He denied having insinuated any thing against ministers. What had fallen from him he wished to be understood as direct charges on their misconduct.

observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman, had again been driven from his ground. To assume, because an alleged fact was admitted, that the charge founded on that fact was also admitted, was to pursue a course which would not raise his character with the House or with the country. Whether that increase was right or wrong, it would be for the House to decide on some future occasion.

said, after the fact of the increase was admitted, the profligacy charged would appear to the whole country, as it did to him, to be completely established.

The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table. After which, Mr. Methuen moved for a copy of the Order in Council in January, 1816, for the increase of salaries in the Admiralty. Mr. Mellish having presented petitions against the property tax, from the inhabitants of Poplar and Black wall,

rose to state a case of grievous hardship and injustice under this most obnoxious impost: and he was the more desirous of bringing it before the House, because it had been gravely stated that this tax did not affect the poor. He believed, that the more this tax was canvassed, the more was the truth likely to be attained. Whether the right hon. gentleman was afraid of that assertion, he did not know; but, as long as any good could be produced from it, he should not be deterred from stating his opinions. The right hon. gentleman had triumphantly asserted, that it was a tax against the rich, and not against the poor: but he was then in possession of a case which would prove that he was not correct. This case clearly showed that it affected a class of persons who were most of all to be pitied; they were not actually paupers, but in that situation which disqualified them from getting relief from the parish. The right hon. gentleman had said, that this tax did not press upon persons whose income was below 50l. per annum. The case, however, to which he had alluded, was the following:—A clergyman, who possessed a small living, from which he could make no savings, died, and left two daughters in the greatest distress. These young ladies had received that liberal education which their father was naturally anxious to give them, and, consequently, were unable to pursue the inferior occupations of life. The sadness of their condition excited the sympathy of the most respectable and opulent persons in the neighbourhood, who subscribed a sum of money to purchase for them an annuity of 40l. When the grantor paid the annuity, he deducted 4l. for the income tax, but the young ladies, understanding that they were not liable to be taxed, refused to allow it. They were told, however, that they must apply to the commissioners, and relief would be given. Accordingly they made an affidavit of the facts, and a representation was transmitted to the office of taxes in London, and the annuity deed sent up. For the space of four months they received no answer; but on the 27th of February this very concise reply was returned to the gentleman who had interested himself in their behalf—" Sir, I am directed by the commissioners to acquaint you, that the annuity, payable under the deed in question, is not an annuity within the meaning of the act, and therefore they cannot admit of your claim of allowance." Now, 4l. was no small part of an income of 40l. and the House would take into its most serious consideration, that in this case there was no decision of a jury; but Mr. Matthew Winter, the secretary of the commissioners, was perfectly despotic on the subject, and the young ladies were left in their distress. He could not conceive a case more grievous and afflicting than this; for, as he had already stated, the parties were precluded from seeking relief by the laws of the land. In respect to modifications, he denied that any good whatever could be produced by them. There were two material objections to this tax; the one that it was unjust in its principle; the other, that it was inquisitorial in its practice. Now, if modifications should be introduced to relieve the injustice, the inquisitorial powers must be increased; aud if the inquisitorial powers were diminished, the injustice must be augmented. In a small canton of Switzerland, a sort of property tax had been imposed, but there was no inquiry into the nature of the income; the persons were only required to pay the tax. He did not think that the right hon. gentleman would be quite so romantic in his measures, but that he would extend and enforce the inquisitorial powers to the utmost degree. He hoped, however, that if what he had stated, was only a single case of hardship, though thousands of a similar nature might be produced, the House would think it sufficient to answer all those flourishing statements, which were only made to abate the ardour of the people; namely, that it was a tax upon the rich, and did not oppress the poor.

