gave notice, that on Monday next he would call the attention of the House to the continuance of the embodying of the militia after the termination of the war. Preparatory to this consideration, he would beg leave to move for returns of such militia regiments of the united kingdom as had been disembodied since last May; the times when, and the places where, they had been disembodied; and the numbers of those who remained embodied since that time: also of such regular regiments as were disbanded since May; the times when, where, &c.; with the amount of their present establishment.—The returns were ordered accordingly.

said, he could not refrain from adverting to this subject, although a better opportunity would perhaps be afforded him for entering into its merits, in the event of his bringing forward the measure of which he gave notice at the close of last session, for an inquiry into the state of Ireland. It had been said, as he understood, by the right hon. gentleman when he introduced this Bill a few days ago, that he congratulated the House upon the efficacy and success which had attended the operation of the Bill passed last session, for the internal tranquility of Ireland; and that the government of Ireland had not found it necessary to call into action one of them (the Insurrection Act) at all; and the other (the Preservation of the Peace Bill) was only acted upon in one district, that of Middle-third. Now, for his own part, he was not convinced, by the course of reasoning which had been adopted by the right hon. gentleman when he introduced this Bill a few days ago, that he congratulated the House upon the efficacy and success which had attended the operation of the Bill passed last session, for the internal tranquillity of Ireland; and that the government of Ireland had not found it necessary to call into action one of them (the Insurrection Act) at all; and the other (the Preservation of the Peace Bill) was only acted upon in one district, that of Middle-third. Now, for his own part, he was not convinced, by the course of reasoning which had been adopted by the right hon. gentleman opposite, nor could he bring himself to think, that the necessity for a measure was proved by its never having been put in force, or its utility established, by its never being called for. The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to avow himself to be one of those who still remained unconvinced of the necessity of those coercive measures towards Ireland; indeed, he confessed that he was more strongly impressed than before with the ill effect of the bills which were enacted last session; and under this impression he would, at no distant period, propose an inquiry into the state of Ireland, provided no more competent and better informed person expressed himself prepared to undertake that task.

did not think it fair for the hon. and learned gentleman to confound the two Bills under one head. He (Mr. Peel) had certainly stated on a former night, that the most beneficial consequences had flowed to the country from the enactment of the two Bills; but he could not concur with the hon. and learned gentleman, that the non-enforcement of one of them formed any reason to suppose that its enactment had been unnecessary. It was in the recollection of the House, that when he had moved for the introduction of those Acts, he had distinctly expressed his servant hoped that the Irish government would not be compelled, by the necessity of the case, to resort to their enforcement. He felt pleasure in stating, those hopes had been realized; and the Peace Preservation Bill had only been acted upon in the Barony of Middle third, and then after a call for that purpose of the magistrates and gentry of that county, in a meeting of which lord Handoff was chairman. He had not stated, however, that complete tranquility prevailed Ireland, and from thence argued the justification of the Bills; and whenever the hon. and learned gen- tleman thought proper to introduce his motion, he should be prepared to prove their necessity when called for, and their efficacy in restraining violence and outrage in those parts where crime had usually predominated.

moved for the production of copies of the Resolutions of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, of the month of January, 1799; and also for a copy of the letter of Monseigneur Quarantotti, of February, 1814, addressed to Dr. Poynter. He observed, that orders of the House had been made on his prior motion, at the close of the last session; but, by some accident, the orders had not been complied with, though the motion was made with the acquiescence of the noble viscount, to whose office those documents had been transmitted. Sir J. C. Hippisley observed, that he was the more anxious to renew the motion, as the papers were in themselves highly interesting, and so much misrepresentation had obtained on the subject of them, and indeed on the general subject which had been so often before the House. He had to regret that a very valuable compilation, by W. Poven, of the Temple, on the subject of the ancient jurisdiction of the crown, was not to be obtained by the same means, though it was deposited in the office of the secretary of state for the home department. He had the satisfaction, however, to know that the report would shortly be published, and very valuable information thereby derived to the public, materially elucidating the question of Catholic claims. Another rescript, of no light import, had lately appeared, which he could much wish to have been able to put on record, in the same manner, in the collection of documents upon this subject. He alluded to the papal descript, or bull, for the restoration of the Jesuits—a subject which, when noticed by him only in prospective on a former occasion, had been treated with considerable levity; though at the same time a right hon. gentleman, now absent on a diplomatic mission, (Mr. Canning) admitted that the revival of the order in England, after its abolition in every Catholic state, was of a very alarming nature, if substantiated. The improbability of such a revival, therefore, could be the only ground of its being so lightly treated on that occasion. The fact, however, was now no longer to be controverted. A bull had appeared, authorizing the revival of the Order in every state, in the plenitude of its original institute. Sir J. C. Hippisley said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to this fact, more particularly in consequence of the misrepresentations that had gone forth on the subject. Mr. Francis Plowden, who valued himself on being considered as the historian of Ireland, but whose historic pages were more known by their hulk than their accuracy, had written a very diffuse eulogy of the Order, in which he had been educated. It was in Russia, he exclaims, that this 'pinata si cara' flourishes in all its vigor, where it has its general, its professors, &c. Certain it was, that in Russia the Order did exist, and was now confirmed by the papal bull. But Mr. Plowden had suppressed the intimation of the real circumstances attendant upon it. The Jesuit colleges existed, and they were obliged to receive pupils, without distinction of religion; but a priest of the Greek church was also appointed to each college, to instruct the youth in the principles of the national religion. The Jesuits were interdicted from instructing the pupils, not of their own communion, in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. Examinations were held, at which the priests of the Greek church assisted; and no communication with the see of Rome was permitted, without the express authority of the state. Sir J. C. Hippisley said, he could extend, this head of instruction to great detail, in opposition to what was so industriously propagated to mislead the lower and ill-informed classes of the Catholics, especially in Ireland, not only in reference to the Jesuits, but to the whole subject, as far as it was connected with restrictions obtained by every state; such as he had often noticed in that House, and such as it was the object of the committee he had moved in a former session, to substantiate. In adverting to the fate of that committee, though it could not but excite his regret, it was unaccompanied with any other feeling of a personal nature. The right hon. gentleman, whose great powers had been called forth to frustrate the motion, had since urged its renewal; but this sir J. C. Hippisley had declined, for it was for ministers only to assure the success of it. He was ready to assist, but not again to originate it. In whatever view the subject of concession was to be considered, as to its extent or limitation, he was assured there was no other adequate means to promote consistent legislation, but to resort to this preliminary measure of investigation. Before he sat down, he could not but in conscience submit to the consideration of his Majesty's ministers the distressing situation in which many fami- lies were involved, in consequence of the present state of the laws, as they affected the marriages of Catholics. In the duke of Newcastle's administration, the late pope had urged the Roman Catholic prelates in this country to solicit relief from the King's ministers, so far as to legitimate, by an act, the marriage of Catholics, without forcing them to a Protestant church; which, in fact, was offensive to their feelings and the discipline of their church. Of the vast mass of the lower class of the Irish Catholics in the vicinity of London, it was known that not one out of a hundred legitimated their marriages by submitting to the rites of the established church; an objection which, in some measure, existed in the duke of Newcastle's administration, no longer obtained, and therefore there could be no longer any ground to withhold a boon so just to be conceded, and so mischievous to be withheld. Sir John concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, I. A Copy of the Resolutions of the Roman Catholic prelates assembled at Dublin on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of January 1799, transmitted to the chief secretary of Ireland. 2. A Copy of the Resolutions of the Roman Catholic prelates at Dublin, of the 28th of January 1799, transmitted to the chief secretary of Ireland. 3. A Copy of a Letter from Monseigneur Quarantotti to Dr. Poynter, dated the 16th of February 1814, transmitted to his Majesty's principal secretary of state for the foreign department."—Ordered.

