plain of any reduction or deficiency in their pay.

Mr. W. Smith could not help thinking that we might do with a less establishment than we had in 1792. It was im⚫ possible not to allow that our military character must go for something; and the nation besides was in a state of internal tranquillity. As to our foreign establishment, no very numerous force could be necessary; for instance, in India there was certainly less occasion for a powerful army, than at the time when the French had so much control in that country. He alluded to the state of Sicily, and hoped, that after opening to that kingdom prospects of a better government, we should not leave them to lament that none of our fair promises had been fulfilled.

The House went into a committee, and lord Palmerston moved the first resolution. Mr. Ponsonby objected to the proposed method of paying the officers of the guards; the only effect of the alteration would be, not to benefit a most distinguished branch of military service, but to create a considerable patronage for the government.

General Gascoyne went into some details, to show that the general officers of the guards would be losers by the new arrangement.

Sir Eyre Coote followed to the same effect, and recommended attention to the situation of the ensigns.

Mr. Bennet insisted, that the measure would be a gross job, and was calculated only to gratify the desire of the commander in chief to grasp at patronage.

Sir E. Brydges objected to the proposed alteration respecting the guards.

Mr. Ponsonby said, that while the committee was considering what sums should or should not be voted to general officers, there were two classes of officers whose situation peculiarly deserved their consideration, he meant the lieutenants and ensigns. For himself, he had always reflected upon their condition with the deepest regret ; some of them had nothing on which to subsist but merely their half pay. Would it not, therefore, be better to vote a sum which might tend to ameliorate their condition, than to vote 20,0091. a year to accomplish a purpose which those very persons, in whose behalf it was to be accomplished, regarded with disapprobation, and would rather should not be done? Why burden the country to no good pur pose, when the same sum might be beneficially appropriated to a meritorious class

of individuals, many of whom, it was well known to every member in that House, needed pecuniary aid, almost as much as the most indigent persons in the community.

Lord Palmerston replied, that in fixing the scale, which had been submitted to the House, the claims of that highly useful and meritorious description of officers had not, he apprehended, been overlooked. Some limitations it was necessary to fix, in spite of those feelings which were likely to influence every one called upon to consider the case of those officers. If the increase of pay to the lieutenants and ensigns was compared with that of the other officers, and if the half pay of each was in like manner compared, he thought the House would agree that the vote was nei. ther nigardly nor illegal. It should be remembered also, that those ensigns, who would be placed on half pay, were the youngest, and had consequently the least clains upon the score of service. Their case was broadly distinguished from that of the lieutenants, most of whom were necessarily, far advanced in life, had performed long services, and found it too late to commence any new course of exertion. Still, he thought, that the allowance to lieutenants was one not to be condemned as parsimonious, consistently with the general rules of the service. The whole expence of the proposed measure would not exceed 3,6167. It had been called, by an hon. member, a gross job, calculated only to gratify the desire of his royal highness the commander in chief, to grasp after patronage. He trusted it would only be necessary, in order to repel this insinuation, to remind the House of the eminent and distinguished services of that illustrious personage since he had been at the head of the army, in every thing at all connected with its discipline, comfort, and efficiency. He had only to remind the House of their own unanimous vote on a recent occasion, when those services were so honourably recognized-services no less honourable to his royal highness himself, than beneficial to the whole army. How, then, was it possible to convert the measure into an object of patronage? If the House would sanction it, they would find, in the manner in which the commissions would be filled up, no ground for that imputation which it was attempted to fix upon the motives of the commander in chief. With regard to the pay of ge neral officers, it had been fixed at a sum

Borough gaol had not been in a proper state; positively contradicted the statement made by the hon. gentleman of the scramble for the provisions sent into Newgate; and remonstrated strongly against some unfair advantages which had been taken by the supporters of the measure.

Sir T. Ackland said, he had been to the Borough compter that very day, and he found, that a man came there on Saturday last, who could get no bed. A few carpets were got together for him, through the kindness of his fellow-prisoners. On Sunday he got a bed, not from the magistrates, but through the kindness of the gaoler.

Mr. Holford said, that those gentlemen who wished him to withdraw his measure, would change their opinion, when they heard the language of the hon. alderman, who spoke some time before him. The Report stated the want of food, fuel, bedding, and religious iustruction: it stated the prevalence of improper conduct, and the introduction of spirituous liquors: the Borough compter was on all hands admitted to be in a most miserable state; the attention of the magistrates had been called to it again and again, ineffectually, by Mr. Nealde and others; and when these abuses were attempted to be remedied, they were assailed, on all hands, with an attempt to degrade the magistrates of the city of London. These abuses were still unremedied in a great measure; and, if they had this specimen of the manner in which the gaols were conducted, while the subject was under the notice of the House, what was to be expected when all enquiry was gone by?

Mr. Bathurst contended, that most of the evils, in the management of Newgate, arose from the over-crowded state of the gaol. Till this was remedied, the committee could not do any good, and the appointment of it was unnecessary.

Mr. Barham protested against the practice of charging every measure, like the present, with being an attempt to degrade constituted authorities.

