expressed, in the strongest terms, his unbounded admiration at the conduct of the British army-infantry, cavalry, artillery -all performed wonders on that glorious day. Knowing, as he did, all these facts, he could not sit silent and hear such a motion attempted to be got rid of by a mere constitutional quack-[Hear, hear! on the Opposition side.] He wished that every man in the House, and in the country, should hear and know what the grounds were upon which this motion was opposed by the member for Essex. He observed, an hon. gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Bennet), who, from his manner and gesture, seemed to support the objection. He was, he confessed, astonished that any man could be found in that House, after the unexampled services which the army had rendered to their country, and to Europe, to object to a motion of thanks to the illustrious person who had brought it to its high state of perfection-upon what he must continue to call (without meaning any offence to the hon. gentleman) a constitutional quack; but he was still more surprised that any gentleman who had ever belonged to the army, who had ever borne arms in the service of his country, could appear to concur in such a mode of depriving the illustrious Duke of that reward which he had so richly merited, and to which he was certain the whole British army conceived him to be justly entitled-[Hear, hear!] Mr. Pole concluded with giving his decided support to the motion. Mr. Baring justified the part which he had taken last session, when the name of the duke of York had been wholly omitted in the proposed vote of thanks to the army. He thought the right hon. gentleman who spoke last would have acted much more wisely in considering coolly the arguments which had been most modestly stated by his hon. friend, who had not uttered a single syllable agsinst the conduct or character of the Commanderin-chief, than in adopting a tone of warmth altogether uncalled for. His hon. friend had merely doubted whether the Commander-in-chief was not more a civil officer of the Government than the commander of the forces properly so called. He himself thought that there was a distinction between the Commander-in-chief and any officer under Government. concurred with his hon. friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking, that this was not a time for bringing for He ward a subject like the present; but whenever the vote was proposed, he felt it his duty to concur in it. At the same time, he did not think it very constitutional to call on the House to vote their thanks every six or nine months. He did not, however, see that the motion could with any propriety be withdrawn, as the motives might not generally be understood. He hoped the vote of thanks would be followed up with another motion, for an additional provision to his Royal Highness; and if any proposal of that nature should be made, he should also feel it his duty to give it his support. With respect to the services of the duke of York, most gentlemen were aware that they were of a description to take up a great portion of his time. Hardly any department of government had been more regularly attended to. He had, indeed, been informed that his Royal Highness was at his office more regularly than the chief of any department under Government, and that all the results had been produced by the most unremitted exertions. His Royal Highness had now been a great number of years in his office, without having received any addition to his provision. It stood the same now as it was twenty-five years ago. He suggested the propriety of relieving his income from some of the incumbrances contracted by him from the want of economy natural to youth, and to his high rank. No state of the finances ought ever to induce them to disregard claims which were entitled to their gratitude. Mr. Wilbraham Bootle replied to the objections urged to the motion by the hon." member for Essex, and denied that it had originated in an invidious desire to raise the character of one Royal Duke at the expense of that of another. In his mind the present question had no connexion with any former subject of discussion. He could see no reason why the House should be bound by precedent when votes of approbation were necessary. It had been asked, why motions of approbation on the conduct of the Lords of the Admiralty and the Masters-general of the Ordnance were not proposed? To this he would answer, that they had not served for twenty years, as had his Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief of the forces. Colonel Wood supported the motion, and, to prove that the Commander-in-chief was particularly entitled to the thanks of the House, begged to remind them what had been the situation of the army when the duke of York was first put at the head of it. At that period a practice had obtained of buying commissions, and of running up persons in the service, who had interest so rapidly, that it was not uncommon for the person named in one Gazette as an ensign, to appear in another, a few days after, as a lieutenant-colonel. In this manner mere boys frequently got placed in the command of regiments. The duke of York put an end to this system; he instituted gradations of service, by which it was necessary that every officer, what ever his connections might be, should go through a certain course of service, before he could be promoted; and this salutary regulation had never, in one solitary instance, been broken in upon. He noticed various improvements, of which the duke of York had been the author, and spoke particularly in praise of the present system of tactics which he had introduced. These, which twenty years ago were unknown in the British service, were so simple, yet so applicable to every