said, before the Speaker's leaving the chair, he thought it right to call the attention of the House to several subjects connected with the estimates which the noble lord was about to lay before them. The House were in want of that information which was necessary to enable them to form a proper judgment of the votes of supply proposed by his Majesty's ministers. When, on a former night, he had complained of the same want of information, he had been answered, that they had it not to give. There were some questions which he now wished to put, with respect to the present state of Europe; and without obtaining something like satisfactory answers to these questions, it was impossible for the House to come to a proper resolution as to the amount of force which ought to be entrusted to the crown. He understood that an engagement which, though not reduced to writing, was certainly not the less binding on the honor of the country, had been entered into between our government and the person at present wearing the crown of Naples. When he had first mentioned this subject in the House, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues had stated, that they knew nothing of any such engagement. He would now repeat, that he understood there was a written treaty between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples; and that this country, by two written notes, one from lord Castlereagh, and another from lord William Bentinck, had become parties to this treaty. When this government were asked to enter into a treaty with the king of Naples, that sovereign was requested to rely on an engagement of honour, as there was no time then to frame a regular treaty. Did not this regulate the force kept up in Sicily? He wished to ask, too, if there was not a treaty between this country and Spain, which had not yet been produced to the House? He understood that a secretary of sir Henry Wellesley had come over expressly to this country on the subject of this treaty, and that it was ratified so long ago as August last. He wished information on this subject, because the existence or non-existence of this treaty would be one of the causes which ought to operate very materially on the resolutions to be adopted by the House. There was another circumstance on which he wished also for information. He asked whether the paper, which they had all seen in the public prints a day or two ago, was authentic or not? He meant the order signed by prince Repnin to deliver up Dresden to the king of Prussia.^* Was it, or was it not authentic? The document, authorizing this proceeding, pregnant with mischief, characterized by dishonour, and injurious to the Saxon name, bore to be signed by Lord Castlereagh. He understood that it had been recalled; but he wished to know if it had ever had the signature of a British minister affixed to it? There was another circumstance connected with Saxony, derogatory to the fame of a monarch whose character at present stood high in Europe, and which he hoped would turn out not to be founded in fact; he meant the order of the emperor Alexander for the imprisonment of the Saxon generals Lecoq and Thielman, on account of their memorial for the independence of Saxony. It would be a great degradation indeed to the character of that monarch, if those Saxon officers, whose efforts had so much contributed to the gaining the battle of Lei sic, by going over from Buonaparté to the allies, should be treated in the manner he had stated.—In taking a general view of Europe, it was impossible at the present moment not to look with anxiety to the fate of the smaller powers; and he could not anticipate any thing like a lasting peace, when he saw every great power forming a focus of discontent by the addition of a number of other states to their territories, the subjects of which states would continue indisposed to their sovereignty. Genoa, it seemed, was to be united to Austria, Saxony to Prussia, Belgium to Holland, Norway to Sweden, and Poland to Russia. As to all these circumstances, it was impossible for the House to form any thing like a proper decision, without more information than was then before them; and he hoped that the information required would therefore at once be communicated.—There was another subject on which they were kept in ignorance, he meant the proceedings at Ghent, He understood that there was a rejection, on the part of the American government, of the basis which had been proposed by this country. He wished to ask his Majesty's ministers, if the negotiations at Ghent were broken off or not? And here it was impossible not to observe on the skill displayed by ministers in the employment of the force entrusted to them. At the beginning of the war, and till lately, there were strong parties in America, and the northern states were on the point of separating from the southern; but his Majesty's ministers had so fought and so negotiated, that all parties were now extinct in America; and there was one common mind and one common hand in the direction of all their energies in the prosecution of the contest with this country. He did not mean to go farther into this business at present, as the day would come when it would be more proper to enter on the discussion; but he must have more information on the subjects he had alluded to, before he could consent to the Speaker's leaving the chair.

^* Copy of the Notification of his Excellency Prince Repnin to the Saxon Authorities; dated Dresden, Nov. 3.

"An official letter from the minister of state, the baron de Stein, dated the 21st of October, informs me of a convention concluded the 28th of September, at

Vienna; by virtue of which, the emperor of Russia, in concert with Austria and England, places in the hands of the king of Prussia the administration of the kingdom of Saxony. I have orders, therefore, to deliver the government of this country to the persons appointed for that purpose by the king of Prussia, and to cause the imperial Russian troops to be relieved by the Prussian troops, in order to operate, by that means, the union of Saxony with Prussia, which will soon take place in a more formal and solemn manner, and in order to promote fraternity between the two people.

"This union is already in itself the guarantee of great and indisputable advantages to the two kingdoms, and to the whole of Germany; but the benevolence and care of the emperor of Russia, and the mildness and known goodness of the king of Prussia, will augment still more the happy results.

