begged permission to make a few observations as his reason for opposing the further progress of the Bill, at present at least, in the form in which it now stood. His objection to the Bill was that it repealed the clause respecting the delivery of the tickets by the coachman, without making any provision in its stead. Now, be was convinced that the clause, though proved to be inefficient, had nevertheless been productive of very beneficial effects to the public. It had caused the coachmen to be frequently summoned; and though they could not be convicted on that clause, they had been convicted on the provisions of other acts of parliament, and fined for their abusive language; which had produced a very great good to the public, by having rendered these men a great deal more civil than they had ever been known to be heretofore. To oppose the present motion might be vain; but as the hon. member had intimated his intention to propose other measures connected with the regulation of hackney coaches after the recess, he would suggest some alterations. He would submit the propriety of requiring the number to be painted inside the coach as well as on the outside. Persons wanting coaches were frequently obliged to get into them in the dark, and they could not in such cases see the numbers; but if they were placed in a conspicuous place inside, there would be frequent opportunities in passing lamps to see the numbers. He would also suggest, that it should be required of coachmen to have a card of fares fixed inside the coach; and if the ticket system should not be abolished, that the size of those for 1s and those for 1s. 6d should be different. He could not but hope that the plan of giving tickets would yet be continued, if the Bill was not precipitated through the House; at all events, he trusted that it would not be persevered in till the hon. member should have laid before the House the regulations which he intended to propose for the future management of hackney coaches, and that after the recess there might be a committee of inquiry on the subject. The Ticket Act had not only done some good in checking the abuse and system of extortion that once prevailed to such a degree, that decent people, ladies in particular, were almost debarred the comfort of a hackney coach, if they chanced to be unprotected; but it had also procured the town the benefit at last of arousing the commissioners, as might be seen by their circular, which had recently appeared in the newspapers. They were now really beginning to exert themselves; why they had not done it before, heaven only knew, as they had at least had the power of being useful.

had no particular desire to press this Bill at the present time, as it was his intention to submit some resolutions, connected with this subject, after the recess; and he would therefore move that the Bill be committed on Friday, the 10th of February.—Ordered.

said, that he wished to be informed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether there was any truth in the assertion made by the king of Sicily in his speech to his parliament, that England had granted two loans to him? This was another proof, that all information upon important topics was to be derived by parliament through any but the proper channel, the ministers of the crown. If the account were true, it ought to have been mentioned before the subsidy to Sicily was voted.

admitted that it was perfectly true, that at a time when the Sicilian government was extremely pressed for money, this country, through its minister lord William Bentinck, had acceded to a grant of two small advances, the whole amount of which was about 150,000l. This loan had taken place in the year 1812, and in the year following a part of it had been discharged. It was, in truth, only an anticipation of the subsidy due from this government, and annually authorized by parliament, and from which the amount of the loans would be deducted. He said, he would take that opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation which had gone abroad re- specting his answer to a question put to him on a former evening. He had been erroneously represented as having said, from authority, that this government had guaranteed the crown of Naples to Murat: the truth was, that he put it hypothetically, supposing the statement made by the hon. gentleman to be true. It had been also represented that he had asserted, that lord William Bentinck had disavowed the intentions of the Sicilian government, with regard to the attack upon Naples. Without either affirming or denying the fact, all he had done was to endeavour to show, whatever the truth might be, that what had been done was not inconsistent with the stipulations of this country with the government of Naples; and that our minister had interfered as early as possible to prevent any hostile proceedings.

observed, that as the right hon. gentleman had not to-night deemed it inexpedient and inconsistent with his public duty to answer one question, he might probably have the good fortune to force from him a reply to one or two others. It was really very difficult to deal with a gentleman who was so careful not to deal in matters of fact, but to put every thing hypothetically: but he would repeat what he had asserted on a former night, relative to the engagement entered into by this government with the king of Naples, who was now no longer dignified by titles of royalty, but was called by the right hon. gentleman simply, plain Murat, as if in anticipation of his destruction. Ferdinand, in the address to his parliament, informs them of the great benefits his kingdom was to derive from England, which could be construed into nothing less than that this government had agreed to place him upon the throne of Naples. Mr. Whitbread said, he hoped that such was not the fact, since it would be an engagement wholly incompatible with the execution of the treaty for which the faith and honour of the country was pledged to Joachim Murat, king of Naples. It now appeared, with regard to Sicily, that the House of Commons had been voting a subsidy, which was to repay to ourselves a loan we had made. Why had not the right hon. gentleman stated the fact at once to the House in the committee of supply? The whole seemed to him a mere pretence, a mere juggle on the part of ministers. However ignorant the other side of the House migh be, or pretend to be, they must knov that the king of Naples had declared that he was at peace with all the world; that his ports were open to the shipping of all nations, even to that of Sicily; and yet Ferdinand was carrying on hostilities under the covert protection of this country.

One of the other questions upon which he entreated information, regarded a subject already much discussed: he wished to know whether there was any truth in the further information that had reached this country, respecting the unfortunate country, whose fate ministers had declared was negotiating, and not negotiated, Saxony. The public accounts represented the fate of Saxony as irrevocably fixed. Was it or was it not the fact? Government could not now pretend that they were ignorant, after the publication of prince Repnin's proclamation, after what was reported to have been said by the emperor Alexander, and after the absolute delivery of the possession of the kingdom to Prussia. It was impossible to contend for an instant that this act of robbery had not been perpetrated in the very spirit of Buonaparté, but with out his master-hand in the execution. It was the duty of the House to reflect upon the consequences of such a proceeding. If such a system was resolved upon a system directly tending to anarchy, trouble, and confusion, who could be bold enough to think of the revolutions and devastations likely to take place, without horror? This country looked for a speedy diminution of taxes; but if the system of spoliation at present before our view were persisted in, how could she expect to have her burthens diminished. Let nobody, then, talk of the property tax ceasing in the course of the present year: while such a system continues, it could never cease. The foreign papers represented that count Metternich was presiding at the head of the cabinet of kings and ministers, who were spending their time in a most pleasant and sociable manner at Vienna. Here, probably, was the origin of the proceedings with regard to Saxony. Count Metternich, a very communicative, lively man, had doubtless at some one of the a dinners been telling a few of the entertaining stories, with illustrations, of the manner in which he and Buonaparté used to carve up the continent:—that Buonaparté used to divide this kingdom in this way, and that kingdom in that way, and that he made no bones of freely disposing of them to the powers who surrounded him. From these lessons the sovereigns it and their ambassadors seemed to have learnt much of the design, but little of the execution, which was generally accomplished by a few master-strokes, to which they appeared incompetent. It was not, however, to be conceived, that the ambassador of Great Britain would, without objection or protest, not only permit these infractions of right, but become an acceding party, and that, too, without deigning to give the slightest information to the gentlemen on the bench opposite, who were cutting such a deplorable figure [a laugh]. It was lamentable to reflect how the money and the character of the nation had been squandered. What was to be the issue after the period of gestation should be passed, and the right hon. gentleman would be allowed to produce the offspring of the labours of the noble lord? But it was very easy for the right hon. gentleman to rid himself of all interrogators for the present. The House, it seemed, was to be adjourned for a long period; and at the re-assembling of parliament, after every thing had been fixed, and all the spoliations had been completed, then was the time to put questions, and then they were told they would be answered. Mr. Whitbread solemnly protested against such a proceeding—he protested against the robbery of Saxony, and lamented that the House had been so imprudent as to grant supplies that would be devoted to such a purpose. Was the conduct now adopted at Vienna consistent with the declaration of the allies before they thought success as near as they found it? Did they not rest their hope, their every hope, upon acting on principles directly in opposition to the system of him whom they called the tyrant of the continent? And yet, the very moment they got power into their own hands, they retraced his steps, and in such a clumsy manner as to produce twofold injury. [Hear, hear!] Surely it was enough to see tyranny supplying the place of gratitude in Spain, without finding that it had spread to the continent, and that Lecocq and Thielman hat fallen victims to it!

He begged to remind the right hon. gentleman of the rumours that were afloat upon another subject of equal magnitude upon which he also requested that he would put off his mysterious air of secrecy and give parliament a little intelligence if, indeed, he could communicate any thing; for it had happened that he had refused to reply to a question, on the ground of inconvenience to the public service, when it had afterwards turned out that he was in perfect ignorance upon the point. The rumours were that the emperor Alexander had strenuously contended for the independence of Poland, and that he had been opposed in his benevolent views by the British minister. Nothing official had been inserted in the foreign journals upon this grand question, and nothing had been publicly done; but the people were amused by disputes between the minister of the king of Wurtemberg and the minister of the new king of Hanover, upon a point of etiquette who should take precedence, like the ceremonious ladies of two newly-baked baronets at a country ball. Such were the ridiculous antics played by the ambassadors at Vienna, instead of proceeding to discharge the important duties with which they were entrusted. Mr. Whitbread hoped to receive an answer upon these points, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did so far condescend, it would be necessary for him to condescend still further, and to show why he had not answered them before. We now lived in an age when free nations were not to be sold and transferred like beasts of burthen; and, if any attempt of the kind was made, the result would be a bloody and revengeful war. He repeated that it was folly to talk of repealing the property tax; it could never be taken off if those partitions were suffered to take place. The hon. gentleman concluded by again adverting to the affairs of Poland, and by stating, that in every step and in every stage he would resist the supply, until some suitable developement of its application was satisfactorily laid before the House. [Hear, hear!]

