wished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he conceived it probable that he would be charged by the Prince Regent with any communication to that House, upon the subject of the newly created Order of the Bath. A modification, it was understood, had taken place in the fee-expense of this knighthood. Was the public or the government to pay any, and what part of this charge?

replied, that he was not charged with any communication from the Prince Regent upon this subject, and it was impossible for him to foresee whether he should or not. He was not aware that the House or the public had incurred any pecuniary expense.

then gave notice, that he would bring the subject before the House on that day sunlight.

did not think it necessary to apologize to the House for again bringing under its consideration a subject of such great importance. It did not, however, stand in the situation in which it stood on his former motion.^* The definitive treaty of peace with France had at that period been but recently signed, and the negotiations at Ghent were still proceeding with little hope of their speedy termination. Those negotiations had since, however, been happily brought to a close; and although the treaty had not yet received the ratification of the president of the United States, there was no great danger that by a refusal on his part the war with America would be prolonged. It was true, that several of the militia regiments had been some time since disbanded; but the circumstance that a part remained embodied nine months after the treaty which secured the peace of Europe, and when no symptom of rebellion or insurrection existed in the country, afforded ample ground for parliamentary notice. The militia service exacted the most severe sacrifice from the lower orders of the people. To the opulent it was simply a tax; but to the lower orders it was a compulsory personal service, under circum- stances of peculiar hardship, of separation from their homes and families, of abandonment of their civil occupations, of deprivation of civil privileges, and of subjection to military law. It should, therefore, only be required when the exigencies of the moment demanded it; when the state was in immediate danger, when a foreign force had landed or threatened to land, or when an insurrection or rebellion had actually taken place; for the mere apprehension of one was not a sufficient cause for embodying the militia. The constitution required that the exercise of the royal prerogative of embodying the militia should be accompanied by a declaration of the circumstances which demanded it; that those circumstances should be stated to parliament, if sitting; and, if not sitting, that they should be summoned for the purpose of having them stated to them. Feeling as he did on this subject, he considered it as his public duty to assert that the regiments which remained embodied were so contrary to law, and that those which had been disbanded were illegally detained for some time previous to their having been so disbanded. To be aware of this did not require great legal knowledge: it demanded only knowledge of the principles of the constitution; and every county member was as competent to determine upon it as were the crown lawyers. He must once more protest against its being inferred, as the consequence of his doctrine, that the persons who were in rolled in the militia regiments could quit those regiments. They had no right whatever to do so. They were in rolled to continue "as long as the militia should remain embodied." The legislature had never contemplated such a dangerous proceeding as to leave in the hands of the militia themselves the power of judging on this subject. He begged, therefore, utterly to disclaim all those alarming doctrines which had been imputed to him.

^* See p. 563.

Without going into the history of the militia from the earliest times, he would merely state that the King never had power to call for the personal services of his subjects except in cases of actual invasion and rebellion. The Act of Edw. 5, declared, that no man should be cancelled to go out of his county, unless when necessity required, and in case of strangers invading the country. The preamble of the Act of the 42d of the present King, chapter 90, stated, that it was of importance to the internal defaced of the realm, that the militia should be embodied; and the 111th section enacted, that in all cases of actual invasion, or in danger thereof', or in case of insurrection or rebellion, it should be lawful for his Majesty to draw out and embody the militia. There was no declaration of the time when the militia should be disembodied; but the legislature had thought proper to impose restraints on the prerogative of the Crown. It had been said, that the King, having once called out this force, might afterwards keep it embodied during his pleasure; and the only answer which ministers gave was, that they were responsible for their advice. He maintained, however, that every law might to be interpreted, not according to the strict letter, but agreeably to its true intent and meaning. When all the causes of calling out the militia ceased, there was no ground for keeping it embodied. The Crown, no doubt, had great discretion in judging when those causes ceased; but if it were clear to every man, that every, cause had ceased, there was no longer any ground for the exercise of such discretion. If ministers would say, that there was any danger of invasion, or that there existed any rebellion or insurrection in the country, they would then be justified in keeping this national force embodied; but they could not pretend that any of those cases existed; for there was not the smallest danger of invasion, and there had been scarcely a period in his Majesty's reign in which the country was more tranquil than at the present moment. He repeated, therefore, that it was not only a rule of law, but also a maxim of common sense, that 'castanet causâ cessat effectus.'

It had been urged, however, that there was a construction of this law by usage; and that while a war continued, the pro: ability of invasion was to be inferred. But this construction could not be maintained; for he defied his Majesty's advisers to produce an instance where the militia had been kept embodied, except in time of actual war, and when the enemy threatened to invade our coasts. At the conclusion of the last war, the ministers of that day did not keep the militia emboli Died. And yet, what were the circumstances under which that peace was made? Did any man acquainted with the situation of the country think that it was likely to be of long duration? Could it be forgotten, that the man who was then at the head of the French government, under the modest title of First Consul, had made alliances with different powers, and cherished the most inveterate hatred towards this country? And yet, with the knowledge of all these circumstances, within a fortnight after the news of the definitive treaty of peace having been signed had reached this country, the Secretary of War considered it expedient to bring in a Bill to augment the militia. The noble lord, in whose department this matter now rested, (lord Sid mouth) was then at the head of the administration; but neither he, nor those who acted with him, dared to give such interpretation to the law as they now thought proper to advance. At present they entertained a different opinion; and perhaps they thought that the exultation which the last peace had produced would be a good opportunity for imposing additional burdens on the people, and calling on them to make fresh sacrifices. He did not know whether they entertained such notions; but this he would say, that till the present period his Majesty's ministers had never ventured to give such construction to the law. He had seen the Opinion of the Crown Lawyers,^* which was avowed by ministers, and said to speak their language. He must beg leave, however, to call the attention of the House to the subject of publishing the law of the land by the opinion of the law officers. This, he contended, was quite a new practice; and he would add, that the opinions of his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General were not entitled to any more authority than those of any other two barristers who had not the same advantage of the royal favour. The opinions of such persons would, indeed, be entitled to more consideration, because they would not be given under any bias. But it appeared, that the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General were to be taken as declaratory of the law, and that the colonels of regiments were to read them at the head of their men, in order to remove all doubts upon the subject. But what would the House think of this matter? He would refer to the case of raising ship-money under the reign of Charles I. Did they suppose, that if the opinion of sir John Pinch, who was then attorney-general, had been taken on that measure, that it would have been satisfactory to the nation? It was extremely improper, that the law should be received, not from the judges, but from those who were to act the part of advocates for the Crown. He was well aware that these opinions came with more weight to the country, since they were the opinions not of the Attorney and Solicitor General only, but also of the chief justice of Chester, [hear, hear!] who might have to decide on this very law in his judicial character. It was therefore the opinion of a judge, given at the instance of his Majesty's ministers. But how had those ministers acted? They had first taken their measures, and then asked for advice; they had kept the militia, embodied, and then inquired whether they were impeachable for what they had done. Could any man suppose that they would not take great pains to procure an opinion favorable to themselves? With respect to the opinion of the chief justice of Chester, he would repeat, that it ought not to have been given; since a judge ought not to give an opinion till he had heard the whole matter in dispute, and attended to the arguments of the contending parties.