"After the preliminary deliberations, which had for their object the welfare of the whole, and the parts which comprise it, their majesties, namely, the king, Frederick William, as the future sovereign of the country, declares it to be his intention not to incorporate, as a province, Saxony with his states; but to unite it to Prussia, under the title of the kingdom of Saxony; to preserve always its integrity; to leave it to the enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and advantages, which the constitution of Germany will secure to those countries of Germany which form part of the Prussian monarchy; and to change nothing in its present constitution: and his majesty the emperor Alexander has testified his particular satisfaction at this declaration."

hoped, that the day was at no great distance, when government would have an opportunity of clearing itself from all blame in the conduct of the war. At this moment he would not be justified in going into anticipatory details. The hon. gentleman himself, who was so eager after information, seemed aware that its being produced on certain subjects would be improper. He could however satisfy him on that, which he considered as the most important. With respect to the question on the subject of the conferences at Ghent, it was with satisfaction that he had to state to the House, that they were not yet broken off, and that the negotiations were still proceeding. With respect to the question as to the engagements between this country and the regency king of Naples, he had to answer, that he was not aware of any engagement with that power beyond a mere suspension of hostilities, or armistice. He would not enter into any explanation at present as to the other points alluded to by the hon. gentleman, connected as they were with the proceedings at Vienna, which could not come at present with propriety before the House. He had no difficulty, in answer to another question, to say, that a treaty had been concluded between this country and Spain; but as there was nothing of a pecuniary nature in it, it had been thought advisable to delay producing it, till several treaties with other powers were in a state to lay before parliament.

thought the state of Europe a necessary ingredient in the consideration of the army estimates; but they were now to learn from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this had no relation to., them; that the time was not come to take it into consideration. And though the honour of the country was deeply interested in the order of prince Repnin bearing to be subscribed by lord Castlereagh, this, it seemed, was a subject on which ministers would not condescend to give now any information. The treaty with Spain was a matter which it was deemed unnecessary to make known to the House. The hon. member then proceeded to read a written statement of the nature of the engagement with the king of Naples. It bore, that the English government entirely approved of the treaty between Austria and the king of Naples, and of the accession of territory stipulated to the latter in that treaty; and that, if they refused to sign that treaty, it was from motives of delicacy towards an ancient ally; but that endeavours would be made to procure the acceptance of that power of the indemnity proposed in lieu of the possessions which were to form the accession of territory stipulated in the treaty with Austria.

asked an what authority the hon. gentleman made this statement?

said, he held in his hand a pamphlet, which was supposed to be published by authority. [Laugh from the ministerial bench.] (He begged gentlemen opposite would not laugh before the joke.) On the authority of that pamphlet, supported by information from sources which he had taken pains to verify; and he should rely on the facts as true, until peremptorily contradicted.

said, he had received at the door of that House, a paper, purporting to be an additional article to the treaty concluded with Russia at Chaumont, on the 1st of March, 1814, by which this country engaged herself to support the Russian fleet. Now, this had not much to do with the army; but he should be glad to know, why it had not been delivered before that day? The treaty had been signed on the 1st of March parliament had sat till the 51st of July, and it was now produced on the 21st of November. This was a very unusual course, and in former times parliament had not been treated with so much neglect.

was not aware at what exact time the article had been transmitted, but thought it probable its appearance had been postponed in consequence of delay in its ratification.

said, the Russian fleet had been sent here as a mark of the great confidence which the emperor of Russia placed in the government of this country; and came, as it were, to a place of refuge, against any success which might have attended the arms of France in her tremendous attack upon that country. He had never understood that England had asked for any Russian fleet to come hither as an assistant, to enable us to carry on the war in which we were engaged; and, therefore, he could see no reason why we should be called on to pay for a fleet, which was sent here to inspire us with confidence that the Russian government was determined at all events to prosecute the contest with France with the utmost vigour.

observed, that the Russian fleet had been sent to our ports, not merely as a deposit, but with an engagement, that, whenever wanted, it would take the same share in the war as our own. As to the additional article, it was uncertain whether the ratification had been exchanged in sufficient time to be laid before parliament at a much earlier period. At all events, the whole of its substance had been stated last session to the House, towards which no disrespect had been shewn.

said, he had no recollection of any such substance as that mentioned by the right hon. gentleman having been laid before the House. He certainly had heard a great deal of the astonishing confidence which the Russian government had placed in that of England, by entrusting its whole naval force to the safe custody of this country; but he had never understood, nor ever heard, nor never entertained the most distant idea, that we were expected to pay for that so highly extolled confidence which was voluntarily placed in us.

said, that if the noble lord then at the head of the Treasury-bench had mentioned the fact to the House, his statement was not to be received as an official communication: but he did not remember such an occurrence. As it was a treaty granting a very large sum of money, ministers had been very negligent of their duty in not laying it upon the table. It was now pretty evident that this was a wrong time of year for asking questions, at least if answers were expected. When parliament met in November, the object seemed only to be to grant money; but however large the sums, no reasons were to be assigned for the vote. Only grant us the money, cried ministers; we must have it, we are in great distress, and we will talk over the subject at another time. Was it not monstrous, that when his hon. friend quoted prince Repnin's order, counter-signed by lord Castlereagh, and, with one stroke of the pen, annexing all Saxony to Prussia, the House should be told it was not time to give any explanation, and that the period for inquiry was not come? Till then, what would be the opinion of Europe, whose eyes were fixed on the opening and proceedings of the British parliament? The House had met without any given cause, for none was indicated in the Regent's speech, but merely because money was wanted; and when members did their duty, they were told that they acted wrong. He strongly protested against such a course of proceeding.

maintained, that ministers did not refuse to give answers to proper questions; but when they applied to sub- jects which, with the consent of the House, and of all Europe, had been consigned to pending negociations, they were right in refusing to communicate any information. As to the note of prince Repnin, it was not known officially to exist, It would be impossible to give an account of the proceedings of the Congress, until they should have been brought to a close, when the whole would be unfolded to parliament, in presence, he trusted, of our absent negotiator; but, even in his absence, if his return should have been delayed. At present, these were not topics for discussion. With respect to the armistice with the king of Naples, the hon. gentleman had taken for his authority a pamphlet.

answered, no.

said, he understood him to have stated, that he had derived his information from a pamphlet published on the continent: at all events, government had no knowledge of the arrangement such as he had described.

maintained, that his hon. friend bad stated, that, although his first information was from a pamphlet, he had made such inquiries, and collected such facts, as, in his opinion, had fully confirmed it. But the argument of the right hon. gentleman was rather extraordinary. Because the Congress was sitting, the House was to know nothing of those of its acts which had publicly transpired. If, instead of being met, according to its original intention, to establish the future peace of the universe on a solid basis, it was assembled for the monstrous purpose of sharing nations for spoils, and for deeds of injustice, of which we already had an instance in the transfer of Saxony, we were told to wait till we saw the end. But it was his wish to prevent the House and the country, if possible, from being parties to conduct so infamous. If the right hon. gentleman would acknowledge that lord Castlereagh had been a party to it, he pledged himself to make a motion on the subject to-morrow. If it was said his lordship had not, he must suppose ministers had been left in utter ignorance of the proceedings of their colleague. It was his firm opinion, that lord Castlereagh had sanctioned the atrocious annexation of Saxony to Prussia. The transfer of Saxony was a monstrous act of injustice, and, if effected, wars upon the continent would be endless.