. In observing upon what has fallen from the hon. member, I shall take the liberty of entering a little into the subjects to which he has adverted. Whatever accusations he may think proper to bring against me, I certainly do not intend to charge him with being deficient in his duty; if enter-ting his protest against the proceedings of it government, whatever they may be, constitute a part of that duty. I feel no objection to give the hon. gentleman information upon one or two points to which e, he has referred. First, with regard to Saxony; I believe that the fate of that kingdom has not, and cannot have yet to been decided; because the Congress by which the decision is to be made, has not yet met. [Hear!] I cannot, therefore, believe that the fate of Saxony is yet fixed; much less do I believe that any British minister would be a party to any such decision as is supposed to have been made [Hear, hear! from all parts of the House]. As little do I believe (and the hon. gentleman will have reason on some future day to recollect my assertion), that any British minister will be a party to the subjugation of Poland. On these points I hope the hon. member is now satisfied; and having replied to his questions, it will be unnecessary for me to say any thing further.

. I beg to be allowed to say a word or two in explanation. I am not at all deranged by the little sarcasm of the right hon. gentleman; for all knowledge is comparative; and if I know little upon these subjects, it is plain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows less, for undoubtedly I have supplied the greater part of his information. My principal object in rising is, that I may distinctly understand what he has said. He states, that he does not believe that the fate of Saxony is decided; [Hear! from Mr. Vansittart] and he does not believe it possible that any British minister should have been a party to the surrender of Saxony to Prussia, as is stated by the documents that have been published. [Hear, hear!] The right hon. gentleman believes, that I shall have reason to remember what I have said, upon some future day. I suppose he means, that on obtaining assistance after the recess, he intends to inflict upon me a castigation. I hope he will have an opportunity of so doing, by showing that a British minister has not been a party to the cession of Saxony to a foreign power. As to Poland, the right hon. gentleman believes that lord Castlereagh never acquiesced in the subjugation of that country, and does not think it possible that a British minister would acquiesce in such a proceeding. What, then, is the extraordinary situation of ministers? Their leader hopes, and believes, and expects every thing—he has no certain intelligence, and yet the House cannot fail to know what information he might have possessed and communicated. It is for the House to say, whether it is satisfied with these ambiguous hypotheses in which he always speaks: but if what has been stated were not true, could he not disprove it from the very tenor of lord Castlereagh's letters? Surely he could collect whether it were true or false. I ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and request that he will give me an answer—Has he any information on which he can contradict what I have stated with regard to Poland, and what I hope and believe is true?

. I hope the hon. gentleman will not misapprehend me; though I fear, from what he has thrown out, that I did not make myself understood. What I said was, that I believed the fate of Saxony was not, and could not be decided; because, by the last accounts, the Congress had not yet met, whose duty it was to decide. Therefore I presume that any occupation of Saxony that has taken place, can only be provisional — merely a military occupation of the country, such as was before maintained by the Russians.—This was all I meant to state with regard to Saxony; and the British minister, therefore, was not a party to the transaction. As to Poland, what I said was, that I did not believe it would be found that a British minister had been the author of the subjugation of that country. [Hear, hear!]

. Perhaps, Sir, I may come in for my share of the threatened castigation on the fatal day, but I wish distinctly to understand whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to deny that military possession has been taken of Saxony, and that it has been given up to the dominion of Prussia? Whether he means to deny the proclamation of prince Repnin, which states that Saxony, as a kingdom, shall hereafter be subject to the dominion of the king of Prussia? If he means to deny these facts, I shall be glad to know it. The right hon. gentleman says, he cannot believe that any English minister would be a party to such an affair: it is, therefore, material that we should know in what situation our ambassador stands. He is to be a member of that Congress which is to decide this question; but is not the decision rendered a mere mockery, when the subject is already settled by the occupation of the country by a large military force? What, then, is now to be decided by the Congress?—Really nothing. After the recess, no doubt, we shall see the right hon. gentleman coming down to the House to say that he is very sorry, but lord Castlereagh could do nothing against an army already in posses- sion of Saxony, and that he was obliged to submit to necessity. I should be glad to know what the noble lord says upon this subject. Does the noble lord give any explanation respecting this order of prince Repnin? The right hon. gentleman says, he believes it to be a provisional occupation; but the contrary is evident, for the people are told that they are hereafter to consider themselves as under the dominion of Prussia. I should be glad to know what lord Castlereagh says upon it; and, on the threatened day of triumph, perhaps I may remind him of the expressions. The right hon. gentleman says, that hitherto, respecting Saxony, he spoke only upon hypothesis; and to day he says, that he really cannot believe that lord Castlereagh has been a party to the cession. I hope to God he has not; but unless on his return he can make out a good case, he ought to be ashamed of himself for remaining British minister at the Congress. [Hear, hear!] He must make out, that this is a provisional occupation, and nothing else. Now let us see what is this provisional occupation, even supposing he can prove that? It is enforced and maintained by troops, of which we pay one-fourth. Each party pays a proportionate sum for the maintenance of a body of 75,000 men; so that the whole allied force to be kept on foot, and applied to any purpose, is 300,000 men; and a portion of these troops is now keeping possession of Saxony for Prussia, whatever may be the determination of the Congress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, wait and see the result. So I would, and patiently, if the king of Prussia would withdraw his army from Saxony; but as matters now stand, the result will be, that the noble lord will return to England on that glorious day of triumph, and tell parliament that he could do nothing in the Congress, for he was obliged to yield to the forces of the king of Prussia.

insisted, that ministers were not responsible for the acts of prince Repnin, if he chose to yield the possession of Saxony to Prussia: they had no control over foreign generals. In the first place, he said, that government had no official knowledge of the transfer of Saxony; and, in the next, that they had no information whether our minister had or had not consented to the ultimate possession of it by Prussia.

. Then you know nothing about the matter?

added, that these subjects were matters of future arrangement by the Congress; they were not yet decided, and therefore the British minister could be no party to the proceeding.

would willingly have supposed it impossible that the Russian monarch could be a party to such a transaction; and to shew the different principles on which the allies commenced, he read the first article of the treaty of Chaumont, in which it was declared, "That the high contracting powers solemnly engage to apply all the means of their respective states to the vigorous prosecution of the war against France; and to employ them in perfect concert, in order to obtain for themselves, and for Europe, a general peace, under the protection of which the rights and liberties of all nations may be established and secured." How was it possible for ministers to deny that Saxony was for ever preceded to Prussia? Prince Repnin, in his Address, declares, that it is to be placed under "the powerful and paternal protection of Frederick William and his descendants." If so, it was a strange provisional occupation, which extended even to posterity. The instrument then spoke of the "fortitude of the king in adversity, and his magnanimity in prosperity." Where was his magnanimity in compelling the Saxons, by a military force, to submit to his authority? Where was his magnanimity in subjugating a country, to whose army at Leipsic the allies were indebted for their subsequent success, and in casting into a dungeon Thielman, the general who had commanded them?—His reward was imprisonment, and that of his army slavery! The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Congress had not yet met. What a miserable pretext! What a scandalous subterfuge! With all this accomplished, what was the British minister to do in the Congress; which, formed under pretence of giving protection to Europe, was to be employed only on schemes of subjugation, tyranny, and spoliation? The defence which ministers flattered themselves they had made, had only proved an additional reason for their condemnation; for if the ace counts in the German papers, and even in the Moniteur, the official gazette of France, were credited, what a miserable figure did the present administration cut! The very argument that it could not be true, because the Congress had not met, was an admission of the fact, that the Bri- tish minister had given his consent to these lawless measures. If he had consented, the British minister had disgraced his title, and betrayed the honour of his country.