^* See p. 567.

But the circular letter from the Secretary of State to the colonels of militia said, that some doubts having been expressed as to the legality of keeping the militia embodied, the question had been referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General, and the law being thus ascertained, the colonels were to read it at the head of their regiments, for the purpose of satisfying the minds of their men. The two first lines of that answer were, however, not a little remarkable. "We have had the honour," said the Attorney and Solicitor General, "to receive your lordship's letter of yesterday's date." Now he thought that it would have been proper to take more time than twenty-four hours to look into the old law upon the subject, and to ascertain the extent of the prerogative of the Crown. The question which ministers had asked was, whether it was imperative on the Crown, under any circumstances, to disembody the militia: and the opinion said, there was nothing imperative in the Act; that there was a discretion in his Majesty's ministers, subject to responsibility, if they advised the Crown to continue the militia embodied improperly, when the circumstances of the country did not make it expedient. We had often heard of necessity being urged in defense of an illegal measure: but that was the tyrant's plea; and therefore, instead of necessity, we had here the word expediency; so that as long as ministers should think it expedient to detain men from their families, and subject them to all the severities of martial law, there was no remedy but the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown. But, was this a sufficient answer to the people? In what time, in what country, under what arbitrary government, were not ministers responsible? Was it because ministers were said to be responsible, that the militia were to be kept out, when they ought to be disembodied? Should the security of our liberties depend on what ministers might deem expedient? Our ancestors, whose wisdom had been the theme of such frequent panegyrics in that House, had thought proper to impose restraints on the prerogative of the Crown; but the Attorney and Solicitor General said, that as long as any part of the militia remained embodied, ministers might call out again such part as had been discharged: for it was also laid down in the opinion in question, that whereas by sect. 144, of the Act of the 42nd, it was declared lawful to disembody any part or portion of the militia, after being embodied, and from time to time to draw out again such part or portion so disembodied, they were of opinion that if the external relations and internal situation of the country were such as to call for and justify a reduction of any part or portion of the militia, it was in the power of his Majesty's ministers, in the exercise of the discretion yester in them, to suspend any order issued for such reduction or disembodying, but not carried into execution; and further, as long as any regiment continued to be embodied, under this section, to call out again all the rest of the militia actually disembodied. According to this opinion his Majesty's ministers might, at any time when they deemed it expedient, call out again the whole of the militia now disembodied. The House ought to reflect on the use which might be made of this doctrine in after-times. One stretch of authority led to another. By this stretch of power in the present case they were securing a similar privilege to his Majesty's ministers in all time to come. By keeping one regiment on foot they might at any time call out the whole of the militia, without any impediment from those safeguards which the legislature had thought proper to devise.

The hon. and learned gentleman then went into an examination of the doctrine maintained, that because by the Local Militia Act the local militia could not be kept embodied six weeks after the enemy being repelled, or the suppression of an insurrection, the Crown was not called on to disembody the militia, as there was no similar specification in the Act of the 42nd. Would any man say that an act of parliament which underwent no discussion at the time it passed the House could be understood to throw any light on the intention of parliament when they passed the Militia Act? No inference whatever could be drawn from this. The single question after all was this—whether, the causes for calling out the militia having ceased, the power of keeping them embodied ought not to cease also? This doctrine of the Crown could not but be attended with the most fatal effect. The tendency of most of the measures of late years adopted with regard to the militia was to leave every thing burthensome, and to take away every thing beneficial in that service. They made the service such that every day men of landed property were more and more disinclined to enter it. He would ask whether more effectual means could be taken for preventing a man from accepting a commission in the militia when the country was in danger, than the idea that his services were to be continued as long as ministers should think fit, on the pretext that a balance of power was not yet adjusted. But the greatest hardship was, in his opinion that suffered by the privates, who not having the means of procuring substitutes, were compelled to serve in person, and subjected to the cruel severity of the military law against their wills. He could not help adverting to the expressions made use of by an hon. baronet not now present (sir Francis Burdett), by which he qualified the military law. Such, he had said, were the severities of the military law, and such the liability to be compelled to serve in the militia, that every man in this country might be said to be subjected to the lash. He did not altogether approve of the expression made use of; but he could not avoid thinking it extremely hard that these men should be called out to defend their wives and children and their country, and be kept embodied so long as his Majesty's ministers should deem expedient; or so long as one independent nation should be transferred to another on hypocritical pretences, or so long as we should think proper to keep up a military force on the continent. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving,

"That nine months having now elapsed since the definitive treaty of peace with France was signed; and this country having during the whole of that period been at peace, not with France only, but with every power in Europe; and no cause whatever having existed, or now existing, for apprehending invasion by a foreign enemy, or any insurrection or rebellion within the realm; it is contrary to the spirit and true intent and meaning of the Act of 42 Geo. 3, c. 90, to continue any part of the militia force of this country still embodied."

