had offered her mediation in the large, or in the limited sense of the word, it was important to have an assurance from ministers that they would accept it. No such assurance had been given, and with less he could not be content. If ministers, however, would state fairly that there existed among them, at that moment, a disposition to avail themselves of the offers of Russia, whatever those offers might be, or of a mediation when regularly proposed to them, he would make no difficulty of withdrawing his motion.

Lord Hawkesbury assured the House, that the British government was ready to accept the mediation of Russia; upon which, Mr. Fox consented to withdraw his motion.

VOLUNTEER CONSOLIDATION BILL.

February 29. 1804.

N the 8th of February Mr. Secretary Yorke moved for leave to bring in a bill, "to explain, amend, and consolidate the provisions contained in the several acts relative to yeomanry and volunteer corps throughout the United Kingdom." Leave was given to bring in the bill, and on the 29th, upon the motion, that the bill be committed, the same was opposed by Mr. Francis and Colonel Craufurd, and supported by General Maitland and Colonel Eyre, after which,

Mr. Fox rose and said: I own, Sir, that I am much surprized at the language used by my honourable friend under the gallery, (General Maitland,) and still more surprized at the very extraordinary sentiment with which the honourable gentleman behind me (Colonel Eyre) closed his speech. Of the latter I shall first take notice. The honourable gentleman seems highly to disapprove of any thing in the shape of opposition to his majesty's present ministers, and expresses an opinion that all parties should combine to support them, in order to second their endeavours for the national defence, in a word, that all should be unanimity for that object; but although the honourable gentleman does so broadly assert that dissention prevails, and that means are used to embarrass the operations of government, I would call upon the honourable gentleman to point out a single instance where any obstruction has been offered to the exertions of government to provide for our security. It is easy

for any gentleman to use a round assertion, but I challenge the honourable member to quote any case to justify the charge that any party has been backward to contribute its assistance to the government, whatever they may think of the ministers by whom the government is administered. All, in fact, is, and has been, union for the public safety, from the moment that safety has been pronounced in danger. The people have, every where, pressed forward in the cause of the country, and their zeal has received no damp or check from any quarter, but from the ministers themselves; and, without looking to the innumerable proofs of ardent and active exertion made by the gentlemen of that party to whom the honourable member seemed more particularly to allude, I shall only cite one remarkable instance in the north of England. Let the honourable gentleman look to a distinguished friend of mine in that direction (the Duke of Northumberland). That noble duke has, to his immortal honour, raised a body of not less than 1500 men, whom he has clothed, equipped, disciplined, and furnished with every necessary, arms alone excepted. These they have had from government. What union, then, does the honourable gentleman require? The most cordial union exists every where. in support of the country and the government, and I believe the union is almost equally general against the ministers; but yet I am astonished to find some gentlemen forward to vaunt of those ministers, and to contend that the zeal and union which so universally prevails are attributable to them. Why, certainly, they have been produced by ministers — but how? By their mismanagement: and if upon this they mean to ground their triumph, they are no doubt entitled to it. They have brought the country to the brink of destruction, and have made us all unite for our own security. Really, therefore, if ministers will claim merit for thus exciting the public spirit, I confess that I cannot deny the justice of their pretensions.

With respect to the observations made by my honourable friend, I repeat that I heard them with surprize. I have often had occasion to defend the freedom of debate, and I declare I never witnessed a more extraordinary attempt made to interrupt it, than in the instance I allude to. It seemed to be the drift of my honourable friend's remarks, that no officer below the rank of a lieutenant-general should presume to state his opinion in this House upon any military topic connected with the defence of the country. But how different is this from the conduct pursued by my honourable friend on a former occasion! I remember when he undertook

to censure, and very freely too, the proceedings of officers superior to himself. I will not say in abilities, but very much so in rank: when he was only a major, he commented, and with some severity, upon Generals Meadows, Musgrave, and others, and exposed himself in so doing to some severe animadversions, against which I defended him. I hope, therefore, that he will not be surprized if, acting upon the same principle which influenced my conduct with regard to himself, I now take up the defence of the honourable officer (Colonel Craufurd) who has been this night the object of his attack. If, indeed, the opinions advanced by my honourable friend were pushed to the extent which he appears to wish, it would go to this, that no officer who is a member of this House, however high his reputation, (and surely no man will question the reputation and military talents of the honourable officer alluded to,) should presume to give his opinion upon military subjects to a superior officer. I understand it has been said, that such subjects should not be discussed at all in this House, but that the matter should be entirely left to the consideration of officers of experience. To this opinion, however, I never will subscribe; but even if true, who, I would be glad to know, has a stronger claim to attention on the score of experience than the honourable officer I refer to? And yet my honourable friend would restrain him, and why? not least his opinions should clash with those of other officers of high rank and authority, but because the matter ought, in my honourable friend's judgment, to be left entirely to the consideration of such persons; but yet my honourable friend does not venture to say that the points alluded to by the honourable officer, have been, or will be considered by the high officers, for whose monopoly, not only of military power, but of military knowledge and attention, he seems to be so very anxious. My honourable friend does not know, however, that their attention extends to all the topics alluded to by the honourable officer, and still he would wish him to be silent upon those most important points, not because he actually differs with the high officers, for whom my honourable friend feels such reverence, but least he should differ from them on some things which they may hereafter think proper to consider. This was not the only opposition which the honourable officer experienced from my honourable friend; for, after condemning the general principle of the honourable officer's entering at all into the discussion, my honourable friend endeavoured to combat the detail of his speech-a speech containing more professional information than any speech, perhaps, that I