, after the manner in which his noble colleague had been mentioned, felt called upon to say, that it did not rest simply upon the fact, that Congress had not yet met, but it rested upon the assertion, that, by the last accounts from our ambassador, no final arrangement for Saxony had yet taken place. He maintained, in contradiction to the statement of Mr Tierney, that although we paid for 75,000 men, we paid nothing towards the occupation of Saxony.

said, that the total amount of force to be kept on foot by the allies was 300,000 men, of which we paid for 75,000. Now, unless all our 75,000 were employed in the Netherlands, which no man would assert, where was the rest of our quota, if it did not constitute a part of the army of our allies on the continent, which force had been employed to take possession of Saxony? In point of fact, therefore, we were paying for the military occupation of that unfortunate kingdom. Would the right hon. gentleman say, that it was only a provisional possession to which lord Castlereagh had consented? and if so, why such a provisional possession was necessary?

did not mean to deny the fact, but he denied the inference of the right hon. gentleman. It was merely a transfer of the possession of Russia, who held it, to Prussia, who holds it now. It might be just as truly said, what power have you to negotiate respecting Poland, where we had no force?

complimented the right hon. gentleman on his talent at splitting hairs; he had not, however, at all affected the main question. Was it to be supposed, for a moment, that Russia would dare to publish to the world what she had done with regard to Saxony, if the consent of the British ambassador had not been obtained; or if it had not, would lord Castlereagh continue an instant longer at Vienna, to degrade the character and honour of his nation? The right hon, gentleman had said, that ministers were not responsible for the acts of the Russian prince. True: they had enough to answer for without that additional burthen, even with the support of the right hon. gentleman, who so generously, in an emer- gency on a former night, had volunteered his powerful aid. After all that ministers had said, all that it amounted to was, that the Congress had not met. But was it, or was it not the fact, that all the great points were settled before the assembly of the Congress? To revert to the proclamation of prince Repnin—Was it, or was it not a forgery? If not, and lord Castlereagh knew nothing of it, he had a right to demand that exemplary punishment should be inflicted upon the person who issued it. Was the wording of the document at all like a provisional arrangement? It began, "The administration of the kingdom of Saxony having been placed in the hands of the king of Prussia, by virtue of a convention between Russia and Prussia, and to which Austria and England have acceded," (lord Castlereagh had never been consulted, and yet prince Repnin had dared to assert that England was a party consenting!) "and the solemn delivery of the general government having been this day made by me to the baron Von Reek and major-general the baron Von Gandy, all the Saxon officers and inhabitants are informed, that they must address themselves to the new general government." It then went on to praise the king of Prussia, and to speak of the happiness and liberty the Saxons would enjoy under the rule of that noble, virtuous, and magnanimous prince. If this were a forgery, Mr. Whitbread called upon ministers to avow it: if it were not, and lord Castlereagh had given his colleagues no information upon the subject, although he was in possession of the whole, he had been grossly deficient in his duty. If it were true, that lord Castlereagh had consented, on the part of England, it was a humiliation and a degradation to this country, so low as to be beneath all expression.

observed, that he had never allowed that the proclamation was a forgery, but he did assert that it was unauthorized. He begged to know the date of it. [Mr. Whitbread said, "Dresden, 11th Nov."] It so happened that the last dispatches from lord Castlereagh were of that date, and of course he could not mention it. Certainly, if ministers were accountable for the acts of prince Repnin, they would deserve censure. It was an unauthenticated paper, and did not at all prove that the fate of Saxony was decided.

. Does lord Castlereagh, in his last dispatches, take any notice of such a proclamation?

. Or does he say any thing regarding the intended surrender of Saxony? [Mr. Bathurst smiled, but gave no answer]. Are we to understand distinctly, that lord Castlereagh, in his last dispatches of the 11th of November, does not mention the subject of the surrender of Saxony to Prussia?

No reply was made by ministers.

having resided for some time in Saxony, bore testimony to the desire of the natives for the rule of their ancient sovereign. From one end of the country to the other, from the noble to the peasant, there was scarcely a man who did not detest the transfer that was about to be made. There might be a few, but very few they were, who, by bribes, promises and threats, had been induced to join the cause of the king of Prussia. It was important for the House to know whether the British minister had been made acquainted with the transaction which had taken place. If he had not been made acquainted with the steps taken by Prussia with respect to Saxony, it was indicative of the mean estimation in which this country was held by the allied powers—an estimation inconsistent with the force which she maintained, and which could only be occasioned by the misconduct of his Majesty's representatives abroad. He had thought proper to state thus much, and on a future opportunity, if any occurred, he should enter more at large into the subject.

, without again reverting to the general question, whether or no Saxony had been taken possession of definitively, wished to state, that the convention supposed to be mentioned in prince Repnin's letter could not exist, as far as the consent of the British minister was concerned.

. Then prince Repnin must have published to all Europe a barefaced falsehood.

The conversation dropped, and the resolution before the House was agreed to. On the subsequent Resolution,

asked, what was the meaning of an item, in the estimates which had been printed, of 105l. to the right hon. George Rose, clerk of the parliaments, for Acts of Parliament?

stated, that it was an usual annual allowance to the clerk of the parliaments, instead of the copies of all Acts.

observed, that the 105l.

must be an allowance for getting the Acts by heart, instead of keeping copies, since it was the duty of Mr. Rose, in some manner, to be acquainted with them. Mr. Whitbread asked for what the 6,000l. which was voted for the expense of conveying the prince regent of Portugal to Europe was to be expended, and whether there was any certainty at what time the prince regent would actually return from the Brazils?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Arbuthnot explained, that though the precise time when the prince regent would return was not actually known, he had demanded a vessel for that purpose, and the appointment of the officer who had been nominated. The sum (which was only 4,500l.) was to be expended in such preparations for a proper reception of his royal highness on board the ship appointed, as individuals could not be expected to bear the charge of. A certain proportion of the money was to be drawn by each of the officers for the purpose.—The Resolutions were all agreed to.

did not think there could be any inconvenience in producing the information required, and should not therefore object to the motion.—Ordered.