replied, that government would be ready to meet any motion that might be brought forward, but they would not desert their duty by giving unjustifiable answers, or rather answers to unjustifiable questions. The subject was now actually under negotiation at Vienna.

said, that his answer to that was, that the subject was not now negotiating, but actually negotiated: it was decided that Prussia was to have the absolute dominion of Saxony; and the only consolation was, that when Frederick William promised to take good care of his new subjects, the emperor Alexander expressed his satisfaction.

said, he had derived the first particulars of the arrangement with Naples from a pamphlet published abroad, but he had not relied solely on its authority. On the contrary, he had sought for, and obtained such additional information as had convinced him that he was correct, and had quoted lord William Beatnik's own words. If the right hon. gentleman should find, at a future opportunity, that he (Mr. W.) had been in the right, then he must lay the fault on his own colleagues, who had withholding their proceedings from him. He believed the order respecting the transfer of Saxony to be authentic, and that that infamous transaction had really taken place. If so, the seed of fresh disturbances had been sowed on the continent, and we might bid adieu to the visionary halcyon days of peace. The delivering up of the devoted Saxons was an act of the most horrible injustice: all men shuddered at the deed. The act was done, and whether it could be revoked or not, the disgrace was incurred. The fate of Poland and of Genoa was equally fixed.

submitted to the House the impropriety of bringing forward into public discussion every thing which formed the subject of negotiation at Vienna.

could not approve of the annexation of Saxony to Prussia, although the king of Saxony had certainly been found fighting on the wrong side. But there was another point on which he thought some explanation necessary. He meant the Ionian islands. These, which had first been Venetian dependencies, had afterwards fallen under the protection of Russia, who had not only given them up to France, but had been base enough to carry the French garrisons to them in her own bottoms. Now they had been re-conquered by our arms, we had declared ourselves their protectors; and yet it was broadly asserted that they were to be surrendered to the emperor of Austria! He could not see how such conduct could be justified. Their independence had long been wished for, and when it was in a nascent state, and we pretended to be its guardians, we became parties to its annihilation.

said, that as this question related to the policy of Europe, he was surprised that the hon. gentlemen, on the other side, should ground their statements and arguments on anonymous pamphlets. There was a constitutional way of obtaining information, by coming forward, and moving an address to the crown, for the copies of any documents which they might deem it necessary to be laid before the House. He could not avoid thinking, it would be a practice very inconvenient for the House, to have questions of this sort daily put to ministers. Some gentlemen seemed to expect, from the courtesy and good nature of the ministers, that they could get information from them, which, if they were to give, those gentlemen would consider them guilty of great weakness. It was too much to think, that every statement in a pamphlet or newspaper was sufficient ground to call upon ministers to divulge the most important information.

thought that nothing could show more clearly the change that had lately taken place in the practice of parliamentary proceedings, than to find a gentleman of the experience and ability of the hon. and learned member who spoke last, condemn the practice of seeking information of ministers. What had become of the functions of that House, if, when ministers demanded a large supply of money, gentlemen should be told that it was irregular to ask for what purpose it was wanted? If, indeed, there were any irregularity in this practice, it proceeded from the much greater irregularity that had lately been introduced on the other aide of the House, in proposing large grants of money, and great armies to be kept up in time of peace, without condescending to inform the House for what purposes they were wanted. The right hon. gentleman desired them to wait with patience till some future day, when those subjects might be discussed with more regularity. He, however, conceived that the House had a right to be informed generally of the state of our foreign relations, although they knew that negotiations actually pending could not with propriety be communicated. His hon. friends, however, had not asked about any thing that was doing, but about things actually done. They did not ask what crimes were meditating, but they wished to be informed about crimes actually perpetrated. They did not inquire about an act of prince Repnin alone, but they asked whether this act had not been sanctioned by lord Castlereagh, and whether this country was not thereby already committed? He saw no difference; in the principle, between the annexations that were now making, and the tyrannical acts of that government against which we had been so long contending. The only difference that he could see was, that instead of being the work of one great spoliator, it was the work of many. His hon. friend had been much misunderstood, if it was supposed that he had quoted from the pamphlet as his only authority. He had expressly stated, that he had made inquiries, and believed his information correct. As to the proposal of a grant of money on account of the Russian fleet, it had given him the greatest surprise. He never recollected to have before heard of any idea of paying Russia for her fleet coming to our ports. He had heard a great deal of the compliment that Russia was paying this country, by reposing so great a confidence in us; but when we were now asked to pay 500,000l. on that account, he wished to know what it was for? Was it on account of the compliment that Russia had paid us, or was it on account of the aid that our navy received or was to receive from them? We had heard many things of late, respecting which we must feel ashamed; and which, he believed, had wrung the hearts of our navy; but he did not know any thing that would be more mortifying than to say, that when Spain had no navy against us, and France had very little, the British navy wanted the aid of the Russian fleet against that little. As to the subject of America, the news that had lately come from that country had naturally produced the greatest anxiety and uneasiness. He was, however, happy to hear that the negotiations were still going on at Ghent, and he hoped sincerely that ministers had relinquished all the pretensions that they had set up with respect to boundaries. As long as the contest with America turned upon the question of our maritime rights, government were certain of the support of the House and the country"; but if the principle of the war was entirely changed, and it was now wished to make conquests from America, he believed that the war would not meet with the same support from the feelings of the House or the public.

observed, that the case in question was one which had no connection whatever with the subject on which the House was about to go into a committee. From the speeches of the hon. gentlemen opposite, it might be thought that they were totally ignorant that the war quantum of men, and the necessary expenses they required, had been stated within these few days over and over again. The hon. gentlemen's objection was, that we were called on to vote for keeping up a large army, without one title of evidence as to its necessity. Yet all the discourses of ministers, day after day, had tended to show why it was necessary that such a force should be maintained. An hon. gentleman had read a statement respecting Saxony, and had called on his Majesty's ministers to give information, as if it were possible or proper for them to refute every article in any or every newspaper published at home or abroad. We did not know any thing respecting Saxony; it was, in fact, impossible that we could know what was going forward at the Congress; and if ministers did know, it would be a dereliction of their duty to promulgate a word of it. Respecting America, the same pressure for information was made, and the same answer returned. It would be highly improper to enter into any explanations at such a time as the present. When the results were ascertained, then would be the proper time to lay the proceedings before the House, to state what had been done; and if they were not satisfactory, there would be an opportunity to show that the failure, of whatever kind it might be, did not lie with this country, whose government and negotiators had made every effort in their power to bring the topics to a successful issue. At present (said the right hon. gentleman) not only our hands but our tongues are tied, and it would be grossly imprudent to give any information. There was no one part of the army expenditure that had not already been sanctioned by the vote of parliament; and if any expla- nations were required, the committee would be the proper place for them; but certainly ministers were not called on to shew any grounds for the estimates at present.