purpose of movement, that now British troops meeting from remote parts of the globe, could at once unite and act together. This was seen in the late battle. Our infantry (though it was not a picked army), though exposed to a most murderous fire of artillery, whenever they were approached by cavalry, instantly threw themselves into squares, and uniformly beat off the enemy. The confidence of the duke of Wellington in them was such, that when he saw the French cavalry advance, he instantly threw himself into the centre of that battalion which was nearest to him, and remained there till the charge was over. The English foot then fell back about 800 yards, just out of range of the enemy's muskets. The French infantry, on seeing this, advanced, and then the English deployed, charged with the bayonet, and drove them back. This statement of their movements must prove the present system of tactics the best in the world. The duke of Wellington had said, that the infantry was never for a moment shaken. He hoped the thanks of the House would be unanimously voted to the Commander-in-chief. sisting of three battalions, and the bishopric of Osnaburgh. He considered his Royal Highness to be amply provided for If it could be proved otherwise, he should be open to conviction. Mr. Whitbread thought the House should not be called on to thank the Commanderin-chief of the forces, any more than the head of any other department, which had equally contributed to the efficiency of the gallant army that achieved the triumph of Waterloo. He was sorry for the tone assumed some by gentlemen, who seemed to regard any hesitation to concur in the motion as little less than an act of ingratitude. He sincerely regretted, that the brother of the duke of Wellington had thought fit to take so high and so loud a tone upon this subject, as if the House would be deficient in its duty if it did not concur in the motion before it; since it was unquestionably a subject that admitted a doubt, even if it could not be said that the proposition was not altogether improper. He agreed in the constitutional doctrines laid down by his hon. friend (Mr. Western); but still he thought that the subject having been brought forward, and the services of the illustrious Duke being generally admitted, it would not be a gracious act to refuse the motion. An hon. gentleman under the gallery had, on a former occasion, thrown out a hint, that a pecuniary remuneration should be granted to the illustrious Duke. The hon. gentleman evidently could have had no other object in view, because the question before the House, at the time he mentioned the services of the duke of York as worthy of reward, was a grant of money to a member of the Royal family. Be fore the House agreed, in the present mo. ment, to such a proposition as that, they would do well to give it all the attention which it demanded. However, laying all this aside-laying aside different topics which had been mixed up with the present question-wishing the hon. gentleman had not now brought forward his motion-and thanking his hon. friend for the constitutional view he had taken of the subject-still, looking to the compliments which had been paid to the duke of York-compliments, the result, Mr. Methuen admitted the claim of the not of partiality, but of conviction-he duke of York to the gratitude of the coun- conceived the House ought to agree to the try, but could not think any increase of resolution. When it was recollected, his income necessary. He had 18,000l. that, by the excellence of the system as his ducal income, 18,0004 more on his which had been matured by the duke of marriage, the 1st regiment of Guards, con-York, a number of troops were enabled to act together, who had never before been employed in a united operation, no person Could deny his Royal Highness praise; and, admitting praise to be due, it would be rather extraordinary, when the question came before them, to say that, on account of any collateral circumstances, it ought to be withheld. Lord Barnard was of opinion, that no man was more deserving of the thanks of that House, and of the country at large, than the duke of York. The duke of Wellington never could have gained so many glorious victories, but for the skill and discipline of the British army-that skill and discipline had been fostered by the duke of York; and therefore his Royal Highness was worthy of every honour that could be conferred on him by Parliament. The satisfaction given by his Royal Highness to the army was uni versal. another illustrious Personage, on whose merits, but for the situation he had the honour of filling, he would expatiate at length-and to whom the country was no less indebted for its glory, than to him whose exertions were the subject of their consideration that night. If the duke of Wellington had conquered, who placed the power to conquer in his hands? The Prince Regent! If the duke of Wellington had triumphed, who called him to the situation in which his great abilities had shone with so much lustre? The Prince Regent! Let the House consider the posture of public affairs when the Prince Regent assumed the reins of government. The duke of Wellington was, at that time, cooped within the lines of Torres Vedras and the only government then existing in Spain was shut up in Cadiz. It was then a question, whether the country should give up the contest, or continue the struggle to the last. In this conjuncture, the Prince Regent adopted the prin ciples of those who wished us to proceed instead of following the advice of individuals-(given, no doubt, with the utmost sincerity)-which, if pursued, would have placed the country in a situation very different from that in which it at present stood. The hon. and learned serjeant concluded by