population of the country. He muft, however, ftrongly object to the claufe in the bill, by which that power was defined. As the claufe now ftood, the power profeffed to be vested in the Crown was monftrous and unconftitutional beyond all previous example. He could not pretend to be fo well verfed as a noble and learned Lo.d who had preceded him, in what had been very properly ftyled the antiquity of law. Some of the cafes cited by the learned Lord, did however appear to him quite inapplicable to the prefent age, and the prefent circumftances of this country. Much ftrefs had been laid on the authority of Vattel, whofe Treatife on the Law of Nations he had heard repeatedly styled a repository of the lumber of antiquity. He would not enter the lifts with the noble Lord as to the conftitutional opinions entertained in the time of Henry III., and Edward 1. with refpect to the power of the Sovereign to call out the population of the country. He did not controvert the doctrine of the Sovereign's right generally stated. In the prefent age, however, it was not to be received without a certain degree of limitation. It was the act not of the Sovereign perfonally, but of the Sovereign acting under the fanction and authority of Parliament. This was the only intelligible ufe of the right in a country profefling to be governed by a fyftem of laws fairly and juftly adminiftered. When the power was exercised at all, it was to be generally and juftly applied. It was not to be made the infrument of injuftice, of partiality, or revenge. To fuppofe that it could be exercised in this way, would be to fubvert the whole fyftem of a free government. To pretend that the prerogative of the Crown extended fo far as that any individuals could at pleafure be transferred, either to a regiment of the line, or to a militia regiment, was a pofition altogether monstrous and abominable. It was objected, and justly, to the odious and tyrannical Government of France, that the people were liable to be driven to every fpecies of military fervice. With what propriety then could Minifters call on the people of this country to ftand forth in defence of our conftitution, if the monstrous power to which he had now alluded was fanctioned? His Lordfhip contended, that a claufe in the bill did fan&tion fuch a power, and that this was the first instance of fuch an arbitrary arrangement in the whole annals of the country. He wished to know from what fource fuch an odious doctrine was derived. It could not derive its origin from the feudal times, for there the terms of fervice were exprefsly limited. Was it from

the

the example of the iffuing of commiflions of array ? He conceived that it would be wasting time to fhew that thefe commiffions afforded no argument for the unconftitutional power granted by the bill. At the commencement of the civil wars fuch a power was contended for by the Crown lawyers; but all the ableft legal authorities. of that day refisted it. So convinced was the King of the illegality of the power, that it was not acted upon in any inftance. After the Restoration it was not attempted to be carried into practice, and militia laws were foon after fubftituted in its room. His Lordship, after forcibly infifting on this conftitutional point, concluded by declaring, that the bill was very far from meeting his approbation. He however declined entering on minor points till a future ftage.

The Lord Chancellor, in answer to the noble Lord who had juft fat down, infifted that many objections of the noble Lord were irrelevant to the prefent ftage of the bill. The queftion was not in regard to the propriety of the volunteer fyftem as it generally food, but whether the bill now before the Houfe ought to be read a fecond time as a bill defigned to regulate and amend that fyftem. The propriety of the general principle had been recognised by former bills, and did not therefore admit of much animadverfion. It was impoffible for him to confine himfelf, his Lordship faid, to the narrow limits he could have wished, from the turn the debate had taken. All the talents of the noble Lord, and all the talents connected with that noble Lord, or that were engaged with the former Adminiftration, could not, his Lordship was perfuaded, have effected a more perfect or more complete fyftem than that now introduced by the bill. To thew that fuch a force was neceffary, as could not have been immediately railed, or fo expeditiously raised by the regular way, his Lordship only requested the Houfe to turn their attention to the circumstances that attended the refolution of this country to enter again into the war. All circumftances confidered, it could not have been in the power of the noble Lord, or in the power of those who conducted the laft war, to have raifed a more efficient or a more numerous force in the fame time. It was not fair, his Lordfhip contended, to criticize the meafures of any Administra tion with that feverity with which the noble Lord had attacked the prefent Adminiftration. On the fame principle, what might he not fay of the former Administration to which that noble Lord had belonged, and to which he himself was in

1

clined

clined to attach the greatest respect? It was impoffible that in fuch circumftances as exifted, any measures could have been adopted to produce more beneficial or more extensive effects than the prefent volunteer fyftem was calculated to produce. No man, it was true, could deny, that a strong and numerous regular force was desirable and better in many refpects than volunteers; but it must be allowed alfo at the fame time that fuch a regular force could not fo eafily, nor in fo fhort a time be raised to an amount equal to the efficiency of the volunteers. Had not the present Administration, in this instance, acted upon the same principle as had been acknowledged laft war? Should ever the volunteers be called into action, he had no doubt that their exertions would do honour to their country, and be a fource of glory to themfelves. Not a man among them, he believed, would furvive a defeat. But the proper time, his Lordship argued, to take the different topics under confideration, was in the Committee of the Houfe, and not in the prefent stage of the bill, as none of the objections went fo far as to deny the general principle. The noble Lord then noticed what had been advanced by Lord Grenville on the royal prerogative, to call out the people in cafe of actual danger. Againft the reftrictions which the noble Lord had impofed on that prerogative, he entered his moft folemn proteft, and argued the propriety of this prerogative, from the neceffity of the cafe in which it was fuppofed to be exercifed. This prerogative was claimed only in cafe of invafion, and the good of the country and the fafety of the people would then require fuch a facrifice, even independent of the law of the cafe. His Lordship here put a cafe, that fhould an invafion be made and a landing effected when Parliament was not fitting, and at a time perhaps, when Parliament could not conftitutionally fit, what would be the result should this prerogative of the Crown be fufpended, or even fo limited as to render it ineffe&ive? If not a principle of law, let it now be made fo. It would be difficult, however, to make it otherwife while it must be recognised in certain inftances, as a principle of neceflity or expedience.