said, that no law could be so framed as not to occasion hardship to individuals. He should have thought that the case in question would have received relief, and was therefore inclined to believe that the noble lord must have misunderstood the facts. What he was ready to maintain was, that this tax would press less on the lower orders of society than any tax that could be devised. He was clearly of opinion, that it was a tax more upon the rich than on the poor. The two classes were bound together in a great degree; the one depended on the other; and where he found gentlemen living on their estates, encouraging industry, relieving distress, and, in short, supporting the true character of country gentlemen, no man would be more ready to pay respect to such honourable conduct. But there were other classes whom this tax would reach, and who could not otherwise be brought to contribute to the necessities of the state. He also considered it was falling with great propriety and justice on those who spent their property in foreign countries. When he had thought of modifications, he had been told that they were dishonest or unfair. He did not pretend that he could find relief for every case of hardship that might arise; but parliament was bound to give every attention to the subject: and he certainly flattered himself, that when the act was revised, it would be found the least oppressive and the least objectionable of any tax that had ever been imposed. To the attack that had been made upon him by an hon. and learned gentleman, he should not give any answer; but to the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) he felt himself more called upon to give an explanation. He thought the right hon. gentleman would not accuse him of having been the tool of that administration of which he was so distinguished a member; he had acted by the principles of those who were then in office, and the only reason that he gave no explanation before was, that he had no recollection of the circumstances.

was surprised that the right hon. gentleman should refer to him as a member of that administration, since he held no office in this country connected with the expenditure of the public money. He had filled the office of lord chancellor of Ireland, but the right hon. gentleman was secretary of the treasury. The want of recollection seemed a prevailing defect in the right hon. gentleman, and all his explanation of these transactions was, that he had a very imperfect memory.

observed, that what the right hon. gentleman had said with respect to the necessity of laying a tax on those who chose to reside in other countries he thought a strong proof of the injustice and impolicy of the tax on income, and one of the strongest arguments against it; for it was principally on account of the very heavy burthen of taxation that they left their native land, and it was natural for people to seek those places where they could live at the cheapest rate.

said, that he did not think he had mistaken the facts of the case to which he had directed their attention, and if they were correct, they furnished an unanswerable argument to the right hon. gentleman's assertion, that the tax upon income did not press upon the poor.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

said:—Mr. Speaker; I rise, in pursuance of the notice which I gave, the other night, to move for a return, the production of which will probably prove two things—first, that the increase, which I noticed the other night, in the use of soldiers for the purposes of police, has really taken place; and secondly, that though the increase of military duty in and about the metropolis has by this means been considerable within the last few years, it is not of such a description, as to call for or justify the great augmentation in the life and foot- guards, which the House were persuaded to vote the other night.

Sir, in submitting this motion to the House, I wish to take the opportunity of making one or two observations on what has lately occurred. On the last night, on which there were any discussions on this military question, the noble lord opposite, (lord Castlereagh) was pleased to express some indignation against my hon. and learned friend below me, (Mr. Brougham), at his complaint of the new appellation, which in the estimates before the House was given to the life and foot-guards. My hon. and learned friend had complained of the appellation given to them of household troops, and he said very truly, that this was an appellation which had been introduced within a few years, in imitation of the military governments of the continent. He complained that it was an aping of the French expression of la maison du roi. In answer to this, the noble lord said, that he was altogether mistaken; that it was not a new appellation, and that he would find it as applied to those troops in Mr. Burke's bill. At the time this assertion was made by the noble lord, it struck every one as very extraordinary, every body knowing that that bill referred altogether to the household properly so called, to the offices of the lord Steward of the lord Chamberlain, of the master of the horse, &c and not at all to the military: but the assertion being broadly made, it was not possible for any one to contradict it on the spot without reference, and the observation passed unnoticed. On a subsequent examination of the bill, however, I found that the noble lord was quite mistaken; the word "household" occurs indeed in the bill over and over again; but as to any reference to troops, the word "troops" is not once mentioned in it. I was therefore at first somewhat at a loss to understand what it was to which the noble lord referred; but on consideration, I recollected that though the words "household troops" do not occur in the bill, in the speeches with which that bill was introduced and supported, they occur very often. The right hon. gentleman who moved that bill, describes in his speeches with just irony, the regulations of these troops—their discipline; he talks, too, of a mutiny amongst them. But what are these troops? They are not the guards; not the troops who would go forth to fight the enemies of the country; but the hosts of persons attached to the court, who come down to fight the battles of the minister in this House; not the guards who have muskets in their hands, but the gentlemen who hold white sticks: they are in short, the lords of the bed-chamber, the grooms of the bed-chamber, the chamberlains, and vice-chamberlains, who form so firm a phalanx in this and the other House of Parliament. Whether the noble lord meant to apply to the term life-guards and foot-guards, the sarcastic wit with which Mr. Burke described the household troops to which he referred, I leave it to him to explain. Sir, we heard the other night that the noble lord was much put to it for arguments; but if when the noble lord refers to history he goes on at this rate, at least he will never be at a loss for his facts.

