INQUIRY INTO THE ABUSES IN THE ARMY.

When the commons were employed in examining the state of the revenue, and taking measures for raising the necessary supplies, the inhabitants of Royston presented a petition, complaining that the officers and soldiers of the regiment belonging to colonel Hastings, which was quartered upon them, exacted subsistence-money, even on pain of military execution. The house was immediately kindled into a flame by this information. The officers and Pauncefort, agent for the regiment, were examined: then it was unanimously resolved that such a practice was arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of the rights and liberties of the subject. Upon further inquiry, Pauncefort and some other agents were committed to the custody of the sergeant, for having neglected to pay the subsistence money they had received for the officers and soldiers. He was afterwards sent to the Tower, together with Henry Guy, a member of the house and secretary to the treasury, the one for giving and the other for receiving a bribe to obtain the king’s bounty. Pauncefort’s brother was likewise committed for being concerned in the same commerce. Guy had been employed, together with Trevor the speaker, as the court-agent for securing a majority in the house of commons; for that reason he was obnoxious to the members in the opposition, who took this opportunity to brand him, and the courtiers could not with any decency screen him from their vengeance. The house having proceeded in this inquiry, drew up an address to the king, enumerating the abuses which had crept into the army, and demanding immediate redress. He promised to consider the remonstrance and redress the grievances of which they complained. Accordingly, he cashiered colonel Hastings; appointed a council of officers to sit weekly and examine all complaints against any officer and soldier; and published a declaration for the maintenance of strict discipline, and the due payment of quarters. Notwithstanding these concessions, the commons prosecuted their examinations: they committed Mr. James Craggs, one of the contractors for clothing the army, because he refused to answer upon oath to such questions as might be put to him by the commissioners of accounts. They brought in a bill for obliging him and Mr. Richard Harnage, the other contractor, together with the two Paunceforts, to discover how they had disposed of the sums paid into their hands on account of the army, and for punishing them in case they should persist in their refusal. At this period they received a petition against the commissioners for licensing hackney-coaches. Three of them, by means of an address to the king, were removed with disgrace for having acted arbitrarily, corruptly, and contrary to the trust reposed in them by act of parliament.

Those who encouraged this spirit of reformation, introduced another inquiry about the orphans’ bill, which was said to have passed into an act by virtue of undue influence. A committee being appointed to inspect the chamberlain’s books, discovered that bribes had been given to sir John Trevor, speaker of the house, and Mr. Hungerford, chairman of the grand committee. The first being voted guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, abdicated the chair, and Paul Foley was appointed speaker in his room. Then sir John and Hungerford were expelled the house: one Nois, a solicitor for the bill, was taken into custody because he had scandalized the commons, in pretending he was engaged to give great sums to several members, and denying this circumstance on his examination. The reformers in the house naturally concluded that the same arts had been practised in obtaining the new charter of the East India company, which had been granted so much against the sense of the nation. Their books were subjected to the same committee that carried on the former inquiry, and a surprising scene of venality and corruption was soon disclosed. It appeared that the company, in the course of the preceding year, had paid near ninety thousand rounds in secret services, and that sir Thomas Cooke, one of the directors, and a member of the house, had been the chief managers of this infamous commerce. Cooke, refusing to answer, was committed to the Tower, and a bill of pains and penalties brought in obliging him to discover how the sum mentioned in the report of the committee had been distributed. The bill was violently opposed in the upper house by the duke of Leeds, as being contrary to law and equity, and furnishing a precedent of a dangerous nature. Cooke, agreeably to his own petition, being brought to the bar of the house of lords, declared that he was ready and willing to make a full discovery, in case he might be favoured with an indemnifying vote to secure him against all actions and suits, except those of the East India company which he had never injured. The lords complied with his request and passed a bill for this purpose, to which the commons added a penal clause, and the former was laid aside.