, before he made the motion of which he had given notice, wished that the Act of the 42d Geo. 3, c. 90, for amending the laws relating to the militia in England, and for augmenting the militia, might be read; and the same being read accordingly, sir Samuel again rose. He said, it could hardly be necessary for him to apologize to the House for drawing their attention to a subject, the importance of which must be felt by every one. He should indeed want an excuse, if, without having viewed it attentively, he had brought this topic forward merely as a matter to embarrass ministers, or for the enjoyment which might arise from their awkward defence. Convinced that it was his duty to take all pains to investigate the merits of such a question, he had done so. He had considered it deeply in various points of view; he had consulted the gentlemen who could offer him the best opinions; he had listened to every argument that had been urged in public in favour of ministers; and the result was, in his own mind, that in keeping part of the militia embodied, they had acted both illegally and unconstitutionally. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to come before the House, and having done so, could not too soon enter into an explanation of his views upon the subject. When he said that the militia were kept embodied in an illegal manner, he did not mean that the fact of illegality exempted those who were enrolled, or might afterwards be ballotted, from executing the duties of their situation. He considered them all bound to pay obedience to their officers, and to the regulations under which they were called to serve. It remained solely with his Majesty to disembody and release them: and the only question was, whether his Majesty ought not, according to law, to have been advised so to disembody them. There were many questions of prerogative involved in great difficulty, many that could only be solved through the medium of abstract reasoning and puzzling analogies; but on this question there could be no difficulty; it depended entirely on the plain words of the statute: it required no lawyer to interpret them, for every man who could understand English was a sufficient judge of their import. The Act authorized his Majesty to call out the militia under four circumstances: in case of invasion, of imminent danger, rebellion, or insurrection. He would now ask the House, whether the country was in such a state as indicated the approach of any of those calamities? Should any of those unexpectedly arise, the Act directed that his Majesty should state the case to parliament; and if parliament were not sitting, should make the necessity for calling out the militia known by proclamation, and should immediately assemble the legislature of the country. If the House considered the state of the nation in times past, it would only serve to confirm the opinion, that without a violation of the law, no part of the militia could be kept embodied. It was in a state of profound peace and undisturbed internal security that a portion of that force was kept on foot, separated from their families, and subjected to all the inconveniences and rigours of martial law. The institution of the militia, however, although it pressed hard on the lower orders, and exacted great sacrifices from them, was, upon the whole, an excellent institution, on which the country justly relied with most confidence for its protection. At all times, a salutary jealousy had been entertained of the power of the crown over a standing army. Divided from the rest of society, subjected to different laws, and bound for no stated period, a standing army had always been considered a dangerous weapon to be intrusted to the sovereign authority. The militia, on the contrary, was regarded as the great pillar and safest defence of the country. This body were not to be torn from their occupations and their families, and put upon service, till actual danger demanded their exertions. Until called out, they retained all the privileges of the constitution, which were only suspended during the existence of peril. Every thing that tended to alter that spirit, and to retain them far from their homes longer than it was necessary, was not only most injurious but most unconstitutional. Though, in common with the rest of the world, he admired the conduct of those high-spirited men, who, out of the militia, had volunteered their services in foreign countries, yet he could not refrain from lamenting how considerably it impaired the institution itself. Such an example could not take place without altering the disposition of the men; and any thing that contributed to pervert the spirit and original purity of the militia, was, in his opinion, decidedly wrong. The legislature had always intended that the character of citizen should be suspended for as short a period as possible. Originally, the militia were not made to serve out of their own counties, except, as by the Act of Edward 1, in cases of sudden invasion. This was confirmed by the 4th of Henry 4, and lasted under Charles 1 and Charles 2, one of whose first Acts was one for regulating the calling out of the militia, who were not to serve oat of their respective countries. The 2nd of George 2 brought the law nearly to the situation in which it now stood, the militia being only allowed to be called out in cases of invasion, imminent danger, or rebellion; insurrection not being inserted, lest the crown should have turned that defensive army into one of offence. But the prerogative of calling the militia out could not be exercised without first stating the necessity of the case to parliament; or if it were not sitting, publishing it by proclamation, and immediately assembling the legislature. The 16th and 42nd of the King contained the same provisions, with this only difference, that the militia were to be assembled to repel invasion, or repress insurrection. Its calling out and service were then co-extensive with the necessity of the case. In the two last Acts the same words had been used, with this addition, for the purpose of repelling or preventing invasion, and suppressing insurrection. When, in 1776, it became necessary to send a large force to America, then in a state of rebellion, the ministers of those times came to parliament to desire that an Act should be passed to call out the militia, in case of rebellion in any part of his Majesty's dominions. The Act passed, but not without considerable opposition, and even then its duration was limited to seven years. Before they ended, the independence of America had been recognized; and there was, therefore, no ground for the continuance of the militia beyond that period. In the present case, we had been nearly six months at peace with every power in Europe, neither was any part of the united kingdom threatened with invasion, imminent danger, rebellion, or insurrection. If the militia were now kept on foot, therefore, it might remain so during the rest of his Majesty's reign, or at least during the whole of the American war. The only reason hitherto given for its continuance was, that this country was still at war. Yes, we were still at war, but with America; and the House must recollect what species of war the Act alluded to when it was passed: it referred to a contest which brought the danger of invasion to our very doors, with an enemy only a few leagues from our shores, on which, after a few hours sailing, he might land. Now, could it be thought, even by the most credulous in his Majesty's dominions, that the present contest exposed us to invasion. As well might the militia be called out if we went to war with the day of Algiers, or some Indian prince. Such a proposition was monstrous. It might be said, that although the law imposed great restrictions on the power of calling out the militia, it laid none on that of keeping it embodied. But he hardly thought such an argument would be used in that House. He did not expect it would be contended that the intent of the Act was to leave the crown wholly disembarrassed, with respect to the disembodying of the militia. He did not conceive, that when so many difficulties were made to attend the calling out of the militia, even at a moment of pressing danger, the law should give the king the power of continuing it as long as he pleased, even when the causes for which it had been assembled had ceased to operate, or perhaps even long after the war with America should be closed. He wished the House to consider what might be the duration of that war, carried on for the objects now avowed (at least made apparent through the publication of our diplomatic correspondence by the Americans), and in the mode now adopted; a mode contrary to the usages of all civilized nations, and likely, instead of conciliating our enemy, and leading to a speedy termination of the contest, to inflame hostility, and create an unquenchable hatred between the two countries. It was said that his Majesty's ministers were sanctioned in their opinion as to the legality of keeping the militia embodied by the law officers of the crown—the attorney and solicitor general.^* Although he had the highest respect for these authorities, he should have had more respect for their Opinion, if it had been delivered under different circumstances from those under which it had been given. The proper course to have pursued, would have been to have called for an opinion as to the legality of a measure, and then to have taken measures accordingly. But the Opinion of the law officers of the crown had been taken but lately. Ministers had taken their measures first, and then resorted to their law advisers to know whether they had acted legally. The minds of the advisers were thus necessarily influenced by the conduct of those who, they would of course suppose, were possessed of some knowledge of constitutional law. He had not seen the Opinion of the law officers, although it had been circulated; and he could not, therefore, conceive the reasons on which they supported their opinion. None of the four causes for embodying the militia existed. It was evident, that the cessation of these causes was the period at which it should be disembodied, since it was particularly mentioned, that the militia should be called out only for the purpose of repelling invasion, or suppressing insurrection. Such care and anxiety having been manifested to prevent an improper exercise of the prerogative in calling the militia out, it was impossible that no limits should have been intended to have been assigned to their continuing embodied. The causes of calling out the militia having ceased, it ought to be matter of deep consideration with ministers, how far they were justified in continuing to the country those heavy burthens under which they had so long laboured. If any great and urgent cause existed for such a proceeding, let it be fully and fairly stated to the House. In 1776, the ministry of the day had amply represented to the House the reasons for their conduct; those persons, to say the least of them,were not supposed to have a very superstitious veneration for the constitution of their country, yet they had not ventured to do what had been done by the present administration: they had treated both the House and the country with more respect, and had entered into the fullest explanation of their motives and their conduct. The hon. and learned gentleman observed, that it seemed not improbable that the militia were, on this occasion, continued embodied without any special necessity, but merely to show the power of the crown, and so to establish a precedent for extending the royal prerogative beyond its legal bounds. He would say nothing of the conduct of ministers in continuing particular regiments embodied after others had been disbanded; but having admitted that it was perfectly legal to maintain the military subordination of the militia, he thought it necessary to appeal to the House on the part of those who were then retained in military service contrary to the intention of the legislature, by which the militia law was framed, and contrary also to their own just expectation. He meant the privates, who must be subjected, by this measure, to great harshness and inconveniencies. To have men who were not reared to a military life, who were probably, in the first instance, torn from their homes and families, to serve in the militia, compelled to remain in that body without any necessity, must be felt as a very severe grievance, especially when the disappointment of their hopes upon the conclusion of a definitive treaty of peace, and the too probable forlorn condition of their wives and children, were taken into consideration. The House would, he trusted, feel for the situation of these men, who might be thus condemned to the most painful reflections, in consequence of a measure which he conceived, and which these men themselves would be too apt to conceive, as a great breach of the public faith. The balloted man must naturally expect, as indeed all other men expected, that his services would cease upon the conclusion of peace. So much, indeed, was it the right of the balloted man to look for the termination of his services on the event of peace, that if ministers had afterwards thought it necessary even to apply to parliament for leave to continue the militia embodied, it was his settled opinion, that parliament could not consistently accede to the application, without allowing the balloted men to be dismissed, and ordering a fresh ballot. This opinion he would maintain to be correct, unless parliament undertook to make an ex post facto law, or rescinded its faith. But it was not only the balloted man who had a right to complain of being compelled to serve after the conclusion of peace; substitutes also were aggrieved; for these men must have looked for the termination of their services on the event of peace. Under all the circumstances of the case, the hon. and learned gentleman declared, that whatever might be the decision of the House on the motion he was about to submit, he should rejoice at having brought the question into discussion, in order that it might be seen, that although ministers had thought proper, in this instance, to adopt a measure contrary to law, on the ground of special necessity, that measure was not silently overlooked; and in the hope that such a step would not be drawn into precedent, but on the contrary, if it should hereafter be referred to, would be regarded rather as an example to be avoided, than as a precedent to be followed. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving, "That this country having been for more than five months at peace with all the powers of Europe, and in a state of undisturbed internal tranquility, the still continuing a part of the militia embodied is contrary to the spirit and plain intent of the said Act, and a manifest violation of the constitution."

^* The following is a copy of the Circular Letter sent by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to the commanding officers of those regiments of

British militia which remain embodied, together with the Opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General therin referred to:

"Whitehall, Nov.18th, 1814.

"Sir; Some doubts having been expressed as to the legality of keeping the militia, or any part of it, embodied, under the present circumstances in which the country is placed, the question has been referred for the consideration of his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, a copy of whose Opinion thereon I have the honour to enclose.

"You will not fail to take the earliest opportunity of communicating the same to the regiment under your command, and you will at the same time explain to the men, that as the oath taken by the substitutes and volunteers is to serve for five years, or for such further time as the militia may remain embodied, and not (as has been erroneously supposed) during the war, no substitute or volunteer is entitled to his discharge until the militia shall have been actually disembodied. And you will add, that although it is the unquestionable right of his Majesty to keep the militia embodied, notwithstanding the termination of the war with France, it is nevertheless the Prince Regent's wish and intention to order the disembodying of the remaining regiments to take place with as little delay as may be consistent with a due regard to the public safety; and he trusts that, until that period shall arrive, the conduct of the men will be marked by that steady attention to their duty and to the commands of their officers, by which it has been uniformly distinguished since they have been embodied. I am, Sir,

"SIDMOUTH.

"To the Officers commanding those Regiments of British Militia which remain embodied."

"Lincoln's-Inn, Nov. 17th, 1814.

"My lord; We have had the honour to receive your lordship's letter of yesterday's date, stating that some doubts having been expressed, whether the militia of Great Britain can legally be kept embodied under the present circumstances in which the country is placed, your lordship is pleased to desire, that we will take into our immediate consideration the several

Acts relating to the militia, particularly the 42nd Geo. 3, cap. 90 and 91; and report to you, for the information of his royal highness the Prince Regent, our opinion whether, under any, and what circumstances, it is imperative upon the king to order the immediate disembodying of the militia.

"We have accordingly considered the same, and beg leave to report to your lordship, that we are of opinion, that when once the militia have been embodied upon the occasions stated in, and according to the provisions of the Acts, there is nothing imperative in the Act, as to the time at, or occasion upon which, the militia is to be disembodied; there is a discretion upon the subject of disembodying the militia vested in his Majesty, subject always to the responsibility which attaches upon the ministers of his Majesty, if they shall advise him to continue the militia embodied when no circumstances exist, in which the external relations or internal situation of the country could make the continuance of the militia in their embodied state a matter of expedience for the general welfare and benefit of his Majesty's government and dominions.

"It may not be improper to add, that as by the statute 42 Geo. 3, c. 20, s. 3, his Majesty is empowered, in the cases there stated, to embody 'the whole of the militia force of the country, or so many of the regiments, or such part or proportion of them, or any of them, as his Majesty shall in his wisdom think necessary, and in such manner as shall be best adapted to the circumstances of the danger;' and as by section 144 it is provided, that it shall be lawful for his Majesty from time to time, as he shall think fit, to disembody any part or proportion of any militia embodied under the Act, and from time to time again to draw out and embody any such militia so embodied, or any proportion thereof, as to his Majesty shall seem necessary.'