there is another observation which, with the indulgence of the House, I wish to submit to them. It did fall to my lot the other night to state to the House the apprehensions which I felt, that a military government was growing up in this country, and that there existed in certain quarters a wish and design to substitute a military despotism for the free constitution of this kingdom. In the course of the same debate, I was represented by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. R. Ward) as having stated that I had alleged that this design existed, and "with a view of overturning the liberties of the country." I then took the liberty of interrupting the hon. and learned gentleman, and stated, that though I alleged the design, I did not allege that it was entertained with that view and intention. I saw that that would be necessarily the result, but that I did not say that that was the object. In the debates that have since arisen, several gentlemen have expressed the same apprehensions, but have expressly disclaimed the imputation of the object. Sir, I wish however to be understood to disclaim that disclaimer. On that night I did not impute the intention; but I did not say that that intention did not exist. It was a matter of indifference to me looking at the result, whether it did exist or not: the result in either case would be the same. But when other gentlemen disclaim the belief of that object, I must say, that I was not then without my suspicions that it exists. And these suspicions which existed in my mind at that time, have received great additional weight and consistency since. The per- severance with which these enormous military establishments have been pushed forward, and all attempts to retrench them have been resisted, has given great weight to these suspicions. But still more the determination of his majesty's ministers to cram down the throats of the people, against their universal and unanimous opinion as expressed in petitions to this House, the most odious property tax, has increased and strengthened every suspicion I before entertained. A fiscal despotism, which this tax goes to establish, is as inimical to liberty, as a military despotism. It is in many respects, too, much more galling and more troublesome. A military tyrant may exercise a terrible tyranny in his own immediate neighbourhood, within the sphere of his own senses and the reach of the army which he commands: but those who live at a distance from him, and are somewhat removed from his influence, will of course feel his power less. Again, a military despot may not have a tyrannical disposition, he may be inclined to consult the good of his people, and may have wisdom to understand their interests. But a fiscal tyranny extends into every parish and corner of the land subjected to it. No distance is beyond its reach. It is, too, always active. No relaxation can be hoped for of its power. The property tax goes to erect a little tyrant in every village in the kingdom; not indeed armed with military power (though in truth I very much fear that if it be enacted, and the collection persevered in, the collector must go about attended with a file of soldiers in order to raise the money); but if not armed with military power this little fiscal tyrant will find his way into every one's house, will examine the most private transactions, and disturb the most retired families. I say therefore, that the fiscal tyranny of the income tax is in truth as destructive of liberty as the most absolute military tyranny. And be it observed too, that there cannot be found for the wish to support this tax the same pretences, which may be stated for a love of military power. There is no show nor parade here to gratify the puerile and contemptible vanity, which may be alleged as the motive in the other case. It can be, I conceive, no other than the pure love of tyranny, and a systematic determination to overthrow the liberties of the people and the constitution of the country.

