« ПредишнаНапред »
of the year 1803. The house will judge, whether there would have been any materially different re
sult, if an average of 1801-2-3 had
been taken, instead of the year 1803 only. However this may be, it is clear that in 1812-13 the expenditure, both for the poor and other purposes, greatly exceeded the amount in 1803. Since 1812, the total expenditure in both branches has still further increased, and the remark made upon the former statements, that the expenditure for other purposes rose more rapidly than the expenditure on the poor, is not applicable to the later years. The subsequent remarks your committee will confine to the amount of money expended upon the poor within the last eight years. It appears on an inspection of the table of averages, that the expenditure has continued to increase from 1812 to 1820 : The first period averaging - - - - £6,122,844 The second - - - 6,844,290 The third ' ' - - - 7,430,622 But the annual abstract shows, that this increase has not been progressive, year by year, throughout the whole period, and that it is not now progressive. From the year 1812-13, the amount declined gradually in the two subsequent years (which were years of war); rose again in the next three years, so as to be in 1817-18 greater in pecuniary amount than at any former or subsequent period of which returns exist. In each of the two succeeding years, forming the first and second of the third triennial period, the expenditure declined again, but not very considerably. The returns for the year 1820-21
recently required, will show whe-, ther the amount has continued to : decrease ; and your committee : have been informed, that the reater number of the returns which have already been received exhibit a more or less considerable diminution. * These comparisons are taken. from the total amount of England and Wales; your committee have considered the county abstracts. with the view of ascertaining the, exceptions which are to be found in particular counties, to the results drawn from a general average. These exceptions are most nu
merous as to the first triennial.
period. In the counties of Durham, Hertford, Kent, Middlesex, . and Surrey, the amount was considerably greater in 1813-14 than in 1812-13, and in seven other counties of England, and in eight of Wales, there was also a slight excess. But there is no exception to the statement, that the year 1814-15 was below the average of the two earlier years, and below the year immediately preceding. . As to the second period, there are three exceptions to the gradual rise to the year 1817-18, and to the statement that that year was the highest which had at that time been known. In the county of Nottingham the year 1816-17 was the highest: and in Wiltshire and Berkshire the year 1812-13 exhibited an amount which has not since been equalled. . There are more numerous exceptions to the statement, that the year 1817-18 was higher than any subsequent year; for it ap
pears, that in the counties of De
von and Surrey there was an excess, not inconsiderable, in 1818- I9 over
mution in the second, arise in the counties of Chester, Cumberland, Derby, Durham, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Warwick, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. Reverting to the averages, it is to be remarked, that there is no exception to the general excess of the second period over the first; and that Berkshire, Norfolk, and Salop, afford the only exceptions to the general excess of the third eriod over the second. At the foot of the table of yearly amounts, the House will find a statement, in which the returns from towns are distinguished from all others. . The towns included in this distinction are those which in the abstract of population in 1811 are set down in Roman capitals. This separate account of the towns affords no exceptions to the general statements which are worthy of particular remark. It appears that select vestries, under the act 59 Geo. III. c. 12, have been appointed in 2,006 arishes; and assistant overseers in 2,257. The whole number of parishes, townships, or other sub
divisions, from which returns have been required, is about 14,700. Your committee have not thought it necessary to make any selections from the “Observations” which, in conformity with the orders of the House, have in some instances been subjoined by the arish officers to , the returns. Many of these are irrelevant; some, such as the committee must have noticed with reprobation; but there are others of a different character; and your committee conceive, that much useful information would be obtained, if parish officers would, whenever their returns exhibit a remarkable variation, whether of excess or diminution, from the preceding year, give some explanation of the
causes of the variation.
And here your committee cannot avoid observing, that returns, stating . the gross amount of the expenditure, fall very short of what is necessary to enable the house to judge of the nature and causes of the variations in the amount. For that purpose it would be necessary to have accounts, showing the different circumstances under which relief has been afforded, and the rate and principle of relief adopted in each district. The able-bodied. entirely out of employ; the ablebodied earning wages not sufficient for the maintenance of his family; the married, the single, the sick and impotent, the aged, the labourer in husbandry, and the mafacturer or mechanic, should all be distinguished. And it should be known whether the relief is afforded at the discretion of the parishes themselves, or by order. of the justices of the peace. The committee are not of opinion
that returns in this detail could conveniently be called for by order of the house. It is for the house to consider whether overseers, in rendering their accounts under the Act 50 Geo. III. c. 49, should be required, by a new law, to state these or any other particulars, in a prescribed form, so that a more complete and useful account of the expenditure of the poor rates than any which has hitherto appeared might be rendered periodically to Parliament.—10th July 1821.
SIR. Robert WILson. Horse-Guards, Sept. 15, 1821. Sir, I have it in command from his Majesty to inform you, that his Majesty has no further occasion for your services. I am, Sir, yours,
Commander in Chief.
To Sir Robert Wilson, M.P.