complimented the hon. and learned gentleman on having very fairly stated his own opinion upon the subject; but he said it appeared to him that he had only taken a partial view of the matter, and had omitted to notice one part, which he had, perhaps, not thought necessary to the question. He had not alluded to our exact situation with respect to America, as we were actually at war with that power when he made his former remarks; and he must know that we were carrying on the war at this moment, and must continue to do so until peace was completely attained. With respect to our foreign relations, it had been thought necessary to keep up large military forces, till every thing was settled on the continent; and thus our situation, so far from being different from what it was when the hon. and learned gentleman brought the subject forward before Christmas, was in fact exactly the same. The propriety of keeping our forces on the continent was a topic on which other considerations are existing. He therefore thought that the hon. and learned gentleman had varied the point, because on the former occasion he drew a distinction between the spirit and the legality of the Act; but at present his remarks could not be considered as a Fair construction of it. The hon. and learned gentleman had admitted, that in the words of the Act, there was no limitation to be found as to time, and he had correctly described the circumstances under which the militia might legally be called out; but he (Mr. Bathurst) contended, if it had been designed that the militia should not be kept embodied after the cause which originally called them out had ceased, that the same caution would have been observed in providing for their being disbanded, as was thought necessary when describing the circumstances under which they were to be em- bodied. The militia had been kept up under existing circumstances on the responsibility of ministers. The hon. and learned gentleman had worked himself up to say, while speaking of the responsibility of ministers, that the ministers of every country were responsible. Did the hon. and learned gentleman really mean to assert this? If he did, he could wish to know what he meant by responsibility. If he meant that they were responsible to the despot whom they served, he would admit the fact; but he would deny that they were responsible of the people. The measure of keeping up the militia did not, in this instance; rest wholly on the responsibility of ministers, as it had the approbation of parliament, who, six months after the peace was concluded, had sanctioned their remaining embodied, by voting the sums wanted for their pay, clothing, &c. That House had negative the motion brought forward by the hon. and learned gentleman before Christmas, and immediately after had voted the continuance of the militia for two months longer. Under these circumstances, he contended that this measure was not one which rested on the mere responsibility of ministers, but on the admitted necessity of the case. With the view the hon. and learned gentleman took of the subject, why, instead of bringing forward abstract questions, did he not move the House to address the Crown to recall the army now abroad, or to withhold the supplies demanded to pay and maintain them? The hon. and learned gentleman had seemed disposed to assume that the country could only be in danger of invasion from a neighboring country. Would it be maintained that means were not to be taken to guard against such an event, not only when we were at war with France, but also when we were at war with Spain, with Russia, with Denmark, or with any other country but the militia had not been called out merely when invasion was actually expected. At the time lord North called out the militia, he had stated invasion to be a mere bugbear. The principle had been admitted, that the militia were to be kept embodied to enable the government to send out the regular army, when this became necessary for the security of the country. The propriety of using the militia in this manner must be acknowledged; for ought a nation like this to keep her armies in a state of inactivity, till an ambitious mo- narch, her enemy, having conquered Moscow or Vienna, should be enabled to turn all his forces to her subjugation? If it was legal to use the militia, that the regular force might be sent on foreign service, it must be seen, that ministers, under the present circumstances of the country, were justified in not disembodying it. Though peace was signed, we were not yet in a state of peace with America, and a considerable British force was at present necessarily employed on the continent of Europe. This situation of things made it expedient to keep the militia embodied after the war was considered to be terminated; and in doing this, ministers had met with the concurrence of parliament. He defended the conduct of ministers in continuing to keep up some particular regiments of militia which had been ordered to be disembodied. This, at the time, was found expedient; and did the hon. and learned gentleman mean to say it was the duty of ministers to take the opinion of the judges on the subject, before they, decided on such a measure? With the opinion of one of his learned friends (the Attorney-general) the hon. and learned gentleman had quarreled on account of his being a judge. This was a little remarkable, after he had expressed a wish that the opinion of the judges should be given on the subject. The militia once called out, he again contended, might legally be kept embodied by ministers so long as the situation of the country made such a measure expedient. The argument of the hon. and learned gentleman, when speaking of the peace with America, if he were disposed to take it up, would go to justify ministers in keeping up the militia in time of peace, lest America, or France, or some other power should not be faithful to its engagements. When the militia was disbanded after the peace of Amiens, things were on quite a different footing from what they had been in since the treaty of Paris. The peace, at the time that measure was resorted to, had been definitively concluded. Since the last peace was signed, great questions had still been pending; part of our regular army was employed on the continent, and to supply their place it had been necessary to keep up the militia. When this subject was last brought before the House, it had been truly stated, that more regiments of militia would be disembodied as soon as this could be safely done. This promise had been observed, and the remainder would be disbanded as soon as that conclusion had been put to the pending negotiations which they had every reason to hope and believe would shortly take place. He admitted the cause of the militia having been called out, but he maintained that circumstances had justified its being kept up. The principle on which ministers had acted in this instance, had been recognized by parliament in the distinction made between the old militia and the local militia, in determining with respect to the latter, after what period it should be disembodied. The regular militia had always been intended to be left to the discretion of ministers on their responsibility, subject to the control of parliament. He denied that this force so kept up with the consent of parliament was at all to be compared to a standing army, and repelled the assertions made by the hon. and learned gentleman as to the injury which the militia itself must sustain from the course pursued by ministers on this occasion. As to the evils complained of with respect to the personal feelings of the individuals in the militia, who were kept from their homes, compulsorily made to serve, and subjected to the lash, (to use the words of an hon. baronet)—[Sir S. Romilly said he had not used such words.]—Mr. Bathurst said, he had uttered them as the words of an hon. baronet. This was the picture drawn of persons subjected to military discipline. In the militia, however, it would be found, that not more than one in ten served for himself; the rest were substitutes serving from choice. He did not mean to undervalue the sacrifices made by these persons, but asserted them to be necessary for the general good of the country. They might think their case hard when they saw other corps disembodied; but this was but a comparative, and not an absolute hardship. They might think it unlucky that their regiments were not among those who were first disbanded; but while a partial disembodying of the militia was not unlawful, this could not be prevented. The right hon. gentleman briefly recapitulated his objections to the principle of the motion; and asserted, that what had been done by ministers in the present instance, had already received not merely the tacit, but the positive approbation of parliament.

