powers, respecting the proportion and nature of the force to form the army of occupation of France.

Mr. Grenfell on Feb. 13th, rose in pursuance of the notice he had given of a motion respecting certain transactions between the public and the Bank of England. In his introductory discussion, he divided the subject into two branches of the public service; the first, as the Bank acted the part of bankers of the public by receiving the deposits of its moneys; the second as charging commission for the management of the public debt. With these, as a matter incidentally connected, he took into consideration the immense profits made by the Bank, from the restriction of their payments in cash, since which period their notes in circulation had advanced from the sum of 11 or 12 millions, to an average of 27 or 28 millions. In reasoning on this circumstance, he held, that from the time of passing the restriction act, the public acquired an equitable claim to participation with the Bank, in the profits which that act had created. The subsequent train of the hon. mem. ber's argumentation was founded upon a statement of facts which cannot be given in an abridged form. Their general tenor was to afford a proof, that the Bank, as depositaries of the public money, had much understated their profits, and that they had overcharged the rate of commission upon which they transacted the public business. In conclusion he submitted the following motion: "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the

engagements now subsisting between the public and the Bank of England, and to consider the advantages derived by the Bank from its transactions with the public, with a view to the adoption of such future arrangements as may be consistent with those principles of equity and good faith, which ought to prevail in all transactions between the public and the Bank of England, and to report their opinions thereon to the House."

The motion was opposed by the ministers as unnecessary and dangerous to the public credit; and some members interested in the Bank represented the mover's statements as exaggerated, and in part unfounded. On the other hand it was supported by some members of opposition, as likely to lead to valuable results. the division there appeared for the motion 44; against it 81: majority in rejection, 37.

On

The House of Lords having been summoned for Feb. 14th, Lord Grenville rose to submit a motion relative to the peace establishment of the army. He began with referring to two periods, in which precisely similar motions had been made; the years 1742 and 1756; and he then adduced particular reasons for the motion which he now proposed to make. Their lordships, he said, were now to consider, whether, after a struggle of 25 years, maintained at such vast expense, they were to obtain the blessings of a real peace, or their situation was to be exactly the reverse: whether they were still to be charged with an immense military establishment; to be called upon to take

their rank among the military states of the continent; to abandon the wise policy of their forefathers, and turn servile imitators of the system which had brought so much calamity on those nations who had adopted them? He pledged himself to their lordships and the country, that he would never fail to give the most strenuous opposition in his power, to any attempts to entail such a monstrous burthen on the nation, and to lay the foundation of such ruin to the constitution as must result from it. His lordship then called the attention of the House to the period between 1783 and 1792, during which the subject of the expense of the military establishment had been much discussed, and in the last year of which it had been reduced to 1,500,000; and he made some remarks on the assertion, that Mr. Pitt (with whom he then acted) had blamed himself after the war with the French revolutionists had commenced, for having promoted so low an establishment. Lord G. concluded with moving, "That an humble address be presented to the Prince Regent, praying that his R. Highness would be pleased to give directions for laying before the House the estimates for the military service of the present year."

The Earl of Liverpool said, that he should be so far from opposing the motion, that he was ready and anxious to supply all the information required; and he was willing that the question should be put upon this issue, whether a public necessity, or at least a public urgency, had not

existed for every measure adopted in the formation of the peace establishment. After some preliminary observations, in which he endeavoured to confirm the opinion, that Mr. Pitt thought, that in 1792, he had too far reduced the peace establishment, he proceeded to form a contrast between the circumstances of the two periods, which he divided into the three heads of the establishment for the colonies, for Ireland, and for Great Britain. His Lordship then went through the items under each head, as first stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and advanced reasons in justification of the new or increased establishment in each.

The Marquis of Lansdowne rose to controvert several of the arguments of the last speaker, especially those in which he inade increased population a reason for an increased military establishment. He was followed by Lord King, who asserted his belief, that the proposal of an establishment of such magnitude, was neither more nor less than an attempt to place this country on a level with the great military powers of the continent.

The question being at length put, the motion was agreed to. It will now be advisable to carry this subject to its termination, rather than break the thread of narrative by interposing another topic.

An abstract of the estimates of army services having been presented to the House of Commons on Feb. 19th," the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 26th, after the order of the day was read for a committee of the whole house

to

to consider further of the supply to be granted to his Majesty, moved that the above estimates be referred to the said committee. Lord John Russell rose to oppose the motion, his prior purpose of doing which was rendered an imperative duty by the petitions on that day laid on the table, proving that the people were in all parts congregating to compel ministers to listen to their sighs and groans under the heavy burthens imposed upon them. The bare proposal, that a standing army of 150,000 should be supported, must alarm every friend to the country and constitution; not that he was impressed with the ridiculous fear, that a standing army unaided could ever effectuate what had been accomplished in some of the continental states; but the danger consisted in the influence of the crown, the daily increase of which threatened to erase even the remaining vestiges of liberty. Ministers (said his Lordship) have for the last twelve years been soothing the country, by asserting, that the war was continued to prevent the necessity of an armed peace; and yet an armed peace was all we had now acquired. At the peace of Amiens, the power of France was infinitely more dangerous than at present, yet the establishment proposed at that time was much more economical than that now offered. His Lordship then touched, in a cursory manner, upon other reasons why he should resist the estimates about to be brought forward.