Lord Grenville faid, he had never contended that the Sovereign had not a right, in cases of invafion, to require the fervices of his licge fubjects, because that the King had a right, reprefenting the community, to call, in fuch a cafe of extreme neceffity, upon the fervices of all his fubjects for the public defence, was not only a conftitutional principle, but

formed

formed a part of the effence of civil fociety. The thing that he objected to was this, that the bill, in carrying this principle into execution, gave the Crown a power, not to call upon the whole or any clafs of the people, but upon any individual, and to place him in any regiment of the line or militia.

The Lord Chancellor was glad the noble Lord had admitted fo much, as it narrowed the queftion very confiderably; but even that exercise of the prerogative, defined as it had been, to which the noble Lord objected, it would be difficult, he thought, to prove incompatible with the rights of the Crown.

Earl Spencer thought that the volunteer fyftem as it stood, could not meet the approbation of the Houfe. He was by no means an enemy to volunteer corps. He had had the honour of belonging to one fince the year 94, the period of their first formation; but he thought that Administration had begun at the wrong end, and instead of rendering the volunteers an auxiliary force as they were intended, had, by the exemptions introduced, crippled the regular fervice. So much was this the cafe, that the noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor), whofe ingenuity was generally acknowledged, had been obliged to have recourfe to old arguments to fupport the measure. He was no enemy in general to the argument ad hominem, but he thought it was introduced with a very bad grace on the prefent occafion. Whatever might be the principle of the provisionary cavalry under the former Administration, he could not fee the application of it in the prefent inftance. Of the provifionary cavalry act, his Lordthip faid, he himself had had the honour to approve, but under-circumstances and under regulations very different from the present act.

Lard liobart was glad that, on the whole, the bill had met with fo little oppofition. The volunteer corps, as they stood at the end of the late war, had been brought under no positive system, and some provifions were absolutely necessary to render them more efficient. From the regulations propofed by the bill now before the Houle, the greatest advantages, his Lordship was confident, would be derived. The principle on which the bill proceeded was by no means new. The act of 1802 went not lefs than the prefent to encourage the volunteers. The noble Lord then drew a comparison between the prefent force of the country, and that under the former Adminiftration, for whom he profefled VOL. II. 1803-4.

Pp

tha

the greatest refpect. A greater force, it was true, was now neceffary, and therefore the means of raifing that force were neceffarily more extended. From the returns of the office with which he was connected, there were at the end of the laft war, 175.000 regulars and militia, and upwards of 168,000 volunteers; whereas, now, there were above 628,000 effective men. The measures that had been taken were calculated to give confidence to the country, and to affure every man that there was nothing to be feared even from the loudeft threats of the enemy. The force of the country in fact was fuch as to enable every man to look forward with tranquillity and confidence to the enjoyment of the advantages of our happy conftitution.

The Duke of Montrofe thought that it had not been attempted to be denied that fuch a force as the volunteers was necellary in the prefent exigency of the country, and such a force could not, he believed, be formed fo completely as to remove every objection. The principle of the volunteer eftablishment proceeded on the old fyftem which originated during the laft Administration. The prefent bill was only an attempt to improve it. Formerly he had known corps of five hundred men and upwards without either regular adju tants or ferjeants. The prefent bill remedied these defects, and had a tendency to introduce fuch difcipline among the volunteers, as to render them very little inferior to any regu lar corps. Any economy in this refpect the noble Duke regarded as very pitiful indeed. He ridiculed the idea of providing great coats, inftead of the allowance being paid in money: molt of the volunteers had great coats of their own. At any rate, if the two guineas were meant as an indudement, which the bill feemed to purport, they ought to be given in money to the individual. The prominent character of a good foldier, the noble Duke infifted, was not courage only, but a determination to fight against the enemy. His Grace delivered an eulogium on the Edinburgh volunteers, for whom he would venture to anfwer, and who in every refpect he could pledge himself were equal to any defcription of force under the Crown, either in refpect to the skill of the officers or the difcipline of men. The noble Duke declared himself hoftile to exemptions. Honour, glory, and fafety ought to be the only reward of the volunteers. He approved of the principle of the bill, but thought the different claufes might admit of many alterations.

The Earl of Wilmoreland defended the principle of the