said, he conceived, till he heard the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that the question the House had to consider this night was, whether any reason could be given for keeping up the militia. Parliament had determined under what circumstances it should be called out; but as they could not determine when that cause should cease, no time for disembodying it had been fixed. It was now for the House to consider if any of those causes now existed, and if in their absence ministers could justify keeping it embodied. The right hon. gentleman had at one time seemed disposed to rest his arguments on the American war. Did he mean to say, that an invasion was to be apprehended from America? This country had formerly been at war for several years with America, before the minister thought of calling out the militia. It was not called out in the former American war, till France took a part in it. Now, however, the great evil against which it was designed to protect the country was treated as a bugbear, and the people were juggled out of the sums necessary to support it, when no occasion for it was shown to exist. The right hon. gentleman had found that the American war was not enough for his argument, and he then gave the true reasons for its being kept up—the necessity of supplying with the militia the place of the regular troops now employed in Flanders. The right hon. gentleman considered parliament to have sanctioned this measure because they had voted certain sums on account, which were called for by the noble lord (Palmerston) before Christmas, and which were stated to be but a small part of those necessary to meet the military expenditure of the year. To press this as a proof that the measure had been considered and approved of by parliament was unjustifiable. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the militia being kept embodied, had not been felt as a hardship to the extent supposed, as not more than one man in ten served compulsorily. This statement might be correct, as to the number of persons serving for themselves, compared with those of substitutes; but he could state, on perfectly good authority, that their not being disembodied was a grievance which was deeply felt and complained of.

observed, that all the arguments of his hon. and learned friend had reference to the period at which the militia was to be called out, not to the time at which it was to be disbanded. For many years there had been no danger of invasion; the militia, therefore, according to the arguments which had been used, should have been disbanded. The militia, it appeared to him, might be kept up at any time when it was thought necessary to send the regular force out of the kingdom, since in war there might always be supposed to be danger of invasion. In the late war not only the commerce, but the coasts of the kingdom were exposed to annoyance from the American privateers. In the case of the militia law, as of other acts, the enactments might remain, when the circumstances of the preamble no longer existed; therefore it was not, in his opinion, necessary that the militia force should be immediately reduced, when there was no longer danger of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion.

said, that if he did not offer himself to the attention of the House, it might be supposed that he had changed his opinion; but notwithstanding what had been said, that opinion was not only unaltered but confirmed. When the subject was first discussed, he had only been able to support his opinion by what reasons he could adduce: now he could confirm it by all the arguments they had heard on the subject. His hon. and learned friend, taking for his text the opinion which had been spoken of, had observed, that that opinion was delivered on the day after the case was stated to them (the Attorney and Solicitor General). This observation was to be answered by another observation of the same hon. and learned gentleman, that the subject was involved in no technical difficulties, and could not fail to be understood by any county member, not at all habituated to the consideration of legal questions. His hon. and learned friend, and the other learned gentleman near him (Sir A. Piggott), when they filled the two offices of Attorney and Solicitor General, might remember that they were often called on to deliver opinions more suddenly than they could wish. The opinion he had delivered was, however, not stated, until he had conversed with several gentlemen of the profession, none of whom had entertained any doubt on the subject. In delivering that opinion, they had not assumed any power of promulgating the law on the subject with authority; nor would it have been proper that the judges should have been called on to deliver their opinion. The judges would, he believed, have hesitated before they had delivered their opinions on such a subject, which might have come before them in their different courts. He allowed that the opinion of any other two lawyers in Westminsterhall, of the same standing, would be as valuable as that which had been delivered by himself and his learned friend; but he could not allow the validity of the argument, that the opinion in question was to be less regarded because they were supposed to be biased by the Crown. On the supposition that they were well disposed towards the Secretary of State, was it to be argued that they would have delivered an opinion for his private information, by which he would have been led to act illegally? On the contrary, any opinion which they should thus give, would of course be given with a more than ordinary degree of caution. With respect to the remark of his hon. and learned friend, on the propriety of his combining the two offices of chief-justice of Chester and attorney-general in his own person, he would remind him, that he was not the only person who had held those two situations; and he was convinced that if the noble lord (Kenyon) who was once appointed to them, had conceived that there was any thing objectionable in the appointment, he would have declined holding the two offices. Cases had, however, occurred, in which the judges were called on for their opinions, on points that were likely to come before them judicially at some future period. Of this description was the question propounded to all the judges, with lord Mansfield at their head, who, being asked whether an individual who had been in the army, but who had withdrawn himself from the service, could be tried by a court-martial for offences alleged to have been committed while he was connected with it, answered in the affirmative; reserving to themselves, if the case ever came before them, a right to alter their opinion, if on farther consideration it appeared necessary. When he and his learned friend the Solicitor General gave their opinion, they had not stated that it was lawful for the King to keep the militia embodied as long as ministers thought fit; but the case was, that being asked whether any precise time was fixed in the Act at which the militia was to be disembodied, they had answered, that no precise time was fixed, though the Act manifested a great anxiety that the time should not be unnecessarily prolonged, but that the time of disbanding was left to the discretion of the Crown; always remembering that the ministers acted on their responsibility in advising the Crown to continue the militia embodied. Now as to the use which had been made of the opinion, he thought it fair enough, though he had not been consulted on the subject. The militiamen who were put under martial law might, when they heard it said that it was an illegal act to keep the militia embodied, naturally conceive that it was also legal in them to subtract themselves from that service. It was right, therefore, that his Majesty's ministers, in order to keep them tranquil, should let them know, not only that ministers acted on their responsibility, but that they had taken the opinion of their ordinary legal advisers.