This was the commencement of a debate continued through three adjournments, in which every ar

gument on the subject was exhausted. The general discussions concerning the necessity, and the mischiefs, of standing armies, could possess no interesting novelty, and the only really important matter was derived from the particulars of the estimate. To many of these, powerful objections were raised by the members in opposition, whilst they were defended by all the skill and knowledge of the ministers; and in fact it was but too clear, that the fruits of conquest accruing to this country, necessarily saddled it with new expenses for their security; and that all which had been added to the grandeur and relative consequence of the nation, must be regarded as imposing upon it additional burdens and obligations.

The division of the House upon the motion for referring the army estimates to a general committee took place on Feb. 28th, when it was carried by 241 to 121, the majority being 120.

On March 4th, the order for going into the committee on the army estimates being read, Mr. Wynn moved an instruction, "That the committee make provision for the charge of the army now serving in France." He said, that if there was one principle more important than another for the Commons of England to adhere to, it was, that they should have complete control of all the armed forces kept on foot by the crown. The only means by which they could effect it, was by controlling the supplies for maintaining it, which would be lost if the crown were allowed to draw supplies from foreign countries without

without the consent of parliament, and to supply them with out its interference. Further, if France should fail in the payment of its contribution, how could the British army be supported without a manifest violation of the constitution?

The motion for this instruction was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee.

Lord Palmerston (Secretary at War) then laid before the committee a statement of the particu lars of the reductions and savings made in the military department, the total of which amounted to a reduction of 74,000 men, producing a diminution of charge to the public of five millions, to which another million would be added in the next year. He concluded his statements and observations with moving, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that a number of land forces not exceeding 176,615 men (including the forces stationed in France, and also 30,480 proposed to be disbanded, but exclusive of the men belonging to the regiments employed in the territorial pos. sessions of the East India Company, the foreign corps in EngHish pay, and the embodied militia) commissioned and uncommissioned officers included, be maintained for the service of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of December, 1815, to the 24th of December, 1816, both inclusive."

In the subsequent debate Mr. Bankes began with an examination of the articles of the estimate, from which he inferred such a necessity of retrenchment, that he thought the committee

ought to begin with negativing the proposition before them.

Lord Castlereagh, who had been prevented by illness from attending at the previous discussions, then rose in defence of the proposed establishment; and, after some preliminary observations, he went over all the particulars objected to, endeavouring to shew that no reductions could be made consistently with true policy.

The debate, having been adjourned, was resumed on March 6th, when Mr. Calcraft commenced the attack upon the estimates. Various speakers followed on both sides; and the debate took exactly the character conformable to Mr. Wilberforce's observation, that "This country was at present in the situation of a man who wished to reduce a large and expensive establishment, but who, in examining the different items of his expense, thought that each separately did not admit of much reduction." Not, indeed, that all the objections were answered with equal strength; and in particular, the home establishment seemed justly chargeable with excess for purposes of parade and military splendor. In conclusion, Mr. Stuart Wortley having moved as an amendment, that from the proposed establishment of 99,000 men there should be deducted 10,000, the House divided, For the amendment 130; Against it 202: Majority for rejection 72.

The original resolution was then agreed to.

The army estimates continued to be a topic of interesting debate as long as they were passing

through

through the discussion of parliament; and although it produced little novelty of argument, the progress of the business to its final determination must be regarded as an important incident in the parliamentary record of the year. On March 8th the report of the estimates was brought to the bar of the House, when, on the question that the said report be brought up, a debate ensued in which a considerable number of members joined. The subjects were those which had already been opened in the committee, including the number, kind, and disposition of the troops to be provided for, under which heads scope was given for maintaining the different opinions held by the opposite parties. The report having been read, on the question for reading the resolution a second time, Mr. Wynn moved as an amendment the substitution of words for recommitting the resolution. The House dividing, there appeared For the amendment 122, Against it 190: Majority for the negative 68. The resolution Was then agreed to.

The order of the day on March 11th for going into a committee of supply being read, Mr. Wynn rose to offer a motion for dividing the general vote proposed for the estimates into separate questions according to the different services to which the gross amount of force was to be applied. He stated the heads under which he proposed that the charge of defraying the expense of the troops should be divided, and which were nine in number. Some ministerial opposition was made to this motion, and Lord Palmerston sug

gested an arrangement into three heads as preferable. The motion, however, was agreed to without a division; and the House forming itself into a committee, the first resolution was moved, "That a sum not exceeding 385,2791. be voted for the household troops for 366 days."

Mr. Calcraft, regarding this species of troops as chiefly kept for the purpose of parade, and as the fittest objects for retrenchment, moved as an amendment a grant of half the sum for their maintenance.

As this was a particularly trying question relative to the army establishment, it was strongly argued on both sides, and terminated by a division, in which the amendment was defeated by a majority of 82, the numbers being 210 against 129.

On March 13th Lord Palmerston moved for the sum of 332,6921. for defraying the charges of the dragoon guards and the waggon train. This resolution was agreed to.

The subject being resumed on the 15th, Mr. Tierney said, that he saw no necessity for continuing the discussion farther. He, and the gentlemen on his side the house, had taken all the pains in their power to prevent the estimates from, passing, without having been able to diminish a farthing in their amount; and the ministers had succeeded, in defiance of the sense of the house and the country, in imposing upon the people a military establishment of 111,000 men in time of peace.

Lord Castlereagh contended, that no example had occurred in this country