observed, that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had declared, on a former night, that he was fond of responsibility; so it appeared; but none unluckily being attached to his office, he volunteered to bear the weight of responsibility that lay upon the whole administration. He wished him joy of his burden, which, in this instance, was not very light. Mr. Tierney said, he was very anxious to explain to the House the reasons why he could not consent to the motion, that the House should go into a committee. The House knew that, by the supplementary treaty of Chaumont, we were bound to keep tip a force of 75,000 men on the continent, for the purpose of settling the affairs of Europe. He was proceeding, when

suggested, that the committee would be the proper place for the right hon. gentleman to offer his sentiments at length.

said, he wanted to show that the question respecting Saxony did distinctly bear upon that of the force in Belgium.

reminded the right hon. gentleman, that his explanations must relate to something that had been stated in his former speech.

said, he wished to explain the motives on which he had asked for the information.

resumed, that the right hon. gentleman could not be at liberty to state, in explanation, the motives which had operated on his mind for the opinion he had previously given.

coincided with Mr. Croker.

added, that he thought it would be more convenient to make his full explanation at once: whether or not be should be allowed to go into it at present, was certainly at the discretion of the House. [Go on, go on, from the opposition]. The right hon. gentleman then continued. With respect to the question that regarded Saxony, each of the contracting powers in the treaty of Chaumont, had undertaken to keep up a force of 75,000 men, to give it full effect. It appeared we had a document to show on this subject, the purport of which was, as it would seem, to enable any power to seize on the territory of any other power it might please, and hand it over to a third. They would wish the House to reflect on this, and then say, whether it was proper to vote an army for such a purpose, if he was convinced that it was for a good object that these troops were to be employed, he would not hesitate an instant in agreeing to the vote; but when he heard that they were to facilitate, and assist in the seizure of territories, after a general treaty of peace, he was entitled to ask, and to know whether this fact would turn out or not as it had been reported. He certainly could not make up his mind to believe it. He hoped there was some mistake; for though the fact of the annihilation of Saxony, as an independent kingdom, had been stated in all the foreign journals, and translated into those of this country, he could not persuade himself that lord Castlereagh had been guilty of such gross neglect, as to have omitted transmitting intelligence of such importance, if there were any foundation for it. He was sure every gentleman must feel it absolutely necessary, before the House voted a single man, know whether these 75,000 troops were to be employed to overawe the people of Saxony; for prince Repnin's declaration distinctly stated to all Europe, that that country was overawed and seized upon.

wished to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether the papers which had just been published in this country, I and purporting to be the documents relative to the negotiations at Ghent, which Mr. Madison had laid before the American Congress, were authentic or not? He asked for no secret to be exposed; he wanted no information that ought to be concealed; he only wished to know the point in question. That the American, portions of them was correct, he had no doubt; whether all parts or them was equally so, was what he should wish to hear.

objected to inquiries of this nature pending the discussions. No judgment could be formed of the state of the negotiation in November, from what had passed in August. I the American government chose to promulgate these documents, he hoped that example would never be followed by Great Britain.

replied, that unless he had forgotten the nature and principles for the American constitution, the president had no alternative but to submit these papers to the Congress; he was obliged to do it. He did not assert, that the state of the negotiations in November depended upon the state in August; he only wished to know whether what had passed and transpired was a fact or not?

No answer was given; and the question for the Speaker leaving the chair being acceded to, the House went into the committee.

, on rising to move the estimates for the land service, observed, that they were not framed in the usual manner, but were merely statements of the amount of the forces required, and the length of time. The House would not, therefore, enter into a discussion upon them on this occasion, but would doubtlessly deem it proper to reserve their opinions for a future opportunity. He then moved, "That 204,386 men (exclusive of the men belonging to the regiments employed in the territorial possessions of the East India Company, and the foreign corps in British pay), commissioned and non-commissioned officers included, be maintained for the service of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th of December 1814, to the 24th of June 1815, both inclusive, being 182 days."

rose to ask, what proportion of the number of men demanded were to be employed under the supplemental article to the convention of Chaumont?

apprehended, that it was most unusual to state the distribution of the troops deemed necessary for the service of his Majesty.

said, it was not his intention to inquire as to the general distribution of the force, but he wished to know what was the proportion of the troops, which were then demanded of parliament, which it was intended to employ in consequence of the convention? For this, he contended, he had good grounds, since parliament was called on to vote a number of troops, only less by 50,000 than that which was employed when we were at war with the whole world. They already knew the amount of the force to be employed in consequence of the convention, viz. 75,000 men; but he wished to know, if it was not distinctly shown that it was inconvenient to give such information, what proportion of the 75,000 men were to be taken out of the number now voted, and not to be provided for at some other time by parliament.

thought the question put was equivalent to an inquiry what was the strength of the garrisons in the Netherlands. In such a view, the right hon. gentleman himself must be sensible of the inconvenience of an answer to it, A part of the troops to be employ ed under the convention, would be taken out of the number then demanded; but to enter into further details would be improper.

asked, whether if, instead of 200,000, there had been demanded 275,000 troops, it would not have required some explanation to justify it? The number actually demanded, though he could not affirm it to be excessive, required some explanation, to induce the committee to vote it. Now, what mystery could there be in saying what part of a given force.—75,000 men, was to consist of British, and what of foreign troops?

repeated, that it had never been usual to state the distribution of any particular force, except for political purposes, because such an exposition might be injurious. It had been usual to state the aggregate number employed abroad and at home, but never the distribution of any particular species of force. If the question was answered respecting one part of the world, it might as well with regard to any and every other; and ministers might be called on to declare what proportion of troops was in the Ionian islands, or Sicily, or any where else. This would be equally unreasonable and inconvenient.

said, that as far as his memory served him, there were twenty cases where the general distribution of the troops had been stated. He did not inquire, however, as to the number of troops in Belgium; that he already knew; but what part of the number there employed was to be taken out of the 204,000 which they were then voting. Did the noble lord think that it was never necessary to state the ground of a demand for a force, but that as many men were to be given as were asked for?

