gone that previous discussion elsewhere, which its importance demanded: he had a right to draw this inference from the manner in which the right honourable gentleman had brought in his bill, which, he was sure, the House could not but have noticed. He merely stated, that a bill was before the House, to give additional pay to the army; and as it was not intended to extend it beyond the subalterns of the militia, it was necessary a legislative measure should be adopted so to limit it. He merely stated it as a matter of little moment, and seemed to think it required no more comment, than if he had moved for leave to bring in a common turnpike bill. He meant not to attribute to the right honourable gentleman any sinister motives. Ile meant not to accuse him of intending to effect any unavowed purpose, or to deceive the House by representing that as trivial, which he thought of importance; and the necessary result of thus fairly judging his conduct was, that he had not looked on the proceeding as of that importance which really belonged to it; he was, therefore, inclined to hope, and, indeed, to entertain a confident expectation, that when he more maturely weighed all the bearings and probable consequences of this measure, he would not persist in pressing it any further. He then declared that it was against the principle of this measure that his opposition was chiefly directed that he disclaimed the meanness which had been attributed to him, of looking to mere emolument, although that, trifling as it was, might in many cases be acceptable to many oflicers of the militia as well as the army; but that feeling all the possible, all the probable, and all the certain evils attendant upon the adoption of this measure, he should find it his duty to oppose it in every part of its progress. : Mr. Yorke contended, that this bill might have been brought in weeks and months ago, when there was a full attendance of the members, and particularly of those who were connected with the militia service. On this ground alone he would oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. The right honourable gentleman had already struck a blow at the volunteers, as much, perhaps, by the manner in which he had introduced his measures, as by the objects which they had in view, and now he made a similar attack on the militia service, while, from the thinness of the House, he thought himself exempted from the neces sity of defending the measure. He then took a view of 4 N 2 the the arguments against the bill, and concluded with observing, that the invidious distinction now proposed to be established, would not save more than 5600l. to the coun try. Colonel Bastard contended, that the present measure was a breach of the faith of Parliament, which was pledged when the militia were first raised, that they should be on the same footing in all respects with the army. Their services were kept, while they were deprived of those privileges to which they were entitled. The distinction now proposed was odious, and for a pitiful saving, the whole militia service was to be disgusted. Lord Temple totally differed from the opinions of the hon. gentleman, and disclaimed his assistance on the terms he had mentioned; he could not approve that wandering manner with which gentlemen on the other side seemed determined, whatever was the question, to inveigh against expressions said to have been used by his right honourable friend (Mr. Windham) respecting the volunteers. Those topics were now introduced into every debate. He would, however, leave it to the House, from what side the expres sions now came, which had an obvious tendency to irritate the volunteers, and to disgust them? Who were the men who now avoided all conciliating language, and who appeared to wish to diminish both the numbers and the spirit of the volunteers? There was an objection, however, which he had to the bill, and that was, that it gave to volunteer officers, when called into action, superior advantages to what the officers of the militia would have. Mr. Bankes said, that he should himself make no observation, but he would leave it to the House to judge on the manner and tone with which the noble lord (Temple) upon this, and indeed almost upon every occasion, reprehended those who differed with him in opinion. The House would discover on what ground his title to give such lectures resté ed, whether it was on his superior ability, or his great experience. It appeared to him, that it was too late in the session (when the extraordinary pressure of business was considered) to bring forward a measure which might disgust such a considerable body of men, who formed the constitutional army of the country. As to the economical saving, he considered that it was a mere trifle when compared to the serious mischief of disgusting the militia. He thought that a measure of such moment should not have been been brought forward at such an advanced period of the ses sion that a regular and decent attendance of members could not be expected. Mr. Windham took a review of the objections that had been urged by different gentlemen, from the temperate and argumentative speech of an honourable baronet (Sir W. Elford), to the intemperate, unreasonable, uninteresting, and (as he conceived) most unargumentative speech of a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke). He dif fered from the hon. baronet in the whole view of the case. Instead of considering it an innovation on any fundamental principle, it appeared to be one of those mere matters of discretionary regulation, which was always suppos ed to be completely open to the wisdom of Parliament. It had been laid down as the general rule, that the militia were to have the same pay as the army. It should, however, be recollected, that this rule was not founded upon any constitutional principle, but merely on the words of the act of Parliament. It was therefore to be considered, what were the words of the act, and what the meaning of it. The militia were called out according to law, but as there be fore existed no law to determine what provision should be assigned for them, the act of the 42d of the king