Whatever suspicions, therefore, I before entertained, are now infinitely strengthened; whatever surmises before existed in my mind as to the object and motive for these military innovations, are almost reduced to a certainty; and I wish to be distinctly understood as disclaiming any share in the disclaimer which some gentlemen have put in of imputing such views and motives. Sir, I will not any longer detain the House at present; but beg to move, "That there be laid before this House, an account of the number and strength of military guards mounted within the bills of mortality on the 1st day of January of every year, from 1791 to 1816, both inclusive, distinguishing cavalry from infantry, and stating the number of sentries furnished from each guard, and the stations where posted."

said, that even if the noble lord had not expressly told the House he had been examining the works of Mr. Burke, it would have been easy to trace how much they had been the object of his study, and particularly one of the best of them, the Treatise on the Sublime and Beautiful. It was there laid down, that the great source of the sublime was obscurity; and in this view, the noble lord's speech was sublimity itself. His mind seemed to have conjured up so many terrors, first in regard to ministers—then not to ministers, but perhaps the court: then not so much the court, as perhaps the spirit of the people themselves; he disagreed with so many opinions, acquitting ministers of design—and then disagreed with his own opinions, accusing them of it; he did not mean to impute so many things, and then would not say he did not mean they might not be imputed, that really gentlemen would be glad if he would tell them exactly what it was he did mean. He conceived that the noble lord was horribly afraid; but of what, he could not collect; for by much the most terrific of his chimeras was the circumstance that the Prince Regent opened the parliament in a large military cocked hat. He had accused his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) of having not only used that terrible phrase "household troops," but with actually having sheltered himself behind Mr. Burke's authority, in his reform bill. Mr. Ward believed that his noble friend might have alluded to his bill for regulating the pay office, but it was of no sort of consequence whether it was there or not. This Mr. Ward knew, that the noble lord had himself committed a most egregious blunder, in his endeavour to teach his noble friend history, accompanying it, as he did, with a threat of impeachment, nay, even of execution. For he had made a distinction which no one could understand, between the protection of the law and of the constitution. Empson and Dudley, he said, had been executed for a breach of the constitution, though within the law. This was not so; for against all law and all constitution, they were put to death unheard, by attainder, and not for a breach of the constitution, though within the law, but for treason which they had not committed. It really behoved the noble lord, before he taxed others with mistakes of no sort of consequence, to take care of his own when so essentially connected with his argument. Reverting to the noble lord's fears, Mr. Ward said, he could only answer them as he did on a former night; he was welcome to indulge them if he pleased, but as he could give no proof, all that could be said by his side of the House was, that there was nothing at all in them.

observed, that as the present discussion was not respecting the number of troops to be maintained in the country, he suspected the motion of the noble lord bad proceeded on an erroneous view of the subject. He was of opinion that ministers could not do their duty in a satisfactory manner, if they proceeded to diminish the number of troops. It was possible that an explosion might take place in France in the course of a month. In what a deplorable situation, then, would the country stand, were she to be instantly stripped of all her defenders? The duke of Wellington might probably have occasion for more cavalry, and how ludicrous must ministers appear, were they to tell him that for the sake of saving a few thousand pounds, they had disbanded a considerable part of the army. What would the duke naturally say in such a case? And really were gentlemen to consider the very small sum which the country would gain by thus disbanding the bravest of our troops, they would not feel all that warmth they at present felt for a reduction of the army. In the different regiments of horse-guards and cavalry, the whole saving would only amount to 8000l And was this an object for which our most gallant defenders were to be thrown on the world? Was such a paltry sum to be any consideration in this great country? But supposing the army to be as dangerous as it was represented, what were the sentiments of ministers? They never dreamt for a moment of making so large an establishment during peace, but wished it merely to be kept as an intermediate establishment till experience showed, whether or not the peace was to be permanent. Let gentlemen look back to the short peace of Amiens, and contemplate the enormous expense which was necessarily entailed on the country, in consequence of the premature disembodying of the army. He believed no man could be found, at all alive to the true interests of his country, who did not regret that measure. He was sorry to hear the establishment considered as arising from a love of gaudy show. It was requisite for the interest of the country, and requisite for the preservation of our advantages as individuals, that it should be kept up, at least for a limited period.