said, that the right hon. gentleman would find in the cases he had referred to, statements delivered in at one time respecting the distribution of the forces at some former period, respecting which the House was desirous of inquiring; but prospective statements had never been made. But perhaps it would satisfy the right hon. gentleman to be reminded, that he had stated the number of troops employed under the convention was 75,000; and that 15,000 Hanoverians were in British pay on the continent, forming part of that force.

said, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble lord had puzzled themselves with finding reasons to avoid an answer, which at last, in a very sly way, had been given. So it turned out that there were 60,000 British troops on the continent, or that we intended to cheat the allies, by stipulating for a number which we had not maintained; a proceeding too disreputable and dishonest to warrant a supposition that it was adopted. Since, then, an answer had been given to the question of his right hon. friend, and since he intended to continue the good old practice of putting questions, he should again inquire, at a time when the House was voting so large a sum for military purposes, whether an estimate of the expense of repairing the fortresses in the Netherlands had been made, amounting to ten millions; and whether his Majesty's government had not engaged to bear the whole or a great part of that expense?

The motion having been put, and no answer having been returned to the last question,

observed, that as no answer was given, an impression would go forth that this country was to bear the expense which he had mentioned.

hoped that no such impression whatever would be produced from ministers declining to answer any questions they might deem improper.

said, that the subject must come soon under consideration, and a frightful consideration it would be.

said, that the impression that all the troops to be maintained under the convention were to be employed in Belgium, was, he believed, erroneous, since the troops employed in Genoa, and in the Ionian isles, were included in the number. It was, he conceived, a strange assumption, that the House was to vote the large sum proposed, without any information to what purpose it was to be applied, while we were in a state of profound peace with respect to the powers of Europe to even if such was the old parliamentary method of proceeding, he conceived it to be very indecent. On the subject of America, he said, that though he was aware of the delicacy which it was proper to observe in asking questions in that House, and though the negotiations were yet pending, yet he could not but remark on the extraordinary mismanagement of his Majesty's ministers; extraordinary pretensions which had been set up on our part, and which must have originated in some person totally ignorant of the state of public feeling in America, and which had produced the effect, when a great part of the best and most independent inhabitants of America had differed from their government as to the ground of the war with us, of joining all hearts and hands against us in every part of that country. The pretensions set up by our ministers had been so extraordinary, and the prima facie evidence of mismanagement such, that a motion ought to be made without farther information, since it was evidently impossible to attain a peace without, while these pretensions were persisted in. It had been said, that it was an extraordinary proceeding that the American executive should have laid before Congress the papers relative to the negotiation, while that negotiation was pending. But if in our own case, in a negotiation carried on the other side of the Atlantic, a demand was set up of a piece of the county of Cornwall, it would be impossible that his Majesty should not lay the information of such a demand before parliament, to show the pretensions and expectations of the enemy. Our ministers at Ghent made it a condition of peace, that America should make concessions on every part of her frontiers. He did not intend to make any motion, for even to ask for any information, but he thought it of importance that it should be known whether the pretensions set up on our part were persisted in. This was a question which bore an intimate connection with the number of troops which it would he necessary to maintain; for, if we persisted in our pretensions, it must make a most material difference in the sort of military force to be kept up, and government must prepare themselves to send out an enormous army indeed. If, however, after the Christmas holidays, something very satisfactory on this subject should not be stated, he should think it his duty to bring forward a motion on the subject.

, in allusion to what had fallen from a right hon. gentleman, said, that by the American constitution the president was not bound to lay papers respecting a pending negotiation before Congress, and therefore the stricture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was well founded. The papers respecting the restitution of American property in France, and the orders in council, were produced in consequence of a motion and the vote of a majority in Congress, on the ground of undue partiality shown to the French government.

asserted, that it was a principle in the American constitution, that no treaty could be concluded by the president without the concurrence of the Senate; and that without the consent of the Congress no territory could be ceded, nor any measures affecting the rights of American citizens taken. During the course of the negotiations, the British commissioners, if the papers published in America were correct, had taken for granted that a country, supposed by the Americans to be American territory, was as much British country as Northampton shire. They also had proposed two conditions as a sine qua non—a pacification of the Americans with the Indians, and the erection of an independent territory for the Indians out of the ground which the Americans claimed. Then a new frontier was required for ourselves. On these points the president had no power to negotiate, and of necessity they were submitted to Congress. On trifling points the president might negotiate. It had been said, that it would have been inconvenient to have made known the state of the negotiation. He had no wish that any thing that had not been made public should be communicated to the House. He should have been content, as be had been formerly, to have stated, that he was opposed to designs of conquest. But what was the inconvenience now to make known the real state of the negotiation? With such pretensions as had been attributed to us, we had nothing to look for but a continuance of war. He would venture to predict, that we should never sign a peace while we persisted in the demands which had been held forth; and if the war was carried on with the design of enforcing them, that we should incur great expense, and fail in the end. Was there no inconvenience in such a state of things? It was not extraordinary, when extravagant pretensions on our part were stated to have been conditions sine qua non, that he should desire to hear the fact denied or authenticated. As to the maintenance of the 75,000 troops on our part, and a greater force on the part of the other great powers, he thought the treaty most improvident. The only danger apprehended could be from France; and if such apprehension were well founded, it was most impolitic to have given her the possessions which the allies had yielded to her, till the affairs of Europe were settled at the general Congress.

insisted, the president of America was not bound to lay the papers relating to a negotiation before the Congress, since it was only the ratification of treaties which belonged to Congress.

asked, what would have been the use of the president's carrying on in secrecy a negotiation which it was not in his own power to complete? If the case had been respecting points which were left to his discretion, there would have been no necessity for such a measure on his part. But the negotiations had been actually broken off or suspended, in consequence of our demands, in which we had insisted on accession of territory as a sine qua non—as a necessary preliminary to the conclusion of any peace.

contended, that the president might have concluded a treaty without the concurrence of Congress, and have applied to them for the ratification merely. The only sine qua non in our proposals was, he conceived, the pacification with the Indians.

said, the establishment of an independent territory for the Indians was also a sine qua non.