"We are of opinion, that if the external and internal situation of the country shall, at any time, in the judgment of his Majesty, call for and justify a reduction of the militia force of the realm, such reduction, by disembodying, can be governed only by the sound discretion of his Majesty's ministers; and that if a partial reduction

of some regiments shall at any time be ordered, it by no means follows that any other regiments, or any person serving in any regiment, not included in his Majesty's order for disembodying, are entitled to, or can claim to be discharged from service; but that it must be in the discretion of his Majesty's government, acting upon their knowledge of facts, and upon their constitutional responsibility, if they shall see proper, to suspend any order which may have been issued, but not in fact carried into execution. We have, &c.

"right">W. GARROW.

"right">"S. SHEPHERD.

"Lord Viscount Sidmouth,

&c. &c. &c.

said, that being one of those legal advisers to whom his hon. and learned friend had referred, he felt himself bound to vindicate the opinion he had given; and notwithstanding the deference which he felt for every thing that fell from his hon. and learned friend, he had no hesitation in stating that he still retained the opinion which he had officially delivered upon this subject. Therefore, upon the question, whether it was legal or not on the part of the crown to continue the militia embodied, he entertained not the slightest doubt; but, whether it were expedient or not to advise the crown to exercise its legal right, he could not pretend to say. That question must be determined by others more competent to judge as to the real circumstances in which the country was placed. On the question of expediency his Majesty's ministers were to answer. But whatever the degree of expediency might be, he would not vindicate an illegal act; for ministers would not be justifiable in advising his Majesty to act against the law, unless, indeed, upon some case of imperious exigency, for which it would become them afterwards to apply to parliament for an indemnity. An act, however, might be perfectly legal in the crown to do or to order, which it would not be expedient to advise, or for which advice ministers would be constitutionally responsible; for instance, it belonged to the prerogative of the crown to make war or peace. This was indisputably legal; but for advising the crown so to do, his Majesty's ministers were amenable to the judgment of that House. Still the making war or peace could not be deemed illegal, although such proceedings might be pronounced inexpedient, impolitic, or, he might even add, corrupt. He agreed with the hon. and learned mover as to his description of the law with respect to the causes for calling out the militia. For invasion, or the imminent danger of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, were, to use a legal phrase, the condition precedent for calling out that body; so the statute stated; but he looked in vain for a single clause or letter in that statute prescribing when or under what circumstances the militia should be disembodied. The law was wholly silent upon that head, and from that silence he inferred that the militia, being called out, it was legal to continue them embodied so long as the crown should think meet; that this point, indeed, was left to the discretion of the crown, subject, however, to the responsibility of those ministers who advised the exercise of that discretion. Such was his construction of the Act, because, from the beginning to the end of it, he found not a word as to the time at which the militia should be disembodied. In other acts, with respect to trade, for instance, in which some relaxation of the law was ordained, the period or circumstances at which that relaxation should cease, was distinctly described. It was mentioned, that the Act should cease six months after the war, or at some other distant period. But in this Act relative to the embodying of the militia, not a sentence was to be found prescriptive of the time at which it should be disembodied. Hence he concluded, that as no restriction was imposed none was intended, and that the legislature meant to leave that question to be determined by the discretion of the crown. With regard to the hon. and learned mover's reference to the Act of 1776, when ministers, in consequence of the rebellion in America, applied to parliament to authorize his Majesty to call out the militia, that reference had, in fact, no analogy to the case under consideration. In order to have any analogy, the militia should have been embodied at the time, and the application should have been for authority to continue it embodied. But the application was authority to call out the militia; therefore the hon. and learned gentleman's quotation was not applicable to the present question. For the question now was, whether, the militia having been called out, it was legal to continue it embodied? In his opinion it was clearly legal, subject, he repeated, to the constitutional responsibility of ministers, and to the control of that House. For let it be recollected, that the continuance of the militia embodied was still completely subject to the control of that House, with whom it rested to grant or to deny the means of paying that body according to its judgment, with whom it rested to decide upon the mutiny bill; therefore that House, if it thought fit, had virtually the power of disembodying, of course that House still retained a full control over the militia corps and on this ground, at least, no complaint could be urged against that exercise of the power of the crown, for the legality of which he contended. To the doctrine of the hon. and learned mover he could not, therefore, by any means subscribe. But there was a part of the hon. and learned mover's observation which appeared to him quite unaccountable: for if, as the hon. and learned mover maintained, it was illegal to continue the militia embodied under existing circumstances, he could not conceive how the militia-men should be legally bound to continue in that body, and conform to military law. Certainly, there was an apparent inconsistency in this doctrine. As to the hon. and learned mover's proposition, that to continue the militia embodied was contrary to the spirit of the Act, he for himself did not know where to look for the spirit of the law but in its letter, and that letter was, as he had endeavoured to show, quite contrary to the hon. and learned mover's proposition; and that proposition being untenable, he did not know how he could maintain his second proposition, that the measure under discussion was a violation of the constitu- tion. If it was a part of the prerogative of the crown, as he contended, to continue the militia embodied, he could not see how the exercise of that prerogative could be deemed a violation of the constitution. He could not pretend to define what the hon. and learned mover meant by the term unconstitutional; but to his mind, what was legal could not be unconstitutional; and he was prepared to maintain that the measure objected to by the hon. and learned mover was perfectly legal. No one was less disposed to confide in his own judgment than himself; for no one felt himself more liable to error, or, he believed, was more ready to confess it. Indeed, he always endeavoured to convince himself that he was wrong, and when so convinced by others, he was ever prompt to admit his error. Of course, he paid all possible attention to the arguments of the hon. and learned mover, but they had by no means convinced him that his opinion was wrong upon this subject; and before he adopted that opinion, he could assure the House that he applied his mind with the utmost care to the examination of the law. From this examination his mind came to quite a different conclusion from that which the hon. and learned mover maintained, and therefore he should feel it his duty to vote against the motion.

observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, had pursued the course which it was too much the habit of lawyers to follow in that House and elsewhere, namely, an adherence to the letter without regarding the spirit of the law. According to the hon. and learned gentleman's reading of the law, which described the several cases which authorized the crown to call out the militia, his view was, it appeared, wholly confined to the letter. But, in order to understand the spirit of that law, it was necessary to refer to the circumstances under which the militia was put upon its present footing, and to the practice which had since prevailed. This country was, in 1758, at war with European nations, from whom there was reason to apprehend invasion; and hence invasion, or the danger of invasion, were assigned in the Act as causes to authorize the crown to call out the militia. To this cause rebellion or insurrection were very properly added. It was thence perfectly clear, that against these dangers alone the legislature contemplated the calling out or embodying the militia. But, according to the hon. and learned gentleman, when the militia were once called out, it was left to the discretion of the crown to decide when they should be disembodied. So that if the hon. and learned gentleman's opinion were good for any thing, it would go this length, that the militia, being once called out, the crown had the right of continuing them embodied for an indefinite period—in truth, that they might be continued embodied to all eternity. Such was the hon. and learned gentleman's view in judging of the letter of the Act, without any regard to its spirit; but, however consonant the hon. and learned gentleman's argument might be to the practice of special pleading, he could not suppose that it would be deemed very consistent with the judgment of that House, or with common sense. There was one consideration very important to this case, to which be (lord Milton) wished particularly to call the attention of the House; he meant with regard to the officers of the militia. These gentlemen, to whom a qualification of property was requisite, gave their services during war, as parliament had a right to expect, and he believed its expectations had been justified; but was it to be expected that they would be willing to continue their services in a period of peace? He rather apprehended not; and should they abandon the militia, it was but too likely to lose its constitutional character. But the measure under discussion only formed a part of a system, which had been long too evident—a wish to deprive the militia of its constitutional character. That body had been long, by the operation of that system, approaching to a regular army. By this measure, indeed, he apprehended that the object of this system was nearly accomplished; that the constitutionality of the militia was nearly gone; and that it nearly ceased to be that which it was originally contemplated, namely, the guardian of the liberties of the people. Such appearing to be the system of ministers, it could not be expected that the militia would continue long to be officered as it had been hereto-fore; and the direction of that body must therefore devolve upon another description of officers, to whom, without meaning any disparagement, the country must look with a very different feeling. The militia, in a word, were likely to be officered by the same description as the standing army; and if so, where would be the difference between that body and a standing army? In fact, he would in that case think a standing army to the same amount much more preferable, because the constitutionality of the militia being done away, a standing army would be much more efficient, as applicable to all descriptions of service. The noble lord expressed himself extremely glad to hear that the persons now serving in the militia were legally bound to continue their services, because that opinion, from such high authority, would operate much to reconcile these persons to their fate. After adverting to the grievance to which both balloted men and substitutes felt themselves subject, in being compelled, contrary to their expectations, to continue their services, the noble lord stated, that he had received several complaints upon the subject from a regiment of militia, which continued embodied in Ireland; and concluded with expressing a wish, that, if ministers thought it probable the necessity would soon cease which they urged in justification of the measure complained of, they would make some declaration respecting it, in order to allay the dissatisfaction which so generally prevailed out of doors.