observing, that if some person of more weight and experience than he possessed, did not bring forward the question to which he had alluded, he would, at a future period, when this country had conquered peace a setime, submit a motion to the House on the subject. Mr. Alderman C. Smith spoke in favour of the motion. Mr. Serjeant Best said, from what he knew of the constitution of the country, he had no hesitation in declaring, that the present motion was perfectly parliamentary. Those who opposed it, on constitutional grounds, were not at all justified in their opposition. Some gentlemen expressed themselves hostile to the motion, for fear it should be drawn into precedent. He should be very happy, if many opportunities occurred, in which such a precedent could be fairly acted on. And if no precedent at present existed, no case, he conceived, could more properly call for the establishment of one, than that which they were now consider-cond ing. It was observed by an hon. gentleman, that the duke of York was at the head of an inferior department, and that, if thanks were voted to him, the head of Mr. Addington thought, that after hav every other department might consider ing expressed the gratitude of the House himself entitled to the same honour. He to our great Commander, nothing could looked upon this as a very extraordinary be more just than to extend our national observation, and one that carried no acknowledgments to the Royal Duke, to weight whatever with it. He could con- whom the heroic Wellington himself had ceive no reason that should debar the stated he owed the means by which he House from voting thanks to the head of had been able to achieve all his triumphs, any civil department, whose conduct was and especially his last stupendous victory. so beneficial to the public as to demand that mark of approbation. He should certainly vote for the motion, although he was sorry it had not been postponed till the army had attained the great objects (the security of this country, and the liberation of Europe) which it was now occupied in effecting. He wished that the motion had been postponed until an Address of Thanks had been proposed to Mr. Forbes thought that it would be proper for ministers to propose a pecuniary grant to reward the services of the duke of York, as it was not in the power of the nation to confer any additional honours on his Royal Highness. He cordially concurred in the present Vote of Thanks. Mr. Hart Davis spoke shortly in favour of the motion. Sir J. Majoribanks replied. The question was then put, and carried without a division. BREAD ASSIZE REPEAL BILL.] Mr. F. Lewis presented a Petition, signed by 800 Master Bakers, praying that the Bill now in progress through the House for the purpose of abolishing the assize of bread in London and its vicinity, might be passed into a law. The Petition, after a few words from Alderman Atkins, was laid on the table. Mr. Alderman Atkins presented a Petition from the Master and Wardens of the Bakers Company, against the Bill. The Petition complained that the measure had been introduced at so late a period of the session; and expressed the conviction of the petitioners, that it would be mischievous to them, and not at all beneficial to the public. Mr. F. Lewis said, he was so satisfied of the importance of this Bill, that it was his intention to press it through the House with as little delay as possible. Mr. Alderman Atkins objected to any decision being come to on the Bill at so late an hour, and when there were so few members present. He should oppose the report being received. Mr. F. Lewis would sooner abandon the whole measure than risk it by attempting to affix the assize. He had no objection, however, that the measure should be com menced from the 1st of August, instead of the present period; no material change in the price of grain could take place between that time and the next meeting of Parliament, when, if necesary, a new regulation could be enacted. After a few words from Mr. Alderman C. Smith, and Mr. Alderman Atkins, the 1st of September was agreed upon for the operation of the Bill. Mr. Alderman At Mr. F. Lewis said, it at first sight must appear strange, that two parties, seem-kins then contended for the necessity of ingly connected with the same trade, should express sentiments so very dissimilar. But the fact was, that scarcely a person whose name was signed to the last Petition was a baker. The petitioners, though calling themselves bakers, were chiefly mealmen and flour-factors. Mr. Alderman Atkins supported the allegations contained in the Petition. Mr. Alderman C. Smith observed, that last session he had introduced a Bill nearly similar to that now before the House, and he had every reason to believe that the bakers were perfectly satisfied with it. Mr. Rose said, the Bill went merely to abolish the assize, and the principle had been long considered, both by the House and by the trade. No further delay was, therefore, necessary. It was, he conceived, most desirable that the Bill should pass in the present session. Mr. Lockhart could see no reason for refusing to try an experiment, under the regulations proposed in the Bill, for a year. If, at the expiration of that time, it was not found to answer, the bakers could come before the House, armed with facts, instead of arguments and assertions. The Petition was laid on the table. Mr. F. Lewis moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Bread Assize Repeal Bill. Mr. Alderman Atkins asked the hon. gentleman whether it was his intention to press this Bill through the House during the present session? a trying the experiment of enforcing the principle of the Assize. After a few words from Mr. D. Giddy, and Mr. Lockhart, the Bill was ordered to be read the