ever heard in this House, and conveyed in a manner so perspicuous as to be more intelligible to men unacquainted with military tactics than military essays generally are.

The first part of my honourable friend's objections applied to the argument so often used against the volunteer system, on the ground of the exemptions granted to the volunteers; but I would ask, can any man seriously contend that such an argument is not well founded, and that those exemptions have not materially impeded the ballots for the militia and the army of reserve, and also crippled the recruiting for the regular army? The fact is too notorious to be denied. My honourable friend, however, took up these exemptions as a matter justly due to the volunteers, and highly_right in ministers to propose and parliament to adopt. But, if it was a matter of right, it was certainly right by mistake, for there is no doubt that ministers did not intend to grant such exemptions at the time the volunteer bill was passed last summer. If they did, it does not appear on the face of that bill; and sure I am, that it was not so understood in any part of the country that I have heard of. On the contrary, I remember that subscriptions were set on foot in various parishes, to relieve the volunteers from the ballots for the militia or army of reserve, by providing substitutes for such of them as might be chosen for either of those descriptions of force. Is it possible, then, if exemptions were in the contemplation of the framers of the bill I have mentioned, that it should be so universally misunderstood? And yet, it seems, it was; for some time after the enactment of this bill, out came the opinion of the attorney-general, who was not, I must suppose, at all consulted in the first instance, or the bill would have been explicit. No! Ministers first frame acts of parliament to puzzle him, and then they ask his opinion upon them. His opinions upon subjects thus circumstanced were likely to be erroneous, and so they have happened to be.

I am flattered that my opinion respecting the preference of an armed peasantry to the volunteer system happens to agree with that of the honourable officer to whom I have already referred. But my honourable friend has said, that the volunteers would be preferable for active service. I would, however, appeal to his judgment, whether they could be competent to the same duties as a regular army; and whether they can be so fit for any other description of service as an active, hardy, armed peasantry? The honourable gentleman who spoke last has referred to the state of the volunteers in a particular county; but does he mean to say, that the state of our force would not be much improved, that

the defences of the counties of Sussex and Kent would not be better secured by the establishment of the principle of an armed peasantry, than by the present amount of the volunteer force, to be found in these or in any of the other counties, particularly on the coast? Some stress has been laid on the advantages likely to arise from the colour of the cloathing, &c. of the volunteers, as contrasted with an armed peasantry; but this very difference I reckon among the defects of the volunteer system; and the quibbling remarks on a smock-frocked army are not worthy of reply. If the amount of the volunteers be dwelt upon; if I am told that we have in them an army of 400,000 men, I answer, that by resorting to an armed peasantry, we might have two million, and more effective, requiring less drilling, more easily prepared for the objects to which it is right to apply them, and less expensive. My principal objections to the volunteers, indeed, arise out of their expense and their mode of instruction, and to the latter particularly. Too much time is employed in endeavouring to teach that which is not necessary, and which they never can completely learn. By such a mode of proceeding much mischief is, and much more may be, done. To this, indeed, the words of Pope may be applied

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;"

and for this reason, that men are apt to draw inaccurate deductions, and to rest upon imperfect grounds. The volunteers, by such injudicious instructions, are withdrawn from that which they might acquire with facility and use with much more effect, and the operation of such a system will be to give their minds a wrong direction. If, however, it was wished to render the volunteers perfect in this system of discipline, how came it that the instructions should have commenced so late that, but a few months ago, many volunteer corps were without a single musket, and even at this hour there are several volunteers who have never fired a ball in their lives? Men should not be obliged to travel through the tedious course of military tactics when the danger is so urgent as it is admitted to be on all hands. A force not thus perplexed with circuitous lessons would be much more easily collected, and more effectual; armed also with other weapons than muskets, they, perhaps, would be able more completely to annoy the enemy. Some miserable expedients have been resorted to in order to depreciate the opinions of the honourable officer. His recommendation of pikes was at first discountenanced, and yet, since then, his plan has been acted upon to a considerable extent. Above 100,000