would wish to state what was his general practice in giving his vote. When he could acquiesce in any motion, he felt little anxiety to trouble the House. With the present motion he most cordially acquiesced; but not so with the doctrine laid down in opposition to it; and, therefore, he could not let the debate pass, and allow this doctrine to stand uncontradicted. He felt extremely gratified that the subject had been submitted to the House; for he should have been sorry to observe, at a distance of six months after a definitive treaty of peace had been signed, and which had fortunately placed this country in a state of peace with all Europe, that the militia, that peculiar part of our national force, was not to be disembodied, and that no arguments had been opposed to this in tension. It was of the utmost consequence that a full discussion on this important subject should take place; for when it was known that his Majesty had no power to draw out and embody the militia, except in time of war, and when we were told that, being so drawn out, it was to be kept embodied under circumstances which he believed were without example, then the sanction of the House for such a proceeding to-day, would become a precedent for to-morrow; and that which was a novelty at the end of this war, would, at the commencement of the next peace, be quoted as an example; so that what was transmitted as doctrine to-day, a doctrine sanctioned by eminent persons, high in office, would, in the next parliament, be taken as authority, if suffered to pass uncontradicted; while those who at this time could have little supposed that such a precedent would have been introduced, would hereafter find it repeated and justified. He said, he would examine the grounds for this measure. We had to deal with an act of parliament, and it had been said by his hon. and learned friend, that this Act was so circumscribed, that his Majesty could not only not draw out and embody the militia by merely mentioning the fact, or intention of so doing, but it was made imperative on the crown to enumerate the grounds and reasons on which they shall be drawn out. This was particularly explained by the 113th section of the Act; which stated, that his Majesty may and shall have the power of calling out the militia under certain exigencies; but this very power was made a substantial cause for calling parliament together; and without regard to the season of the year, or any other circumstances through which the parliament might not be sitting, it must be assembled for the immediate purpose of considering the grounds for drawing out this force; and there were only those four legal occasions already stated by his hon. and learned friend, which justified the measure at all; and though other occasions might arise, which might render the services of the militia desirable, yet, on no other occasion was his Majesty authorized to draw them out, than on those that were specified in the Act. If any professional or unprofessional man meddled with such a subject as this, he would think that the noble lord's advice was most judiciously offered to him. Was it to be argued, that this House should do nothing but look At, the mere letter of the law, as if they were in the chambers of counsellors asking for advice? He would recommend them to read the 111th and 113th sections of the Act, anti see the purpose for which alone these clauses were framed. Was there arty mortal tongue that could convince him that because, for the purpose of repelling invasion subduing rebellion, the crown had the power of drawing out the militia, that, when they were so drawn out, he had the power to keep them so, in peace, in war, or for ever? He was utterly at a loss to discover when this power of the crown was to cease. If peace were concluded with America to-morrow, from what had been said, how was it to be known that the power would then be discontinued? It would seem that it was in the power of the King to keep them embodied as long as he pleased. The question was, ought the King to have been advised to keep them embodied at this time? Or rather, ought not the King to have been advised to have disembodied them? But the learned gentleman had said, that there was no specific time for this pointed out by the Act. Why, if there were no specific time stated for their dismissal, ought we not to look into the purposes for which their embodying was authorised? In all cases, when any temporary measure or tax was proposed, there was an express time limited for its duration. Thus the income tax was to cease, not on any 5th of April, but on the 5th of April next following the conclusion of a general peace. The serving of the militia was limited by the purposes for which the power was given for calling them out; and if the causes were not to be looked into for keeping them embodied, it might be said to the country, "You have a standing army, differing in no respect from the regular force; and as parliament annually comes to vote money for the standing army and the militia, what difference can there be between the latter and the former?" Suppose any man had put such a construction on the Act twenty-four years ago, and had asserted that the militia might by law be kept up for ever, the most languid brain that could have generated such an opinion would have been ridiculed as filled with chimeras and ideas that were impossible to be realized. Who could say that this country was at any period of the last war free from the danger of invasion? Who could assert, that when France was in possession of such an immense line of coast, and commanding all the ports which it contains, this country might not have been invaded? But when, in June 1814, a definitive treaty of peace was concluded, and parliament had met in November, and sat towards two months without any communication being made by his Majesty's ministers concerning the disembodying of the militia, was not this force converted into a standing army? The motion, however, would at least be attended with this effect, that the public would know what was the opinion of the servants of the crown as to the nature of the militia. But he hoped he should not see that opinion supported by the final vote of the House this night. There was nothing in the state of the country that the peace-officers were not adequate to; nothing that justified the keeping the militia embodied. He gave his most cordial concurrence to the motion of his hon. and learned friend, and should have been deeply concerned, if no one member had not thought it necessary to submit it to the House.

agreed in the principle that had been laid down, that the question ought not to be considered merely as one of technical accuracy, but that it should be argued upon broad and general 0-grounds. Before, however, he proceeded to deliver his opinions, he was anxious to correct a mistake which existed, as to what had been delivered by his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General. Nothing which had fallen from him could be at all construed to infer, that when the militia was once called out, the ministers might advise the crown to keep it embodied for ever: on the contrary, the whole hearing of his hon. and learned friend's argument was, that though nothing specifically appeared as to when the militia should be disembodied, yet the ministers, in continuing to keep it embodied, after all necessity for it had ceased, were subject to a heavy responsibility. There was a marked distinction, be apprehended, between the two cases. With regard to the general question, if they looked at the circumstances under which the several acts had been passed, it would occur to every one, that there was a most material difference between the power of calling out the militia, and the power of continuing it embodied. Let them look only for a moment to some of the consequences that would inevitably flow from the arguments laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. Suppose, the case of invasion, for instance, or the imminent danger of invasion, that the militia were in consequence called out, and the invaders defeated, then the imminence of the danger would cease, and, according to the construction of the hon. and learned gentleman, the militia must be put down immediately, even though the war were still going on; and if a fresh attempt at invasion were made or threatened, they must be again called out at a great expense. Apply the hon. and learned gentleman's arguments to a case of rebellion, and the same inconsistency would be manifest. Suppose a rebellion in Northumberland, and the militia called out: the rebellion is put down, and the militia must be instantly disembodied, though ministers should know that another rebellion was actually about to break forth in another part of the kingdom. Such would be the necessary consequence of the hon. and learned gentleman's construction, though it was manifest, from the very nature of things, that such a construction could not be the true and legitimate one. The legislature, in fact, had wisely placed every guard round the power of the crown in calling out the militia; but when it was once called out, it was left to the discretion of ministers, subject to responsibility, fairly and honestly to decide upon the necessity or propriety of continuing it. The very words of the militia acts confirmed that doctrine. In one of the sections it was expressly stated, that the militia were to be disembodied when his Majesty should think fit. [Hear, hear, from the opposition benches.] He quoted from memory, but if he was not greatly mistaken, those words would be found in the 144th section of the Act of the 42nd of the King: he was not surprised at the seeming incredulity of the hon. gentlemen opposite; for if those were the terms of that section, as he firmly believed, what could be more explicit? All that was contended for on that side of the House was, that, in continuing the militia embodied, there was nothing illegal per se; for if it had been thought necessary to continue the same caution and securities in putting the militia down, which were employed in calling it forth, they would have been repeated in the latter clauses of the Act. One hon. member had said, that it would be better to send home the militia and keep up a larger portion of the standing army; but he was, indeed, surprised to hear such a doctrine from that side of the House. Had such a measure been adopted, there would soon have been an outcry raised that our liberties were endangered. It was, in fact, essential to the constitution of this country that a force like the militia should be kept up, under the command of officers possessing landed property; and he was astonished to hear a standing army preferred. But it was said the militia it- self resembled a standing army. How was it possible it could ever become assimilated to a standing army? Were not the officers compelled to have a qualification?—[No, no, from the opposition benches.] The superior officers certainly were compelled to have the qualifications required by law, though he was aware that, in consequence of the extended service of the militia during the last war, it had been deemed advisable to admit the subaltern officers without them. But, was there nothing else that discriminated the officers of the militia from those of the regular army? Were they so dependent upon the crown? Did they look forward to promotion by the crown in the same way as the officers of the standing army did? He was far from meaning to insinuate that any of the latter would be disposed, even if required, to aid in subjugating the liberties of their fellow subjects; but he was treating the matter as a great constitutional question, and in that view it was allowable to contrast the political condition of the officers in the two descriptions of service. An hon. gentleman had said, why did not ministers come to parliament, and demand its approbation for the course they had pursued? But surely that was begging the question. If the ministers had believed they were acting illegally, though in a great state emergency, they might then have thought it necessary to apply to parliament for an indemnification; but if they were right, as he contended they were, in their construction of the Act, why should they come to parliament for a sanction to do that which was in itself legal? Such was his view of the question, which he had with great humility ventured to offer to the House, and he should certainly vote against the motion.