Mr. Alderman Combe thought the magistrates were perfectly competent to discharge the functions which this Bill proposed to take from them.

The House then divided. For the amendment, 22-Against it, 17-Majority, against the Bill, 5.

The Earl of Lauderdale said, he wished previously to move, that a certain number of individuals, in a list which he read, should be summoned to attend, and give evidence before their lordships on Tuesday, the 19th instant.

Lord De Dunstanville said, the notice could not reach the individuals till Friday next, and he thought a later day ought therefore to be fixed.

The Lord Chancellor said, their lordships ought to pause before they ordered a number of individuals to come before them, to give evidence on a subject, respecting which, they themselves knew nothing. Nobody knew, from the Bill, on what account the disfranchisement of the electors of the borough of Helston had taken place. In other bills of a similar nature, the cause was generally stated to be notorious corruption. But the reason assigned for the disfranchisement in this Bill, was merely certain illegal practices. He did not mean to say, that bribery and corruption were not included under the expression, illegal practices; but there were many illegal practices which would not warrant them in disfranchising a body of electors. He did not know what might be proved under this allegation. If persons were brought before them vexatiously, it would be in the power of the House to animadvert upon it; but, as he had before said, they ought to know what the witnesses were sent for to prove.

The Marquis of Lansdowne thought the House ought not to proceed hastily, at the present advanced period of the session, with a Bill which would have the effect of disfranchising a great body of electors. He saw no injury which could result from delay; and he thought that the House ought to come to an understanding not to read the Bill a third time in the present session. He understood, however, that a number of witnesses were in readiness to attend their lordships, and it would be a pity, that all the expense and trouble, which this must have occasioned, should be thrown away. Till he heard the evidence, he could not make up his mind as to the vote he should give.

Earl Stanhope said, the difference between this and former bills, of a similar nature, was, that they were properly worded, and this was not. But though the expression of illegal practices was too wide, there was no objection to the making enquiry, but merely to the passing the Bill with a preamble so improperly worded. The Lord Chancellor said, it appeared to him, that the practices should not only be illegal, but such as to justify them in the measure they were adopting. His objection to the wording of the present Bill, was, that it would open the door to investigations of practices of all kinds. They ought to know on what points the witnesses were to be examined, before they ordered them to attend. For their convenience, before going into the evidence, they ought to have a statement of what the illegal practices were.

Some conversation ensued between the earl of Lauderdale, the Lord Chancellor, earl Stanhope, lord Ellenborough and lord Redesdale, chiefly on the loose nature of the expression, in the preamble, of "illegal practices," on the mode of examining witnesses, and, as to whether the Bill could be gone through this session. It was at length agreed, on the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, to call in the counsel, in order to understand from them the general nature of the facts to which they proposed to call evidence. Mr. Adam, Mr. Serjeant Pell, and Mr. Harrison, accordingly appeared at the bar. Mr. Adam, as counsel for Mr. Plumer, a freeman of Helston, a petitioner against the Bill; Mr. Serjeant Pell, as counsel for Mr. Wallis, in favour of the Bill; and Mr. Harrison for Mr. Scott, a freeman of Helston, against the Bill. Mr. Serjeant Pell being called on by the House, stated, that a small number of persons, corporators of Helston, had monopolized the right of returning members for the borough: and had, for benefits conferred on them, either as a body or individually, transferred that right to an individual, at whose will and pleasure the members for the borough were returned.

The Lord Chancellor proposed to postpone the further consideration of the Bill till Thursday, that the House might then consider what course they would take with regard to it, which was agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, July 12.

moved the order of the day, for taking into further consideration the report of the Poor Relief Bill.

Mr. Western, after giving due credit to the benevolent intentions of the hon. mover of the Bill, felt himself bound to oppose it in toto. 1st. Because it appeared to him. impracticable, on account of the complexity of its provisions. 2d. Because those provisions were not in conformity to the preamble: inasmuch as that preamble proposed, to have it in view, to take away the grievance of a removal, in consequence of the grant of mere temporary relief; whereas, for his part, he could not find out any thing in the Bill calculated to effectuate any such purpose. 3d. Because the Bill involved a principle in his mind highly objectionable, which was this-that the magistrates would have power to make orders of payment on parishes, not present, to resist such orders. 4th. Because the trouble attending the various proceedings, which the Bill created, alarmed him, when he looked to the examination of the witnesses, the adjudication, the allowance, &c. &c. 5th. Because the provision for a re-examination, before an appeal appeared to him defective, as he could see no mode devised as to what was to happen, in case the justices revoked their adjudication. the charges in obtaining reimbursement, would, as he was informed, run to not less than 31. or 41. 7th. Because it would necessitate parishes to open a debtor and creditor account to a large extent with other parishes, and he was informed, that the parish of St. Giles's had now not less than 1,000 removals in a year, and this Act would therefore open 1,000 accounts in its stead. As to the 2d clause, in affording medical relief, it appeared to him objectionable, as interfering between the parish and the medical practitioner; and that, as the law at present stood, the medical practitioner, if he could get no payment from the pauper, had, at least, the advantage of the credit and collateral practice that such aid gave him.

6th. Because