said, the question before the House was not the reduction of troops—it was not the peace or war establishment of the country—it was simply a question to ascertain the numbers and stations of the guards employed in the metropolis every year since 1791. He deprecated the manner in which the hon. baronet had taken up the time of the House, by entering into foreign and extraneous matters. What they had to do with the question before the House he knew not; but supposed they were part of a speech prepared for the army estimates.

had no objection whatever to the motion of the noble lord. It would, perhaps, be difficult to furnish exactly the precise number employed in some of the years. He could, however, assure the noble lord, that the number of troopers on duty did not at present exceed forty-five, which was considerably fewer than when the king had his residence in town.

The motion was then agreed to.

said, he understood that a great proportion of the cavalry at present embodied, were deficient in their complement of horses; he particularly alluded to the 6th dragoons and the Scotch greys, which had not above half their number. He suggested, whether it would not be wise to reduce the cavalry to the actual number of horses which they possessed. He thought the attention of the House ought particularly to be called to the manner in which the horses of the British army had been transported from France to this country on a late occasion. The animals, he observed, had not been conveyed in regular transports, but had been put into vessels of a description so improper, and in numbers so great, that many of them had been lamed, and others had actually died. He knew this to have been the case, particularly with the horses of many infantry officers, which by this imprudent practice had been utterly ruined. He objected, too, to the cavalry estimates being now for 20,000 men, when, last peace, they were not more than 12,000.

said, that from the hon. baronet's own statement, the dragoon regiments were not in that state of perfection in which they ought to be. So far from being reduced, therefore, it was essential that their deficiency should be supplied. With respect to the manner in which the horses had been transported from France, he observed, that with a due regard to economy, from the great expense attending cavalry transports, the course adopted was by far the most advantageous. He was aware that the number of horses lost had amounted to about 200, but a saving had been effected to the public far beyond the value of those animals, by employing the vessels which had been taken into requisition on the occasion.

said, that he was informed the horses had been so crowded, that some had fallen under the feet of others, and were actually suffocated. If the persons who had undertaken to superintend this business had misconducted themselves, he thought inquiry should be made into the circumstances of that misconduct.

said, he understood that the contract made by government at Dover for transporting the cavalry was 25s. a horse, but it was a most expensive one; for day after day the people had to witness the disgusting sight of fine horses being dragged from the ships dead. Of this he himself could bear testimony, as he happened to be down at Dover at the time. If nothing else were considered, it was a species of ingratitude to those fine animals who had carried their riders through so many difficulties. He believed that square-rigged vessels were much better calculated to transport cavalry than the cutters which were usually employed in that service.

conceived that the view taken on the subject of the transportation of horses was considerably beyond what the real facts of the case warranted. It was very well known that the harbours on the French coast were exceedingly difficult to navigate, and it was therefore found much preferable to transport the horses in vessels which had always been accustomed to such a service; and he believed that, had it not been for the unusually bad weather, scarcely any of the horses would have been lost. With regard to the deficiency of horses in the cavalry regiments mentioned by the hon. baronet, it seemed to have been forgotten, that when the regiments had their full complement of horses, ten men per troop always remained dismounted.

thought that after what had fallen from an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, it was necessary that some inquiry should take place into the subject.

also pressed the necessity of inquiry.

complained of the augmentation of the cavalry, which had been carried to an enormous amount, merely for the purpose of protecting the revenue. It was impossible to hear what had been stated on this subject with regard to Ireland without feeling the greatest alarm. Four hundred parties of these troops had been stated to have been employed in that country for that purpose.

explained, that he had stated that the troops were employed in 400 quarters, and that about 20 parties were occupied in suppressing illicit distillation.