said, it should be his endeavourer to bring back the House to the real merits of the question, from which it had widely deviated. The present measure of keeping the militia embodied had been defended on the practice of ministers. He considered it of the deepest importance to the country that the act of parliament relative to calling out the militia should be well understood; and if it were not, he thought the legislature should take the earliest opportunity to make it so. It was a question of law, and he had never yet read a law book which directed him to look for legal information in the practice of ministers. If he did, he should say that ministers only laughed at the act of parliament—they made it a jest, and had always some bugbear or other to render it of no avail. The Act absolutely required that before the King should be allowed to call out the militia, he should be able to prove to his people by proclamation, either that there was an invasion, imminent danger of an invasion, a rebellion, or an insurrection in the country. In 1792, when the militia was called out by proclamation, it was ridiculed by every one. There was no invasion, nor danger of invasion—no rebellion—no insurrection—nothing but the noisy brawling of a few dirty boys at Dundee, which ministers were well assured was put a total stop to before the proclamation was issued; and yet the proclamation in 1792 stated, that this act of parliament was enforced on account of existing riots and insurrections; and his Majesty afterwards, from the throne, addressed both Houses of parliament in the same language, when he thus accounted to them for calling them together in fourteen days notice. At a former period of our history, when there was a rebellion in America, the war was carried one for several years without the militia being called out at all; nor was the measure ever thought of till France insidiously lent her aid to our colonies, and then no one could deny that there might not be imminent danger of an invasion. At the treaty of Amiens every body was aware that the peace was not likely to be of long duration, and yet the militia was speedily disembodied after the peace was made. The House ought to look at the principle on which ministers were acting at present. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had confessed there was no danger of invasion, but avowed the conduct of ministers in keeping up the militia was justifiable; because we were under the necessity of having a large force on the continent for the purposes of government. What, then, was the amount by which ministers might be confined? It had been argued, and was stated in the written opinion of his hon. and learned friends, that there were no words which say when the King shall disembody the militia. True: but surely there must be a time; they could not be kept up for ever. The Act said most expressly, 'You shall not call out the militia, and march them from their own counties, but for special purposes.' When, therefore, these purposes no longer existed, the cause for keeping them together ceased. How monstrous, then, was it to say, that when all the causes had ceased, his Majesty might continue to keep the militia embodied! He was of opinion that to keep up the militia, because it was thought wise to keep a part of our regular force on the continent, would be to give the Crown new powers, of which he did not see the limits. It was to give the King a sword which he might keep as long as he lived. Because the House of Commons voted the pay of the militiaman, as they must do while he continued embodied, it was not to be assumed, that ministers were not responsible for omitting to disband the militia. As well might it be assumed, that ministers were not responsible for the use of the army, because that House had voted its pay.

began by vindicating the motives from which he, and his learned friend the Attorney General, had acted, in giving their opinion to his Majesty's government, and declaring, that for himself, and he was sure he might say as much for his learned friend, he would not be found one moment in the office he had the honour to hold, if any administration were to require from him a legal opinion different from what his conscientious belief might be. He could safely affirm, that though he had given many opinions which he feared were erroneous, he had never ventured to deliver one that was not honest. As to the influence which the opinion of the law officers of the Crown might be expected to have, He never entertained the idea that they were to be put forth to guide the public judgment, nor did he apprehend that those opinions could have any thing to do with the discussions in that House. His hon. and learned friend who spoke last had contended, that though the Militia Act contained nothing which was imperative as to the precise period at which the militia ought to be disembodied, yet, the occasion for calling them out having ceased, it became the bounden duty of his Majesty's ministers to advise that they should be disembodied. In his opinion, that mode of argument was giving up altogether the first part of the question, as to the illegality of continuing the militia, and making it a matter of discretion on the part of ministers to advise that they should or should not be disembodied, according to the peculiar circumstances of the times. In the Local Militia Act it was distinctly enacted, that six weeks after a given event they should be disembodied; and why was not a similar provision introduced into the other Militia Acts? For the best of all reasons; because, though they were called out but upon particular emergencies, yet, when those emergencies ceased, there might still be existing circumstances deeply affecting the general interests and safety of the country, which would render it advisable to continue them embodied for a further time. With respect to the illegality, therefore, of keeping the militia embodied, having given the subject as much consideration as it was in his power to do, he was still of the opinion, conscientiously and without any bias, that the Crown having called out the militia upon a legal occasion, it was not imperatively bound to disembody them upon the ceasing of that occasion; continuing them so embodied, subject, of course, to those checks and that control, which the parliament could constitutionally exercise. Accordingly it was not stated, nor was it intended to be stated, that the King was bound to disembody them at any particular period. As to the propriety of now continuing those regiments embodied which were not yet disbanded, he should not discuss that question, because he was not sufficiently acquainted with all the causes that influenced ministers in their determination. He should only observe, in conclusion, that he felt some satisfaction in reflecting that the opinion which he had given, and which he still maintained, was sanctioned by the concurrence of high authority in another place.

said, that he was not in the habit of paying compliments: but from all that he knew, or had ever heard of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, he was disposed to feel the highest respect for his judgment: but he thought he had, on the present occasion, narrowed the question too much. An apology was certainly due from him (Lord Milton) for venturing to give an opinion upon a legal subject; but he apprehended, the present was one that embraced other views of it than those which were merely technical. He could not help thinking, from the manner in which the questions had been put by lord Sid mouth, in his letter to the law officers of the Crown, that they were of a nature similar to what, in courts of justice, were called leading questions; and that the law officers could not, in point of fact, give any other answer than the one they did. Ministers need not have asked, whether it was imperative upon the Crown; from the words of the Act, to disembody the militia, because it was impossible to read the Act without seeing there was nothing in it which could be construed into such a positive provision—[Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.] He anticipated that cheer; but the hon. gentleman would surely remember, that in every case they ought to consider the spirit and scope of an act of parliament, as well as the letter; and was it possible to take in the whole of the militia laws and maintain the argument that the militia was a force which might be kept permanently standing during a period of peace. That, however, was the amount of the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite; and it was one which no person, whose mind was not sophisticated with legal quibbling, would venture to support. His hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly) had been accused of inconsistency, because he contended, that though it was illegal to continue the militia embodied, yet it would be also illegal if any militiaman were to refuse to march at the command of his officer. For his own part, he saw no inconsistency in that argument, for while the militia did continue to be embodied, they were subject to the disposal of the Crown; and it was another question whether the Crown was acting illegally in so continuing their services. It might be illegal in the Crown to do a certain thing, and yet it would be equally illegal in the subject to question the conduct of the Crown. He knew, indeed, of no process by which a militia-man could try the question without first committing some act that should make him amenable to a court-martial. He contended that ministers kept the militia embodied upon flimsy pretences. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathutst) had said, that no complaints had been made by the militiamen who continued embodied. He would venture to say, however, that such was not the fact. He had himself received a letter, written in no measured terms, from a militia-man in the North York militia, complaining of the grievance he suffered by not returning to his home now the war was concluded; and a noble relative of his, who introduced the subject in another place, had received a memorial, signed by above 500 individuals of the Derby militia, complaining of the same grievance: and yet the right hon. gentleman, with all the insolence of a minister, had come down to that House, and stated that no discontent existed. In his opinion they had a just right to complain of unfair and cruel usage in being kept embodied "under the iron hand of military law." It was too bad to insult the House by stating that no complaints had been made. If, in case a new European war should break out, ministers wished again to fill the ranks of the militia, let them now keep their faith with the militia, and not put it in the power of the disaffected, those who were always ready