said, he had heard some doctrines advanced in the House that night with greater surprise than he had ever felt in his life before. He had heard a learned and hon. gentleman, high in office under the crown, confess that he did not know what was meant by the spirit of a law, as distinguished from its technical signification. It was, however, not only the duty of that House to discriminate between the spirit and the letter of a law; but he would say, that the moat eminent and learned amongst those who sat on the judicial bench, regulated their conduct and proceedings, in numerous instances, by what, in their judgment, they conceived to be the intent, the meaning, and the spirit of the laws. Was there ever a judge who administered the law technically and literally, discarding wholly from his thoughts its meaning and spirit, so far as he could collect them by gravely considering the aim and purpose for which they were enacted;? But the hon. and learned Solicitor General had delivered other doctrines, which alarmed him even more than the preceding one had surprised him. The hon. and learned gentleman had advanced the doctrine, that when the crown once got an armed force into its power, it had the right to keep that force as long as it should think proper, without any view whatever to the occasion that produced it. He had heard of prerogative doctrines, and of prerogative lawyers, but he never heard of a gentleman, respectable in his profession, like the hon. and learned member, deliver such doctrines, at least since James 2 abdicated the throne. [Hear, hear!] Now, with respect to the question, he admitted that the act of parliament did not state, in express words, when the disembodying of the militia was to take place; but the sole and only discretion entrusted to the ministers of the crown upon the subject was, that they should determine whether it was fit to continue the militia embodied, with reference to the causes that had called them out. That was the amount of their discretion, and those were the limits that bounded it. Let them take either of the four cases specifically set forth by the Act; but, whether one or the other, they had no authority or power to step beyond it. Upon what ground did they call out the militia? Suppose rebellion: when rebellion was fairly and truly put down in the dominions, the ministers and the crown were bound, by the spirit of the law, to disembody the militia. But it was really absurd—the sort of argument that had been employed by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, who supposed, that if; rebellion were crushed in Northumberland, and yet ready to break out in Norfolk, that, even under such circumstances, the militia would be disbanded, according to the construction of the Act by the hon. and learned gentleman behind him (sir Arthur Pigott). He should be ashamed to waste a moment in reply-plying to such a supposition. The cases which legally provided for the continuance of the militia, were clear and ob-vious. The object of the law was to jus- tify the crown in keeping the militia embodied as long as real danger existed, or A revival of it was immediately to be apprehended. If the hon. and learned gentleman could show, that in the war with America there was imminent danger of invasion, it would be some justification of keeping the militia embodied, although the cause of their having been originally embodied, was the danger of invasion from France. But did the hon. and learned gentleman think that commodore M'Donough's fleet could sail from Lake Champlain and invade us? It was impossible that any man—that any child—could entertain a fear of invasion from America. Where was, then, the danger? Which of the four causes declared by the legislature to be grounds for calling out the militia, at present existed? Was there invasion? or imminent danger of invasion? or insurrection? or rebellion? If there was one subject on which the House of Commons was, or at least used to be, more jealous than-another, it was entrusting the crown with a great military force. If a military force were necessary, it was desirable that that description of force should be maintained, which, under the existing circumstances, the crown could legally use. However he and those who thought-with him revered the principles on which the militia was founded, they did not wish to keep them embodied against the law; not that they preferred a regular army, but simply because, by law, the crown could not keep that description of force afoot. The hon. and learned gentleman had contended, that no particular time for disembodying the militia was specified in the Act; and that parliament had the power, if they thought proper to exercise it, of interfering in the subject, either by withholding the necessary supplies for the payment of the militia, or by refusing to extend the provisions of the Mutiny Act to that description of force But did fun the hon. and learned gentleman recollect, that twelve months might elapse before parliament could interpose; and would it, therefore, be lawful to continue the militia embodied during that period, three! contradiction to the spirit of the law? His decided opinion was, that the crown was bound by the spirit of the law; and that if it could not be shown that any of the four causes which alone justified the embodying of the militia existed, the crown was bound either to part with the militia or to come to parliament and acquire the power, by an act of the legislature, of retaining it in active service.

, jun. maintained; that the militia, though called out for one purpose, might lawfully be kept together for another: called out, as in 1793, to put down insurrection, they might afterwards be kept out to repel invasion: This he supported by a reference to the Local Militia Act; in which, to mark the distinction between the service required of them and that of the regular militia, it was expressly stated, that they should be disbanded within six weeks after the repulse of an invading enemy. Thus, as no such provision was made with respect to the ordinary militia, he regarded as a proof that the intentions of the legislature had been, that they should not be disbanded immediately on the danger being averted which they were first called out to meet. He would assert, it was no novelty to the constitution to say that the militia might be kept up after the first cause of their being called out was removed, in order to enable the regular army to prosecute any national object on the continent of Europe or elsewhere. In proof of this, he referred to the proceeding of 1759: the spring of that year the militia was called out, in consequence of a Message from his Majesty, stating the kingdom to be in imminent danger of invasion from France. In the month of November of that year, the French attempted their invasion; they were, however, met and defeated by admiral Hawke, and forded to abandon their design. From that time the danger was over. Not a whisper of invasion was heard; and instead of apprehending that a foreign force would invade England, our army was actively employed on the continent, and we became the invaders of the territories of France. But what was the consequence of this with respect to the militia? It was not disbanded; because that state of things which had Made it necessary to: call it out, existed no longer. It was kept up through the years 1761 and 1762. His majesty salted supplies to enable him to increase the regular army; and instead of-disbanding the militia, when the danger which had first caused them to be called out had vanished, they were kept in arms, that the regular army might be free to pursue a national object on the continent. Passing over the: American war, he noticed the calling out of the militia, in 1793, to check insurrection They were kept out to repel invasion, and this had not been objected to. In the last war, they had been called out to, oppose invasion. This danger, however, had not been apprehended through the whole course of the war; yet the militia had been kept out, and the House of Commons had never said any thing on the subject. Never before, when the militia had been used to fill the gap left by the regular troops being employed on the continent, and kept embodied for the internal defence of the country, had it been considered to be unconstitutional, though we had for our defence a regular army of 200,000 men. He was surprised that those who represented Europe to be in such an unsettled state, and who thought the happy days we had expected were no more to be hoped for, should, under such circumstances, call for the militia to be disbanded. He did not concur with them in the view which they took of the prospect opening before this country, but he could see abundant reason for not disembodying the militia, at all events, till the result of the pending negociations were known. It was well known to the House, that there was at present a great demand for the services of our regular troops, both on the continent of Europe and in America; and therefore, at such a period, he thought it desirable that the militia should be kept up, in order to set the greatest possible proportion of our regular army free.

thought, that if the militia were to be continued any longer embodied, they ought in point of justice to receive fresh bounties. By disembodying some of the regiments, government had manifested a consciousness of the illegality of their conduct, and had thus given a practical construction of the Act. Substitutes, at all events, ought to be disbanded, or receive new bounties.

said, if the hon. gentleman would turn to the Act, he would find that it was provided that substitutes should serve so long as the-militia continued to be embodied.

made a short and spirited reply. He said he was sorry that he could not congratulate the House on the course which this discussion had taken. It new appeared that the militia were not to be disembodied, Whilst the American war or the Congress at Vienna should continue. It had now become a question; not of a few months more or less, but a question of years and of an indefinite period, and that the responsibility of ministers was all to which it could be referred. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General should have said, that the phrase of 'the spirit of the Act' was something too vague for his understanding. Could there be any doubt that the militia must of course obey whatever were the orders they might receive from their officers, or the officers from the crown? If the spirit of the law was not to be examined, the science of law must be degraded; a Holt, a Hardwicke, a Talbot, or a Mansfield, and all the luminaries and oracles of our jurisprudence, had been deceived. Lord Coke, too, must have been in a great error when be observed, that those who confined their attention to the mere letter of the law, would seldom comprehend its meaning or its object. In this case, indeed, the objects of the Act were distinctly specified; and being so specified, were by every construction of law conclusive. How could the crown remain the judge, when every cause upon which judgment could operate had ceased? It was worthy of remark, too, that in the former militia acts, the word to 'repel' invasion, was the word employed; but in later acts it had been deemed advisable to insert also the word to 'prevent.' Did not this of itself show the precision and care with which these acts were usually framed? The conduct of the government now was quite different from that which was observed at the conclusion of the peace of 1802; for, even during the negociations for that peace, the militia were all disembodied, although it was known that the enemy were even then making hostile preparations, and had sent out an armament to St. Domingo. The militia were not again called out until eleven months afterwards, when the coasts were actually threatened with a hostile force, and when formidable arrangements were made for invasion by the enemy. The difference between the conduct of this government and former administrations was that the gentlemen now in power rushed on with headstrong impetuosity, where the wisest of their predecessors dared not tread. Not one of those predecessors ever thought of continuing the militia on foot at the termination of a war; and yet it was now contented, that the present state of Europe justified their continuance, al-though there was, no prospect of any of the occasions ever recurring again, referred to in the Act. If the learned Soli- citor General's construction of the Act were to prevail, there would be an end at once to all the boasted bulwarks of the British constitution. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more grating to the feelings of the militia, than the circumstance of disembodying fourteen battalions of the regular army, at a time when the militia were continued to be embodied. Why, he would ask, were the regular army to be disembodied, and the national defenders of the country detained from the bosoms of their families, when the occasion ceased for active operations? It was pretty extraordinary that on this occasion not one of his Majesty's ministers had ventured to raise their voices in support of their own conduct. He could not say that they had sat silent spectators of what was going forward to-night; for they had loudly cheered the arguments of the learned Solicitor General, and therefore they must be considered as espousing his sentiments. He regretted that not a single county member had offered his sentiments on this question; for he should be glad to know what the country gentlemen thought of a measure, the tendency of which must be to injure the future respectability of the militia, as many persons would be deterred from accepting commissions in it, when they found they should be liable to be kept in Ireland, or some other part of the empire remote from their homes, as long after the conclusion of a peace as the crown might think proper to keep them. After the doctrines which, to his utter astonishment, he had that night heard on the subject, he declared that he would press the question to a division, if he were the only person who should go out of the House.