said, that the chief objection he had to the employment of these cavalry in the prevention of smuggling, was the danger of the rewards which would be offered, inducing them to swerve from the path of duty, and also the effect it would have upon their moral habits. He wished, however, to call the attention of the committee particularly to a part of the treaty of Paris, signed in November last, with respect to the employment of the military in France. It had been sti- pulated, that the collection of the taxes and customs should remain in the hands of the king of France, but that, in case of need, the British forces should lend their assistance. It appeared, therefore, that the English army was not only to maintain the Bourbons on the throne, but were also to collect the taxes for the French government. Was it a duty which the ministers of this country considered would have a beneficial effect upon the minds of the soldiers, to lend their aid to such disgraceful proceedings as were continually taking place in France? Ministers, it seemed, were not contented with employing the troops in collecting the revenue at home, but must send them abroad to do the same without any reason or utility.

defended the military establishment as proposed by ministers. With respect to the guards, he conceived that it was the best policy to augment their number, because the household troops had proved themselves worthy of the confidence placed in them. They were, in fact, the only remains of those heavy horse which in the seven years war distinguished themselves so much, and which were able to beat down the force of the cuirassiers. The hon. member then proceeded to point out the great deficiency of force in the year 1792, when there existed only one brigade of guards, amounting to 1200 men, which could be called efficient. It was at the period of the expedition to Egypt, under sir Ralph Abercromby, that the British army began to appear in its proper light; and a letter received by sir David Dundas, from that gallant general, fully exemplified the good effect of the system which was then laid down. Experience, he contended, was absolutely necessary to form good soldiers; and he quoted the duke of Wellington as an example, who, having studied the military art for twenty-five years, had now shone forth the glory of his country. He hoped, therefore, that these precautionary measures would not be rejected under the notion that the men who could be raised in a few weeks were as good soldiers, or as brave warriors, as those who had fought so many battles for their country. In his opinion, there never was a time when the army had so strong a claim upon the country, and he conceived that it would be the best policy, and the truest economy, to keep up the force which had been proposed.

perfectly concurred in what had fallen from his hon. friend as to the employment of the cavalry for revenue purposes only, more particularly as he had always understood that the military were to be called upon to act on important occasions only by the civil power. With respect also to the troops which were stationed at the places of entertainment, he was old enough to recollect when no soldier dared to act without the authority of the constable; but now things had taken a very different turn, and the military were suffered to act without control upon all occasions. He had intended to have moved an amendment to the resolution respecting the cavalry so employed, for the purpose of reducing them; but he found it would have been a useless waste or time, as ministers were determined to have the majority in all the divisions on the resolutions.

declared, that there was no intention to emancipate the army from the control of the civil power. That was not done in Ireland, and was not in contemplation here. He agreed that it would be preferable to employ the soldiers otherwise; but nothing was easier than to make speeches to establish any particular point, which if adopted by government would cause the service of the country to stand still. There were only two modes of repressing smuggling. The first, which had been used by Mr. Pitt in 1792 was, to lower the duties so far, as to render smuggling unprofitable. But this was now impracticable, if it was intended to carry on the government of the country. Those duties could not be reduced without sacrificing eight millions of revenue. The other was to employ the military as it was now intended, which would only occasion an expenditure of 400,000l whilst the slightest infraction of the system against smuggling might occasion a loss of two, three, or four millions of revenue. In order to prevent any deterioration in the discipline of the army, it was intended that only one half of each regiment should be employed on this service; the other half would be in a sort of depôt, subject to all the strictness of military regulations. If such a plan were not adopted the revenue might be broken down to such a degree, as to compel the House to inflict on the people much more grievous exactions in order to supply the deficiency.

concurred with his hon. friend in not wishing to move an amendment after the majority which he had seen on a former evening on the sub- ject of the estimates. He wished, however, to remark on the explanation given by a noble lord opposite. That noble lord had been obliged to acknowledge, that a great injury was likely to be done to the troops, by being employed in preventing smuggling. The noble lord had given a cheerless prospect to the House. He had stated that there could, under present circumstances, be no reduction of taxes, and he had been forced to admit, that in endeavouring to keep them up to their present amount, the employment of a military force was necessary, which force was likely to be severely injured by such employment.