"Spargere votes in vulgum ambiguous,"

to tell the men, 'Recollect that language, and those promises which were held out in 1803, and broken in 1814.'

explained. What he had stated was, that complaints had not generally been made by the militia regiments still embodied. With regard to the manner in which the noble lord had expressed himself, he would leave the House to judge whether upon that or any other occasion, the epithet could be more justly applied to him than to the noble lord.

explained. He had not affirmed that complaints were general among the militia regiments, but only in those which came under his knowledge; and, inferring from them, it was natural to suppose that they existed elsewhere.

stated, that the regiment of militia to which he belonged had been much dissatisfied at the idea of being disbanded; and that when they were told there would be occasion for the continuance of their services, every symptom of dissatisfaction had disappeared. The argument with respect to the disembodying of the militia, would have been urged with more force five or six years ago; for when Buonaparté was losing his armies in Spain, whilst the prams lay rotting in his harbors, and he had not a single vessel at sea, there certainly was no danger of invasion. Was Ireland now in a state to be left without a military force? There was no police in that country; and it would have been inhumanity in ministers to have withdrawn the militia which maintained its peace. A noble lord had said that the militia was suffered to continue in time of peace. Was this a time of peace, when the ratification of the treaty with America had not yet been received, and the continent of Europe was not yet settled? He wished, should a new act be produced on the subject, all the present grounds for calling out the militia should be left out; that the right of doing it should remain at the discretion of the Crown; but that ministers should come down to parliament, to explain the grounds on which they should adopt the measure, that it might be confirmed or withdrawn, according as its propriety should be made more or less apparent.

supported the motion. He thought that although no specific time was marked for the disbanding of the militia, it was clearly implied. He believed that the complaints were much more general than the right hon. gentleman supposed. He understood that great discontent was felt by those regiments that were kept in Ireland.

defended the state of the police in Ireland. There were 68 resident magistrates in the county of Wexford, who had kept the peace without the aid of the militia. He approved of the interchange of the regiments, as it was right that the people of England should know the character of Irishmen, and the people of Ireland that of Englishmen, to tighten the bond of the Union.

, when told by high legal authority, that it was left at the discretion of the Crown to keep the militia embodied as long as it pleased, considered that declaration a subject of sufficient alarm: but when it was added, that so long as Ireland should be dissatisfied, it would be necessary to keep the militia on foot in order to subjugate the people of that country, he must think that we stood in a very precarious position. He disapproved of keeping up a great militia force in time of peace, not only on constitutional grounds, but also on account of the greatest augmentation of expense, which was a circumstance that ought not to be lost sight of at the present moment.

wished to set a noble lord right with respect to the Derbyshire militia. That regiment had arrived in their own county, and he believed in the very town of Derby, for the purpose of being disembodied, when the order reached them for continuing longer embodied. Upon this a number of them, amounting to 120, and not to 300, as had been stated, presented a very respectful memorial, asking an explanation of the reason of this order. The memorial was sent by sir H. Torrens, to the department to which he had the honour to belong, and an answer was immediately returned. After the receipt of this answer, there were no symptoms of dissatisfaction in the regiment. As to the manner in which the case had been stated for the opinion of the law-officers, he did not know how the question could have been put in any other way more likely to elicit a full and satisfactory opinion as to the point of law.

observed, that if the proceedings of Congress formed a ground for maintaining an additional military force in this country, then the mighty promises and flattering prospects held out on that subject were merely delusive; and as to Ireland, he could assure government, that if it calculated only upon preserving that country by a military force, the tenure of it was very feeble indeed. He added, that if the police were ineffective in Ireland, the fault must rest with the administration.

asserted, that a military force was never called into action in Ireland but in aid of the civil power, while go- vernment had made every due provision for the efficiency of the latter. With regard to the expression of 'subjugating Ireland,' he deprecated the use of it as utterly inapplicable to the case of that country, and to the disposition of the British government. Sure he was, that nothing was farther from the intention of government than to employ English soldiers for the purpose of oppressing Ireland, and he was sincerely sorry that such an insinuation should have escaped an hon. member. The friendly disposition, indeed, of government towards Ireland, was, he thought, sufficiently manifested in the measure in progress through the House with respect to the corn laws.

explained, that he had been misunderstood. If he had said what was attributed to him, he had done so with a reference to the view of the subject taken by the hon. colonel.

said, that there had been great mistakes about the Derbyshire regiment. It never had reached the town of Derby in order to be disembodied, and had proceeded no further than Banbury.