The House then divided:—

rose to explain the grounds on which this vote was proposed. It had been considered by some gentlemen a singular circumstance, that while part of the militia were kept embodied, the regular army had been reduced. Now, on this head, it was true that 24 second battalions of the regular infantry had been reduced; and the reason was, they were so inefficient in point of numbers, that the whole 24 battalions did not muster more than 8,500 men. Of these, 6,900 had been embodied with the 1st battalion, and the remainder had been discharged, either for infirmity, or because their periods of service had expired. By this measure a considerable reduction of expense had been obtained, attended with little or no reduction of military strength. It was obvious, however, that the war with America, and the keeping up of a considerable body of troops on the continent, required the maintenance of a large military force; and government, on the most mature deliberation, thought that that force would best be rendered disposable by keeping embodied a part of the militia.

contended, that the keeping up of a part of the militia was any thing but a deliberate measure on the part of government. The truth was, as facts showed, that it was a sudden thought on their part; for the Bedfordshire and the Oxford shire militias were actually arrested when on their march to be disembodied. The whole spirit of the militia system had been broken down (not, indeed, the spirit of the men or the officers) ever since the Volunteering Act of 1799. The Act declared, that a moiety at least of the property of the militia officers should lie in the county to which their regiment belonged; and now he would appeal to any gentleman, whether this qualification was not disregarded.

observed, that by the recruiting from the militia alone, this coun- try had been enabled to make those exertions of which we all now knew the result. That policy, therefore, could not surely be matter of regret. True it was, that the retaining part of the militia embodied was not a systematic measure on the part of government, but was dictated by the commands for the employment of the regular forces abroad.

The grant was then put, and carried. It was next moved, "That 55,000l. be granted to his Majesty, for a defraying the Britain of Volunteer Corps in Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th Dec. 1814 to the 24th June 1815."

really thought there was an understanding on a former night, that this vote should be withdrawn altogether; and he was now surprised to hear it brought forward without the smallest preface.

replied, that there had been no intention to withdraw the vote altogether, but to reconsider it. It had been reconsidered, and a material reduction made. The sum which he had before proposed to take on account was 100,000l; 50,000l. for England, and the same sum for Ireland, including 20,000l. for clothing and allowances. The sum now required for England was 30,000l. and such reductions had been made with respect to the volunteers in Ireland, that the future annual expense, it was estimated, would not exceed 55,000l. Of this sum he proposed now to take 25,000l. which, with the 30,000l. before mentioned on account of England, made up the grant proposed by the resolution before the committee 55,000l. He was surprised that gentlemen should be so anxious to see this force discontinued. There could be no reason for jealousy of those in whose hands arms were placed by this vote. This he conceived to be a species of force the most constitutional in its nature, the cheapest, and the least liable to objection. It put arms into the hands of those least likely to abuse them, and who, on any sudden emergency, were best qualified, from local knowledge and influence, to put down disorder, and to preserve the peace. In this view these corps were much more effective than any regular troops.

said, he had expressed no jealousy of the volunteer corps, but great jealousy of the management of the public money, which the present ministers squandered on all hands with greater and more lavish profusion than any adminis- tration with which this country was ever cursed (a laugh). He would repeat it, their profusion was a curse in the present state of our finances, which was by far the most serious difficulty with which the country had to grapple.

said, it was true he had suggested reconsideration to his noble friend on a former night, as 100,000l. struck him at the time as a very large sum to vote for the volunteers. It would be improper to put an end to these corps all at once; and, above all, highly objectionable to disband the Irish yeomanry.

spoke strongly of the importance of the yeomanry of Ireland. To rebut the charge of profusion brought by the hon. gentleman, he would simply state to what an extent the Irish government had reduced the estimate for the volunteer service. In 1812 it was 348,000l., in 1814 it was 312,000l., and now it was reduced to 58,000l.

admired the singular confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It struck the right hon. gentleman, it seemed, when 100,000l. was first proposed, that it was a large sum, and deserved reconsideration. Now, he had always thought that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be previously consulted about every estimate; but it appeared that the Secretary at War had broke loose from all such trammels. Seriously, it was surprising, that in the midst of a profound peace with the continent, it should be thought necessary to keep up an armed police in the country, with bayonets on their muskets and broadswords by their sides. Such things never had been before. These corps had volunteered for the war; that war had ceased; and in England, at least, he saw not the slightest occasion for their further services. Still, however, the questions put the other night on this very topic had saved 45,000l. to the public.

was sorry he could not congratulate the committee on any such saving, as the present vote was only for half the year. In illustration of the impropriety of disbanding the volunteers all at once, he said he had that day received a letter from a commandant of volunteer cavalry, stating great reluctance to be dismissed on the part of the corps, as they had been induced to suppose would be the case, from what had passed the other night in the House. They begged, rather than be dismissed, to serve without any allowance.

said, his objection to the vote was from the expense which it entailed on the country. The truth was, we were exhausting ourselves by our expenditure, even in peace. Domestic security at present would be best provided for by economy, which also, when war might again take place, would enable us to make efforts proportioned to the crisis. He was afraid that the disposition of many members of these cavalry corps to retain them embodied, was merely that they might have an excuse to get exemptions from the tax upon horses and other taxes. As to Ireland, having no personal knowledge of that country, he would not deny that the maintenance of the yeomanry corps there might be necessary, though he could not help looking upon it as the effect of gross mismanagement on the part of the government of that country, which made it necessary to put arms in the hands of the minority, to keep down an oppressed majority.

was astonished that the hon. gentleman, while he professed his ignorance of Ireland, should yet throw out a charge of gross mismanagement against its government.

said, it was sufficient to look into the history of Ireland, to be convinced it had been a misgoverned country for many centuries, which circumstance alone rendered the continuance of this force necessary.

suggested, that the vote for England should be divided from that for Ireland, as many gentlemen who thought the former unnecessary, might vote for the latter.

wished to ask why the Secretary at War did not accept the proposal of the gallant volunteers, who had offered to serve for nothing rather than be disbanded? No, he would not do this; he would rather force the acceptance of the money upon them.

replied, that the offer to which he had alluded was founded merely on a contingency, which it was not the wish of government should take place. It should be recollected, however, that the members of the different corps received no pay; the whole of the grant went to the maintenance of the staff of the corps.

thought it would be desirable to do away the exemptions which the yeomanry cavalry at present enjoyed.

After a good deal of discussion, an Amendment was proposed, to leave out the words "Great Britain," and to substitute 25,000l. for 55,000l. The House divided on the question that the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the motion. Ayes, 45: Noes, 14: Majority against the Amendment, 31.

The original Resolution was then carried.

On the motion, "That 6,750l. be granted to his Majesty, for defraying the charge of the allowances, compensations, and emoluments, in the nature of Superannuation or retired Allowances, to persons belonging to certain public departments in Great Britain and Ireland, from the 25th December 1814, to the 24th June 1815;" some question having been raised on the pension of Mr. Leake,

expatiated on the zeal, integrity, and ability with which he had invariably discharged the duties of the situations he had held, and stated him to be 70 years of age, having passed, in various capacities, 50 years of his life in the public service.

proceeding to notice various items in the estimates, observed, that among others, he perceived there was a pension of 300l. for a retired apothecary.

stated this person to have been twenty years in the service, and to have obtained his pension on the recommendation of the governors of the Royal Military Asylum.

said, he might not be the better apothecary for his twenty years service. That did not prove him entitled to his pension.

said, it was granted in 1804, and had been voted ever since.

observed, there was a retired treasurer too, and wished to ask the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose) at what age a treasurer ought to retire?

wished to hear more of the apothecary.

begged the right hon. baronet's pardon for interrupting him, but the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) having addressed himself to him personally, he desired to know to what his question alluded.

said, there appeared on the estimates a superannuated treasurer. They had there (in the House) a treasurer not superannuated, but who, though advanced in years, had all his treasury faculties about him. He wished to know at what age, in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman, a treasurer ought to retire; and whether he did not think it possible for one to continue to perform the duties of his situation to the last day of his life? [A laugh.]

said, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had beets a treasurer himself, and was therefore as good a judge as he could be. [A laugh.]

said, he was not a good judge, as he had got no pension, though he had lost his treasurership.

then inquired whether the retired apothecary who received this pension of 300l. a year, was not the Dr. Trevor whose name was implicated in certain severities charged to have been exercised in Kilmainham gaol? [This introduced a conversation of some length, in which Mr. P. Moore strongly objected to giving such a person any pension. On the other hand, it was declared by Mr. Wellesley Pole, that Dr. Trevor had been acquitted of the charges brought by the prisoners, in a report made by the judges on the subject. He confessed, however, that Trevor was chargeable with some severities, of which he did not approve.]

The resolution was then agreed to.