Sir, The letter of your royal highness, dated the 15th of September, was delivered into my hands this morning by his excellency sir Charles Stuart. . After the interview I had with sir Herbert Taylor, your royal highness's secretary, on the morning of the 21st of August, in which I stated my personal desire to meet and challenge inquiry into the calummies and misrepresentations notoriously circulated, together with the motives of my forbearance, until officially called upon, from giving in my statement of the conduct I felt it my duty to pursue on the 14th ult, when attending the funeral procession of her late majesty, I could not but be greatly astonished to find the newspaper statements of my dismissal from
the service, without any inquiry or previous communication of alleged charges thus officially confirmed. But I still appeal with confidence to his majesty's sense of justice, that he will grant my application for the institution of some military court, before which I may have an opportunity to windicate myself, and prove the falsehood of those accusations, whatever they may be, which have disposed his majesty to remove me from an army in which I have served twenty-nine years, and in which I have purchased every commission, with the exception of the junior one. I await at Paris your royal highness's answer; but shall be ready to appear before any court of inquiry, or courtmartial, at the earliest notice. I have the honour to be, your royal highness's obedient servant, Rob ERT WILson.
Paris, Sep. 20, 1821. **** Gentlemen, I feel it to be my duty to lay before you the copy of a letter which I addressed to his royal highness the duke of York, immediately on my arrival in England, with a copy of his royal highness's answer. I am, gentlemen, your very obliged servant, R. WILson. To the electors of Southwark.
Regent-street, Oct. 8, 1821,
Sir-i have had the honour of receiving your royal highness's answer to my letter of the 20th ult., in which, after complaining that I had been removed from the army
army without a hearing, and without even the statement of any charge against me, I respectfully demanded an investigation of my conduct either by a court of inquiry or court-martial. His majesty's ministers have advised their sovereign to refuse this request, and I thus find myself, after so many years of service, subjected to the severest punishment which can be inflicted upon a British officer, without being told of what I am accused. To defend myself against charges which, if they exist at all in a tangible shape, are studiously concealed from me, is evidently impossible. I can neither conjecture their motive nor by whom they are preferred, nor on whose statements, misrepresentations, or fancies, they may rest; whilst this concealment gives a sanction to every latitude of surmise in which malice or folly may indulge. It is true I have seen in the papers, and heard by rumours in society, a variety of things imputed to me, and suggested as the grounds of my dismissal; but I declare upon my honour, that every one of these allegations is utterly false, and that in every instance where the mention of names has enabled me to trace those statements to their supposed sources, their falsehood has either been at once exposed and acknowledged, or they have been disavowed by the parties said to have made them. Those who have proceeded to unish me without either trial or aring, or accusation, render it impossible to give a more precise contradiction, until they shall be pleased to inform me what I have done, or what has been whispered against me.
But I once more earnestly beseech your royal highness to institute, in whatever way shall be deemed the most searching, a rigorous investigation of every part
of my conduct. Your royal highness is well aware, that before my dismissal I was, beyond all doubt, subject to martial law; and if it be now said I am no longer in this predicament, I desire to wave all objections to the jurisdiction of a military tribunal, in order that no obstacle may be interposed to the inquiry which I court. It is with unfeigned reluctance that I again É. to remind your royal ighness of those services which you were formerly pleased to acknowledge; but the strange situation in which I am now so unaccountably placed, compels me to refer your royal highness to your letter of the 24th January, 1815, and the documents to which it relates, in further support of my claims to justice on the present occasion. I have the honour to be, your royal highness's most obedient servant,
My lord, Having seen a statement in the newspapers, authenticated by the signature of Mr. Thomas Julion, clerk to the magistrates of the Kensington Division of the county of Middlesex, in which it is asserted that sir R. Birnie, one of the said magistrates, did, at a general meetin of justices, held on the 8th of September, 1821, at the Hammersmith coffee-house, declare that information had been given to him, at Bow-street, upon oath, that a meeting had been held at the house of Mr. Youde, at which the plan of interruption to her late majesty's funeral was concerted, and that I had attended the meeting, I have to request that your lordship will be pleased to direct a copy of such information upon oath to be delivered to me, that I may be enabled to institute a prosecution for perjury against the
person so swearing. I have the
questing me to direct a copy of such information upon oath to be delivered to you, that you might. be enabled to prosecute the in-, formant for perjury. In reply to , this request, I have only to observe, that if any such information does exist in the hands of a magistrate, it does not appear to me that I am the proper channel through which an application for its production should be made. I have the honour to be, your most obedient and humble servant,
- - SIDMouTH. To sir Robert Wilson. No. IV.-Minute of a conversa
tion between sir R. Wilson and
sir R. Birnie.
On the receipt of lord Sidmouth's letter, sir R. Wilson addressed a letter to sir R. Birnie for a copy of the deposition on oath, assigning also the motive of the request. The letter was sent on the 20th. ' On the 22nd, sir R. Birnie sent a note to sir R. Wilson, stating he - had