replied with considerable force to the several speakers against the motion. The Militia Acts admitted, he maintained, but of two constructions, either that the militia should remain embodied only until the cause specified in those acts ceased to exist, or that that force might be kept embodied as long as the Crown thought proper; and he would ask, whether the crown lawyers, or any lawyers in the country, were prepared to sanction the latter construction? He would assume not; and yet, such was virtually the meaning of the argument and authority by which this principle of his motion had been resisted. As to the grounds stated to support the plea of expediency, by which it was attempted to justify the measure his motion deprecated—such, for instance, as the continuance of a war with America, the proceedings at Congress, or the existence of what was called a party spirit in Ireland—he could not conceive when such grounds were likely to cease; for we had, and were always likely to have, a party spirit in this country also; and therefore if the existence of a party spirit were held to warrant the keeping of the militia embodied, he could not suppose a time when that force was likely to be disembodied. After observing, that the politico-judicial opinions which had been delivered elsewhere upon this subject, were by no means entitled to the weight of judicial decisions, the hon. and learned gentleman stated his conviction, that whether the minister acted illegally or unconstitutionally or not, the militiaman was bound to adhere to his oath, and amenable to military law: but if illegally punished, how could the soldier obtain redress unless by an action which must follow his endurance of the punishment? Adverting to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst), upon what he was pleased to call his (sir Samuel's) pathetic lamentations for the privations anti suffering of the militia retained in service, he animadverted upon it with peculiar point; observing, that if people were taken by force from the civil walks of life, and compelled to remain under arms without any necessity, he could not conceive any difference between their case and that of the army so tyrannically treated by the late Ruler of France; adding, that a sympathy for the poorer order of the people was one of the first duties of a representative, especially where that duty was enforced by a recollection of the services which those of that order, who belonged to the militia, had established to the gratitude and esteem of their country. That such men must be anxious for relief from their military state, and for a return to the enjoyment of their domestic comforts, was naturally to be expected; and that man must be unmindful of the feelings of common humanity, as well as of the duties of a legislator, who would not be desirous to gratify that anxiety.

The House divided:

said, at that time of night (between 11 and 12,) after the long discussion with which the House had been occupied, he would trespass as short a while as possible on their attention upon the subject of the amendment, which he should propose to be substituted to one of the Resolutions. By the vote of the House the price at which the importation of wheat was allowed, was fixed at 80s. Now, he could make it appear, that this price was beyond what the most sanguine supporters of the measure could substantiate from the evidence. Ireland was an important feature in this question; and he believed it was the wish of every member of that House, that the wants of this country, with respect to the primary means of subsistence, should be derived in preference from Ireland. But when he said this, he believed he should have little difficulty in proving, that, the price proposed to the committee went far beyond that remuneration which was necessary to enable Ireland to-push her cultivation almost to any extent. There was not much information before the House on the expense of the cultivation of land in Ireland; for neither in the committees of 1813 or 1814 had this subject been much explained. The only evidence he could find, on looking at the Report, was that of Mr. Wakefield. When asked if he thought a price of 70s. for wheat in Ireland sufficient to induce them to cultivate wheat in that country, he answered, he should think it would be sufficient to induce them to cultivate wheat, supposing the climate would allow it. This gentleman had written a great deal about the agriculture of Ireland, was supposed to be well acquainted with the state of that country, and having been brought forward by those who favoured the alteration in the corn laws, could not be supposed to be inclined to under-rate the price. When he was farther asked with respect of the quality of the Irish wheat, he answered that it was, from the wetness of the climate, not of the highest quality. It was to be considered that 70s. was not the price of superior but of average wheat; and that the best would be at least 10s. a quarter higher. The expense of cultivation, from the cheapness of labour and the want of poor rates, must be much less in Ireland than in this country; and by quoting the evidence of Mr. Wakefield, he had, in his opinion, completely disposed of that question. With respect to Scotland, it appeared from the evidence, that the smallest sacrifice on the part of the landlord would enable the farmers there to furnish wheat at as low a rate as in Ireland. Mr. Brodie, who paid 2,500l. for rent, stated his produce to amount to 5,700l. and in this case the rent bore a very considerable proportion indeed to the value of the whole. Was it too much to call on the landlord of that country to make some sacrifice? With respect to Ireland, the Irish landlord or tenant might, without interfering with the subsistence of the people, fix any price on their wheat they pleased, as wheat was not the food of the body of the people there. Without entering, therefore, into more detail regarding Ireland and Scotland, he conceived the fact established, that 70s. a quarter was a fair and ample remunerating price. With respect to the evidence of this country, it branched out into more details, and the whole of the inquiry was nearly confined to that object. But there was no one witness, on being asked, at what rate the farmer could af- ford to sell wheat, who did not guard himself in stating a price as high as 80s. Though many of the witnesses gave a lower sum, by saying, that if rent, labour, and taxes, continued as they were, he thought the sum of 80s. a proper remunerating price. It became the gentlemen who brought forward this measure, to show, before they proposed so high a sum as 50s., that rent, labour, and taxes, would continue the same. It was not his wish to deteriorate the condition of the landed gentlemen of this country; but he really conceived that they would be in a better situation, if, by a small sacrifice of rent, they should enable farmers to reduce the price of their commodities, as taxes had been already lowered to themselves. As labour, and taxes, and corn, had already fallen, he should like to know why on this, as well as on former occasions when corn had fallen, rent should not also fall? With respect to the question as it might affect the revenue, it was unquestionably true, that in the case of any great and sudden diminution of the incomes of the class of persons in question, the revenue and trade of the country must also suffer considerably. But he considered, that the sacrifices which ought to be made by landed proprietors, were such as would not endanger the revenue. All the surveyors had stated that it was necessary to make four rents on a farm. Assuming this estimate, what would be the effect of reducing the price from 80s. to 72s. on a farm of 100l. rent? If the farmer paid one rent of 100l. to the landlord, two rents being 200l. in expenses of cultivation, and reserved 100l. to himself, in all 400l., supposing this 400l. to be only reduced 40l. a year, this would enable the farmer to sell his corn 10 per cent. cheaper, which would be exactly 8s. in the quarter. Out of the rent, labour, and taxes, this sacrifice could be, and ought cheerfully to be made. Labour had already been reduced in the districts with which he was acquainted, more than 10l. per cent. The taxes on land had been reduced 17½ per cent. The great expense of wear and tear would necessarily also be reduced. The collar-maker's bill, for instance, would necessarily be reduced by the fall of the farmer's commodity. In this country, wheat, being the subsistence of the people, was the measure of labor; and the moment wheat fell in price, the effect on labour would follow. He was convinced that the House would never be backward in making such sacri- fices as the state of the country rendered necessary. The landlord had been relieved of 10l. per cent and received now 100l. Where he before only received 90l. Where the case required the sacrifice, he would have no hesitation in giving another 10 per cent., and with this the farmer would be enabled to make out his 40l. and to sell his corn at 72s. the quarter, which price was as low as the people of this country could expect, for some time at least, to receive their subsistence at. When circumstances should admit, it might afterwards gradually be lowered to an ordinary price. He had pointed out no sacrifice which at all interfered with the comforts of the landholders. Even on a small income there would be hardly any sacrifice; they would find by this means the country contented; they would live in a neighborhood where all would be satisfied, when they saw that the highest classes were snaking sacrifices as well as themselves. But if they pressed this measure to the utmost extent, at this high price the people would eat their bread with very little satisfaction, when they found that the same rents were received by the landlords that were received under very different circumstances. He believed he had stated the evidence fairly, when he had said that no one witness stated 80s. as a remunerating price, who did not also express a reservation, that this was on the supposition that rent, labour, and taxes, continued the same. One respectable witness, Mr. Mant, even said, that the price of 72s. was sufficient. He would ask gentlemen, if, in acting as managers of other people's concerns, they would not, on such an occasion as this, give a preference to Mr. Manes evidence, because it was in favour of the great mass of the population. An hon. gentleman (Mr. F. Lewis) had stated, that the bread was 1s. the quarter loaf, when the quarter of wheat was at about 80s. But speaking legislatively and practically, were two different things. He would take upon him to say, that this proportion of the act of parliament had never yet been realized either in town or country. When the average was 64s. a quarter, they were buying bread in this town at 1s. the quarter loaf., They had heard the most contradictory declarations on the subject of averages, and nothing could yet be inferred with certainty on that subject. The present proposed rise was out of all proportion, when compared with former rises in the importation price. In former times the legislature had gone about this subject with great caution. It was true the rise in 1804 was from 48s. to 63s. the quarter; but then it had been reduced in 1794 from 54s. to 48s. having from 1761 to 1794 been as high as 54s. An advance of 9s. a quarter was considered as a great step formerly; but the present advance from 63s. to 80s. being 17s. was no less than 33l. per cent. on the article of subsistence, which was the rule of labour throughout the country. He could not help referring to the evidence of the two Mr. Scotts, one of them a member of the House, and the father one of the best agriculturists in the country. Mr. Scott, sen. guarded himself, as the surveyors had done, in fixing the price according to the present state of rents, wages, and taxes. In the present state of things, when labour and taxes had already been reduced, and when rent might also be reduced, ought this high sum of 80s. to be still persisted in? He should be sorry that a vote of this kind should pass without its standing on the Journals, that such an Amendment as the present was proposed; because he was convinced, the day would soon come, when those who might carry a higher sum would find out their mistake, and be glad to return to what they had formerly rejected. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving that '72s.' should be inserted instead of '80s.'