remarked, that this was the first time that the Indians had been set up as an independent people. The territory to which we made pretensions on their part, was, perhaps, one-fourth of the whole United States territory; and to give an idea of the state of the inhabitants, it would be enough to say, that in this vast space there were only about 10,000 Indians at the most. Even if the Americans would consent to the terms proposed by us, they would be most injurious to us, since, though the Indians might not sell their lands to us or the Americans, they would be allowed to dispose of it to any third party, so that the French or any other nation might settle on it. As to the constitution of America, he conceived that, since it was a federal compact of sovereign states, that the Congress could no more alienate a part of Massachussets than the state of Switzerland could dispose of a part of the territory of Berne; but any state might alienate a part of its own territory. He said, it was consistent with the spirit and practice of the American constitution, for the president to communicate the papers which he had made known; and the great distance of the country from the scene of negotiation, rendered the step obviously necessary.

begged leave to state, that the hon. gentleman had been reasoning as if the negotiation was broken off; but this was not the fact, as they were continuing at the date of the last accounts.

said, that the heads of our proposals were stated to be, 1. The adjustment of the boundary; 2. The pacification of the Indians; 3. The establishment of their territory; 4. The fisheries. The American commissioners had replied, that as to the second and third heads, they had no instructions; but that they had instructions as to the first and fourth. Now, he first referred to the cession of territory, which clearly proved that the president was of opinion, that he was entitled to give instructions on that head, and which overturned the justification which had been made of his conduct.

said, the instruction which the American commissioners hail, was, perhaps, that they should not cede any territory.

said, that one part of the boundary between Canada and New Brunswick was never settled. The St. Croix river was the boundary as far as it ran, but the rest had not been traced. It was all wild country, without one white inhabitant; and of course the Americans could have no objection to a settlement of that boundary, provided we proceeded on the ground of mutual convenience, and not as if we had them at our mercy. From the lakes to the Mississippi the land was equally wild, and the boundary ill cleaned, and of little consequence to either country.

observed, that, according to the American constitution, a copy of which he held in his hand, the president, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the senate, was invested with the power of concluding treaties, without any restriction whatever as to the cession of territory.

said, that the several American states had, like the cantons of Switzerland, constituted a general government, to which they granted certain specific powers; but it was always understood, that any powers which were not so specifically granted, were reserved by the states; and it did not appear, from the constitution alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, that the general government was invested with the power to cede any territory.

The motion was agreed to.

On the motion, "That 10,900l. be granted for defraying the charge of five troops of dragoons and thirteen companies of foot, stationed in Great Britain, for the purpose of recruiting the corps employed in the territorial possessions of the East India Company," a conversation arose, in which Mr. A. Robinson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Tierney, took a part. In reply to a question from Mr. Robinson,

stated, that the additional number of the regular army in India, beyond the amount settled by the Act to be maintained in that territory, was to be defrayed from the general funds of the empire; and that, therefore, any advances made by the Ionia Company for the maintenance of these additional troops, would, like other advances occasionally made by the Company for the public service, be subsequently repaid.

observed, that a greater number of regiments were maintained in India than were necessary to supply the number of men fixed by the statute, and thus a considerable increase of patronage took place.

said, that regiments, however effective when sent out, were too likely to become non-effective at such a distance from the parent state, and hence it became necessary to send out additional regiments in order to keep up the supply required.

adverted to the disadvantage to which the India Company was subject, in consequence of the increased patronage alluded to; observing, that two-thirds of the regiments now in India would be sufficient to supply the number of men fixed by the Act. He added, that as 20,000 men was the number appointed by the Act in the calculation of war, he must suppose that a considerable reduction would take place on a peace establishment.

said, that it was intended prospectively to make provision that the number of regular troops in India should not exceed that fixed by the Act, and that orders had with that view been actually sent out to India.

The motion was agreed to.

On the motion, "That 245,000l. be granted, for defraying the charge of the disembodied militia of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and royal corps of miners of Devon and Cornwall,"

wished to know what provision the noble lord intended to make for the militia which was not yet disembodied?

said that provision being already made for the maintenance of the militia up to the 25th of December, this vote applied only to those who were disembodied. Should the necessity which called for retaining some of the regiments cease in the course of the recess, a similar provision would be made for them.

, after declaring his conviction that the continuance of any of the militia embodied, under the present circumstances, was directly contrary to law, expressed a wish that the noble lord would state something more precise upon this subject. An explanation was certainly necessary to satisfy the mind of the country, and especially to allay the complaints of those among the militia who were still embodied. Did the noble lord think it probable that the whole of the militia would be disembodied by Christmas, or at what time? Something in the way of explanation was obviously due to those regiments, the officers and men belonging to which must feel themselves disappoint ed, and especially those who, even upon the verge of their own counties, in the prospect of being immediately disbanded, were ordered to continue embodied, while they saw that not only other regiments of militia were disbanded, but that several of the second battalions belonging to the regular army were disbanded also.

observed, it certainly might bear hard on some individuals, that government had it not in their power to grant them that repose which their services deserved. The necessity of the case was a sufficient justification. As to the law of the hon. gentleman, which he had laid down in his usual broad manner, he entirely dissented from it. The conduct of government in keeping up a portion of the militia, was perfectly consistent with the act of parliament. This, however, was not the question before the House. They were thin required to vote a certain sum to defray the charge of disembodying the militia. With the feeling that they would be disembodied, as soon as possible, the noble lord had not thought it necessary to provide for the regiments now the in being, beyond the time he had mentioned. Unless it could be proved, that all government had shewn an undue preference to particular regiments, no impropriety could be imputed to their conduct. From the very nature of the thing, those regiments which were at the greatest distance from home, were necessarily those that would be retained. The inconvenience must fall somewhere; and, in preventing the disembodying of certain of are the militia regiments, government had not such acted partially nor unjustly.

observed, that his interpretation of the law on this subject was supported by several eminent lawyers. The conduct of government on this occasion was unprecedented. It was the first time, he believed, since the militia force, was formed, when all the regiments were could not out together; and he doubted whether the King had the power of making such my selection as had taken place. Looking to the act, it was impossible to suppose that the Northumberland, the Devon, or till the Nottingham militia, could be called: it on to serve, when the other regiments were disembodied, since the statute contemplated the service of the whole militia of force.

stated, that in former instances some of the militia had been called out, and not the whole.

asked in what instance?

replied, ed, that in 1792 some militia regiments were called out, and not the whole.

observed, that the militia were partially called out in 1792 from the same considerations; that only a part of that body were now retained in service, namely in order to save expense, to provide that the expense incurred should to not exceed the necessity of the case.