stated, that that should be the same as was allowed to the army. The meaning of the act was clearly, that as it was neces sary to assign them some provision, the legislature thought that what the army then received was not too much. In assigning them that for their provision, the legislature never meant to tie up the hands of the sovereign, or prevent his increasing the pay of any other description of his force. If it was contended, that on account of the words of this act, the King could not now make any provision for any other description of force which should not extend to the militia, the conclusion appeared to him a non sequitur. That his majesty might, from time to time, make alterations with respect to one part of his force, which should not extend to the other, was a thing agreeable to reason, and to the fact. In reason, it could not be contended, that regular troops, who were liable to be called at a moment's notice, to serve their country abroad in unwholesome climates, and exposed to danger, were not in a situation very different from the militia, who could not be ordered out of the country; if then their situation was different, it would not be unreasonable if there should be some difference in their [COM, their allowances. In point of fact, too, a difference had always existed. The officers of the regular army were entitled to half-pay when militia officers were not. The field. officers of the militia, however, made no complaint. It was not so much a difference between regulars and militia, as between one part of the army and another. As to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke), he must say, that with whatever gravity of manners, or authority of tone, he chose to lecture him upon what was his duty as a minister and a member of Parliament, the whole weight and importance of his lec'ures depended upon the strength of the argu ments he adduced, and if his arguments were altogether feeble, it was in vain for him to take the tone or manner of authority. The mode which the honourable gentleman had adopted might serve as an useful example, not to follow, but to avoid. The thing, however, which seemed mast to have offended the hon. gentleman was, that he seemed to think that he (Mr. Windham) had not received his ar guments with all that attention, deference, and respect, which he, no doubt, thought was due to them. It was impossible for ministers, or any other men, to direct their whole attention, in the course of a long debate, to every word that came from those gentlemen on the opposite benches. Sometimes the very business of the debate itself would oblige them to converse a little with those who sat near them. He believed that it was really some observation arising out of the debate, which might have caused for a moment that apparent inattention of which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Yorke) so loudly complained. Mr. Yorke, in explanation, said he was ready to apolo gize to the House, if he had made use of any unparlia mentary expression: he certainly had felt a considerable indignation at a business of such importance being brought forward so late in the session. This indignation he meant to express with the freedom which became a member of Par Jiament, and he hoped he had not transgressed the proper bounds. He had also conceived, that he saw a marked in attention from the right hon. secretary, with which he con fessed, that he felt himself very much hurt. Since the right hon. secretary had, however, disclaimed what he cons ceived to have been a marked inattention, he was ready to apologize to the House if he had been guilty of any irregularity. Mr. Perceval thought the arguments of his right hon. friend had been mis-stated. The great objection to the bill which was now presented to the House was, that it was upon a subject of so much importance, that it was not fair to bring it forward at so late a period of the session, when there could be but a very thin attendance of members. It appeared to him, that it would be very wrong in point of policy that such a measure should be brought forward, at a time that the militia were in arms and embodied. It was then no time to disgust men, when we looked to them for services. He might be told, as he was the other night, about the volunteer drill serjeants, that they might resign. He doubted, however, even whether those who asserted that proposition could venture to say that the militia might resign. If then it was allowed that they could not resign, and that the terms under which they entered were, that they should be on the same footing with the army, it would be a violation of faith with them to place them now upon a worse condition than the army. Cer tainly no little saving, in point of economy, could compen sate for the impolicy of disgusting such a body as the militia, at a time when their services were so necessary. Mr. Giles considered that all the objections which were made to every measure on account of the lateness of the session, amounted only to this question, why did not the present ministers bring forward all at once all the measures which they meant to introduce in the course of the session? As to the breach of public faith that was so much spoken of, he begged leave to remind gentlemen, that the militia was not a voluntary, but a compulsory service, and that if no particular faith was pledged to the ballotted men, certainly their substitutes stood in no better situation than they did. Of a man that voluntarily enlisted in the regular army, it would be right to consider strictly the terms under which he entered; but the militiaman, whether he is the balloted man or the substitute, enters into the service from the compulsion of the law, and can claim no other terms but what the legislature chooses to give. Lord De Blaquiere rose, and spoke on many topics. While he was discussing the vote of thanks proposed on a former night to the volunteers, Colonel Craufurd rose to speak to order. He felt unwilling to interrupt the noble lord; but still, at such an advance period of the session, and at so late an hour at night, he thought he House ought not to listen to argu ments |