The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, proposing a grant of 1,592,000l. for defraying the expense of the forces abroad, exclusive of the troops stationed in France, and in the territorial possessions of the India company, being put,

adverted to the increased establishment for Jamaica, to the amount of 4,000 men. He could not conceive its purpose, when no descent on that island was to be feared. The militia of Jamaica, into which every white man capable of bearing arms was bound to enter, appeared quite sufficient for maintaining internal police. As to the Ionian islands, he objected to the idea of taking them under our protection; we affected to give them independence and a flag of their own, while we fastened a large garrison upon them: this was too much in the French style of affording protection.

stated in reply, that 500 men of the Jamaica establishment were to be sent to Honduras, which would reduce the total to 3,500 men, of whom in that climate it was probable that not more than 3,000 would be effective. As to the West India garrisons generally, it was to be considered that we had now 6,500 black troops on foot. These would require at least 9,000 British troops to be mixed with them. It might be a question whether these black corps might not be applied to some other service, but this was a matter for future consideration. He conceived there were no two stations where an adequate force was more requisite than Malta and Corfu; for, if left too weak, they were liable to be taken by coup-de-main, and could only be recovered by a long and expensive siege.

contended, that it would be extremely dangerous to keep up a less force in our West India colonies, parti- cularly in Jamaica, than was proposed, and protested strongly against any reduction being made in them. He had had particular opportunities of information on this subject, and did not think that any great confidence could be placed on the black corps, which he viewed with extreme jealousy.

ridiculed the idea of a sudden surprise of Malta in time of peace. He would ask, why not call on the settlements generally to maintain their own military establishment? This he conceived, might be effected by a very small tax on their exports and imports. The exports to Gibraltar, he understood, in one year amounted to not less than two millions.

said, that the suggestion had not escaped the attention of government; it was to be considered, however, that the trade with the West India islands and with Canada, being subject to a strict monopoly, was in fact already taxed. At the same time he had no doubt that the legislature of those islands would lend their assistance to the support of the troops. As to our possessions in the Mediterranean, an inquiry had been directed, for the purpose of ascertaining how much they could raise for the support of the different establishments; but this would require a length of time, and we could not this year hope for any considerable reduction of expense in that quarter.

was astonished at the proposal of taxing the exports to Gibraltar. He was certain that the general amount of these exports did not exceed 600,000l. and of these not 180,000l. were consumed at Gibraltar, which was a mere depôt for goods in transitu to other parts of the Mediterranean. To impose a tax on them, therefore, would be taxing our own manufactures. The same was the case at Malta, where our manufactures only entered in transitu, and were always met in the Turkish ports with the competition of the French merchants.

thought a force of 2,000 or even 1,500 men sufficient to garrison Malta. If the troops were to overawe the black population of Jamaica, it was but fair and just that the inhabitants of that island should pay for that protection.

said, that every gentleman acquainted with the commerce of the Mediterranean must be aware of the competition with which our manufacturers had to struggle. If we laid a duty on our ex- ports to Gibraltar or Malta, we should drive our own manufactures out of the market. The same observation applied to the West Indies.

asked if any part of the expense which the custody of Buonaparté at St. Helena threw upon us, was to be borne by the four great powers, who had an equal interest with ourselves in his safe custody?

said, the other great powers were perfectly disposed to relieve us of the custody of that prisoner. But having thrown himself into our hands, it would be very ungracious to deliver him up to the custody of any other power. It was certainly most advantageous, too, for the security and repose of Europe, that he should remain in our hands. Under these circumstances he did not see that we could in justice make a demand on any of the powers in question.

The resolution was agreed to. After which, the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.