said, that what had been termed the selection of militia regiments, the was a circumstance perfectly accidental. When it was found necessary to call for he the services of a part of the militia force, duct those who were farthest removed from of their ultimate places of destination were with resorted to. Now, supposing the hon. gentleman's opinion to be correct, his use, stating that opinion, that it was contrary min to law to retain any of those regiments, could do no good, and might have a con- trary tendency. If his law were good, then the regiments must be disembodied; if it were not, how could he reconcile it to his feelings, to utter declarations which would make the militia-men more dissatisfied with their situation, and render still more difficult the task of those who were responsible for their control, and who found it hard, even now, to keep them in good humour and good order. He concluded with expressing a wish that this question as to the law upon the subject were satisfactorily settled, as he hoped it would be, through the discussion expected on Monday.

repeated his opinion, which, he said, was formed from his own reading of the law as well as from the judgment of eminent lawyers.

thought it proper to state, that his opinion as to the law upon this subject, entirely differed from that of the hon. gentleman who spoke last; and although he had had nothing to do with the framing of the act alluded to, he was quite confident that the crown legally possessed the power of proceeding, with respect to the militia, in the way objected to by the hon. gentleman, subject only to the constitutional responsibility of the ministers advising the exercise of that power.

said, that when he referred to the judgment of some of the highest legal authorities in the country, he did not at all mean to include the learned gentleman, whose difference from those whom he had consulted, could neither excite his surprise nor affect his opinion.

did not mean to doubt the hon. gentleman's facility of access to higher legal authority than he could pretend to; all he meant to say was, that, according to the best of his judgment, he could not agree with the opinion of the hon. gentleman.

said, the noble lord had informed them, that the embodied militia were provided for until the 24th of December: now, supposing they were continued after that time, he wished to know how they were to be supported? Parliament probably (though he should be sorry if such were the fact) would not meet until long after that period: how, in the interim, did the noble lord mean to keep the militia on foot

answered, that, should any part of the militia continue embodied beyond the 24th of December, they would be provided for, out of the vote of that; night for the disembodied militia. It might be considered a vote for militia services.

did not consider the answer of the noble lord satisfactory. His Lordship stated, that the present vote was for militia services. That House never a before had such a proposition made to it: they were constantly in the habit of voting I for specific services. How could the noble lord, with propriety, transfer a position of the money voted for the disembodied militia, to the service of the embodied militia? He hoped the noble lord would not proceed in this indiscreet manner: if he believed any of the militia would be embodied beyond the 24th of next month, it would be much better for him to move a small vote of credit to meet the consequent expense, than to appropriate a part of a vote granted by the House for; a specific purpose.

said, the present were not specific estimates; he was moving for your money on account. It would be easy, by leaving out the word disembodied, and granting the sum for the services of the militia generally, to obviate every objection.

said, he was more opposed to this amendment than to the original statement of the noble lord, because, if it were agreed to, parliament would be kept in ignorance of the regiments embodied or disembodied. The ministers of the crown would, in that case, have complete control over the public money, and not the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman again advised a small vote of credit to be called for, if necessary, sooner than appropriate this vote to any other but the stated purpose.

expressed his concurrence in the opinion of Mr. Ponsonby, which should be taken into consideration.

asked, why such a sum should be voted on account, for the service of the militia on a peace establishment? He thought that a specific vote might be proposed.

said, that it would be it impossible to be more specific, as the number of men belonging to the several disembodied regiments, who were to remain in those regiments to be trained in the usual manner during peace, was not yet ascertained. The vote, however, was only to extend to 1615 and before fur- ther provision should be proposed after the recess, the information necessary to a precise vote would be collected.

The motion was agreed to.

Upon the motion, That 200,000l. be granted, for per defraying the charge of general and staff-officers of the hospitals serving with his Majesty's forces, and the in charge of his Majesty's garrisons,"

inquired whether this grant was for a permanent establishment of the staff at home; and whether it was intended to make any, and what reduction, of expense in that department?

replied, that a considerable reduction had already taken place in the home staff; but whether any farther a reduction was intended, he was not at present enabled to state. The motion, however, before the committee, was not meant to pledge parliament with regard to any permanent establishment, as the subject would be brought fully under its consideration after Christmas. The motion was agreed to.

On the motion, "That 218,000l. be granted for defraying the charge of half pay to reduced officers,"

pressed upon the attention of the committee the claims of those officers who had been put upon half pay before the breaking out of the last war, and inquired of the noble lord, whether it was his intention to propose that they should be comprehended in that increase of half-pay which had been voted last session? He wished also to call his attention to the existing distinction between England and Ireland, as to the manner in which half-pay was received by officers; and to the subject of poundage (sixpence in the pound) which was exacted from the half-pay of every officer, whether subaltern or not, and operated as a serious diminution of the small stipend bestowed upon them. What became of that poundage so deducted he did not I know, though he had made many inquiries upon the subject, and he should like to be informed by the noble lord.

replied, that if the hon. general would duly consider the subject, he could not suppose that the increase of the half-pay, which had been voted last session, was intended to extend to officers reduced after the American war.; With regard to the poundage, and the assimilation of the half-pay in Ireland and England those subjects were under the consideration of government; though he could state, for the information of the hon. general, upon the former point, that the sums estimated were voted minus the poundage.

On the motion, "That 100,000l. be granted for defraying the expenses of the Volunteer Corps in Great Britain and Ireland,"

asked what possible pretence there could be for voting a sum like the present; and what occasion now existed for volunteer service, either from our external or internal condition?

said, that the nature of the volunteer force contemplated in the estimate was the cavalry corps of England, and what were called the yeomanry corps in Ireland. Whatever might be the future determination of the government with respect to those corps, the House would not, he apprehended, think it desirable that their services should be dispensed with at the present moment.

replied, that he, for one, should think it very desirable to dispense with their services, because he saw not the least necessity for them at present.

observed, that in some parts of Ireland, to his certain knowledge, of the yeomanry corps had been disembodied; and no one could affirm that there is existed any more reason for continuing that description of force in Ireland than in this country.

concurred in thinking that the keeping up the cavalry and yeomanry corps was unnecessary.

observed, that the estimates were framed entirely with a view to existing circumstances; and it was important so material a part of our force should be provided for, until government had arranged what was to be the whole Amount of the military peace establishment. The cavalry corps in England he considered as a species of force the least liable to objection of any, as, by keeping it up, government might disembody a much larger proportion of the militia.

said, he must still consider that no sufficient reason existed or he had been shewn for inducing the committee to comply with the vote.

observed, that as there was not much probability of any imminent danger threatening this country, between this and the period when the House would meet after Christmas, he is would advise his noble friend to withdraw the estimate for the present.

This suggestion was acceded to by lord Palmerston; the remaining Resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.