third time to-morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. VACCINATION BILL.] Earl Stanhope observed upon the Vaccination Bill, which he conceived peculiarly exceptionable, proposing as it did to levy half a million upon the means of the public, with view to profit the inoculation of the Cow-pock. The noble earl animadverted upon the comparative merits of the inoculation for the Cow-pock and the Smallpox, stating, that of 1730 persons inoculated at the Small-pox hospital, at Pancras, only one died, and of 10,000 inoculated out of doors only ten died, while of those inoculated for the Cow-pock one of six. died. Yet it was proposed to secure such extraordinary advantages to the latter as this Bill had in contemplation, although the very advocates of the Cow-pock admitted that the matter used in inoculation was often such that it could not afford any security against the Small-pox. The noble earl remarked upon the several expedients resorted to with a view to force this system of Vaccination. A noble lord (Boringdon) some time since proposed, that any house in which the small-pox appeared should be surrounded with flags to warn pas sengers, and that Bill was scouted; yet the present measure, which was equally ridiculous, was obtruded upon their lordships from the other House, He concluded with moving that the Bill should be read a second time, in order to follow up that with a motion that the Bill should be rejected. The Bill was then read a second time, after which, on the motion of earl Stanhope, it was rejected. LICENSED VICTUALLERS.] Earl Grey presented a Petition from the Licensed Victuallers against the additional tax imposed on them during the present session. He stated, that having withdrawn the Petition on a former night, to give time for a consideration of the point of form obast it, he should present it now, pe that all obstacles to its recepare removed. e Lord Chancellor said, he found, on king into the subject, that in the year 786, a committee was appointed to search for precedents, in a case of the same nature, where the prayer was directed against a Tax Bill, in its progress through parliament. The first of these was from the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, respecting the tax on tobacco, which was received, The second was from the persons concerned in the trade, and was also received. But the Petition from the merchants, which related to another subject, and on which the investigation took place, was rejected. Such was the state of the authorities on the point. Earl Stanhope said, that the precedents stated by the noble lord on the woolsack were conclusive in favour of the reception of the petition. As to whether they would hear evidence, it was quite another question; but if they were to decide against receiving petitions on the subject of Tax Bills in progress, how were they to know the merits of what they were enacting? He had himself presented a petition against a whole description of Taxes, some of which were then passing through Parliament; and as their lordships had such a precedent in favour of the rights of the people, he trusted they would not depart from it in the present instance. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. PILLORY ABOLITION BILL.] The Earl of Lauderdale rose to move the committal (VOL. XXXI.) of the Pillory Abolition Bill. He expressed his regret at being under the necessity of proposing this subject for their lordships consideration at so late a period of the session; but that was not his fault, and far less was it the fault of his learned and excellent friend (Mr. M. A. Taylor), who had originated, this Bill in the other House. He had postponed it from time to time, in order, if possible, to have the advantage which, with respect to a subject of this nature, must result from the attendance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack. He was aware that before proposing any material alteration in the criminal law of this country, he ought to have given a great deal of attention to the subject: but the criminal law in this particular point was so very different from every other part of it, that he had no hesitation in pressing this Bill upon their lordships attention, even with the limited examination which it had been in his power on the present occasion to apply to the subject matter of the question. The punishment of the pillory had been condemned by almost all those who had studied and written upon the philosophy of criminal law, almost by all the politicians who had attended to its nature and effects, and even by some of the judges who had to apply it. No principle in criminal law was better established than this, that the punishment ought to be commensurate to the offence. In this respect the punishment of the pillory was extremely objectionable. In one of the older statutes, it was put in the alternative, that a man should pay a fine of 20s. or be put in the pillory, so that the same punishment was to be inflicted on one who could not pay 20s. as on one who had attempted to commit an unnatural and abominable crime. Such a state of the law was a disgrace to the age and country in which it. existed. Another remarkable feature in this punishment was its gross inequality and uncertainty. The punishment was not that which was consonant to the nature of the offence or to the intention of the Court which awarded it, but depended on the humour of the mob. The case of Dr. Shebbeare was a remarkable one. had been sentenced to the pillory; but though this was intended as a disgrace, it turned out a sort of triumph. He was put upon, but not in the pillory; the sheriff held an umbrella over his head to shelter him from the rain or the sun; and a servant stood by to attend upon and hand (4 C) He |