complimented the hon. member on the caudour which he had displayed in the statements which he had just delivered. What principally induced him to differ with the hon. gentleman was, that he had rather assumed certain propositions than attempted, to prove them. He had assumed, for instance, that the importation price would necessarily be the market price. This proposition was completely controverted by facts, and by the present state of things. During the last year, and 1813, with no foreign importation, the price was as low as 67s. Supposing an importation price of 80s. to have been then fixed, what effect could this, he would ask, have had on the price in the market? The hon. gentleman had not gone at length into the evidence, and in this he would follow his example. One of the witnesses principally relied on by gentlemen who took the other side of the question, was Mr. Maxwell. With the highest idea of Mr. Maxwell, it was ma- terial to observe, that in answer to the question respecting the ircumstances he took into consideration in fixing rent, he stafed that his practice in valuing land since 1801 had ceased, except on very particular occasions. This was three years prior to 1804, when the importation price was carried up to 63s. Another of the witnesses, Mr. Crabtree, ought hardly to have been considered as in favour of the other side. He had stated that the farmer might be able to manage at 20l. a load, that was 80s. a quarter; but then he admitted that he would not at this price be able to keep all his lands in tillage, at present so employed. The right hon. gentleman continued at considerable length to comment on the evidence, in order to show the fallacy of the assertion on the opposite side, that if the original resolutions were carried into effect, corn would never be below 80s. a quarter; and he ridiculed the supposition that a monopoly could by possibility exist in that article among the large body of farmers and dealers in the kingdom. Of this he was persuaded, that unless the resolutions were maintained up to 80s. those who were now the most clamorous against the measure, and for whose interest it was as much calculated as for the interest of any other class of the community, would deeply lament it.

entered into a statement of the opinions of different witnesses, in proof that the highest price ought to be 80s. though some of them thought that 75s. would be a good protecting price for the farmer. Front the whole of their reasoning, however, he was inclined to contend for 80s.

was of opinion, that the agricultural interest was the great and paramount interest of the country, and the home market the most important for trade and manufactures. Yet the difficulties with which the country must necessarily have to struggle for some time to come, could only be conquered by every class of society participating in the burthens, and the landholders equally with the rest. Being of opinion, that fixing the price at 80s. would have the effect of keeping corn up at that price, he should vote for the amendment. The hon. member spoke for some time in illustration of this opinion, and combated many of the arguments that had been urged by different gentlemen under a contrary persuasion.

said, that the production of corn was the manufacture of Ireland as much as the manufacture of linen; and every argument in support of the latter, would equally apply to the former. Ireland had a claim to our protection beyond any foreign country. We ought not to shut our doors on her, but afford her that protection which she had given to us when we most required it.

would not trouble the House at that late hour with a word upon the general principle, but simply as to the fitness of price. On the former discussion, no person had shewn the necessity of fixing it at 80s.; but his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had now stood forward as the champion who should prove, that the farmer could not be protected under that sum. He (Mr. B.) had given great offence for speaking plainly upon the subject of rent; but taking a farm at 1,000l. a year, and lowering it to 600l. to say that the farmer could not then afford to sell his corn cheaper, was complete sophistry. He thought the House should touch the question of price with as much delicacy as that of rent. There were no less than four out of the sixteen witnesses, who were agriculturists, who stated their opinion that the price should be under 80s. That sum was formed upon the supposition that rent and taxes would continue the same; but if those charges were to be reduced, they admitted that 80s. was beyond the price which was necessary for the protection of the farmer. He concluded with declaring, that he would oppose the original propositions in every stage of the proceedings.

preferred the original Resolutions, as being fair and beneficial towards Ireland.

was of a similar opinion.

The House divided:

The subsequent Resolutions of the committee were then agreed to; and leave was given to bring in a Bill upon the said Resolutions.