purpose of submitting a motion relative to the continuation of certain militia regiments without disembodying. He said that great care had been taken by the legislature to prevent the burden of the militia ballot from pressing more heavily than the exigencies of the public service required; the prerogative of the crown was therefore restrained, and the establishment "of that species of force was regulated, by various acts of parliament. The cases in which the militia might be called out were specifically stated, and were, 1st, actual invasion; 2d, imminent danger thereof; 3d, insurrection; 4th, rebellion; but none of these at present existed. It was a great hardship upon the ballotted men to be detained from their familes longer than the continuance of the exigence which had empowered the government to call them out, after which time they were legally entitled to return to their homes. It was also a hardship upon the counties and townships which lay under the obligation of providing for their wives and families. These considerations induced him to move, That an account be laid before their Lordships of the regiments of militia which had been disembodied, and also of those which still remain embodied.

Lord Sidmouth, as the person who presided in the department whence the order for suspending the disembodying of the militia had proceeded, felt himself called upon to reply to the observations of the noble earl. The legislature had been anxious to guard the militia force by regulations, not merely for the purpose suggested, but with a view to restrain the prero

gative and influence of the crown with respect to it. The acts of parliament to which the noble Earl had alluded, as pointing out the cases in which the militia might be called out, were not to be construed narrowly; and it was always understood that the country being at war was an exigence justifying such a measure, and that during the continuuance of that state, the militia services were to be contitinued as long as the crown should judge it to be of public advantage. There could be no injustice in such continuance towards the men, since the ballotted man was bound by his oath to serve five years, and the substitute, as long as the regiment continued embodied. As to the hardships on the counties and townships, he did not know but they might have an equitable claim for re-imbursement. He affirmed that there had been no partiality shown with respect to the particular regiments embodied or disembodied; and would not oppose the production of the account required.

Lord Grenville said, that specific cases being pointed out by the militia act, it was illegal to wander from them. The militia had been called out only four times since the original act, and each time in strict conformity with the cases provided. These were, in the seven years' war; in the American war, but not till after France and Spain joined in it; in 1792 when there was danger of insurrection (the extent and depth of which danger said Lord G. no man now living, perhaps, knows better than myself); and the beginning of the war just now closed, in which in-, vasion was fully determined on by

the

the enemy. But even in the case of the apprehended insurrection, which was probably the most formidable of these periods, the House thought it proper to examine at length the grounds of embodying

the militia.

Lord Sidmouth said that the noble lord's facts would serve him for nothing unless he could shew that the militia was disembodied the moment the first cry of invasion or insurrection was over, which did not correspond with the fact.

Lord Donoughmore was surprised to find that the measure of retaining some of the militia regiments was meant to be permanent, as he conceived from the intended introduction of a bill; and he thought there might be reasons of patronage connected with the choice. He knew that in Ireland a militia regiment was thought one of the best things that could be given away.

Lord Liverpool affirmed that there was no idea of turning the present mode of disembodying the militia into a permanent measure; and said that the bill was merely to relieve townships from partial pressures, such as providing for the families of militiamen and the like. The question was then put and carried.

The subject was afterwards taken up in the House of Com

mons.

Sir S. Romilly, on Nov. 28th, after, by his desire, the militia acts of the 48th and 49th of the king had been read, rose and declared, that having used his best endeavours to investigate the matter, he was of opinion that in omitting to disembody the militia the ministers had acted illegally and unconstitu

tionally. It was a question that admitted of no doubt, as it depended entirely on the plain words of the statute. He then referred to the four causes for calling out the militia, as stated in a former speech; and proceeded to say, that if the House would consider the object of the militia laws, it would be confirmed in the opinion that without a violation of the constitution, mimisters could not, in time of profound peace, hold the militia from their houses and families, subject to the privations of military service. The militia was not an army, but a mass of armed citizens, not losing, but only having suspended for a time, the advantage of the equal laws of their country. If, in the present circumstances, the militia might continue embodied, there was no reason why it might not remain so during the rest of his Majesty's reign. The only defence he had heard of this measure was, that we were still at war with America; but was there a man so timid or credulous as to fear invasion from that country? Should it be said that the restrictions of the act had a reference not to the disembodying, but to the calling out, of the militia, would not such an argument render it merely an option in the crown whether the militia should be disbanded at all? He understood that the conduct of the ministers was sanctioned by the authority of the law officers of the crown. If the opinion had been given first, and then acted upon, it would have been much better. He did not mean to insinuate that it would have been different under different circumstances; but it was impossible not to see that the question came before

those

those officers clothed with the authority of the statesmen in whose opinions and measures they must be supposed to concur, as they still held their places under them. After several other pointed observations on this topic, the hon. and learned gentleman concluded with moving a resolution, in substance, That it appeared to this House, that as peace had been concluded for more than six months, and the country enjoyed internal tranquillity, the still keeping part of the militia force embodied was obviously contrary to the intent and spirit of the act of the 42d of the king, and a violation of the principles of the Constitution.

The Solicitor-general avowed, that notwithstanding the arguments of his hon. and learned friend, he still held the opinion on the subject which he had given. He acknowledged that ministers would act illegally, if they advised his Majesty to call out the militia except in one of the cases specified in the act; but as no specific period had been assigned at which it was to be disembodied, he would assert, that they having been legally embodied, it was legal to keep them so. He did not say that such was the intention of the legislature, but looking at the letter of the law, and called upon to give his opinion as a lawyer upon it, he must say he saw no illegality in keeping part of the militia force still embodied. Whether this exercise of the prerogative in the present instance were a discreet one, was a different question; and in this, as well as on all other exercises of the royal prerogative, the ministers were responsible.

VOL. LVI.

Lord Milton wished the learned gentleman, instead of confining himself to the mere letter of the act, had also taken into consideration its obvious meaning and spirit. He should be glad to know what opinion he would venture, to put upon paper had the question been stated in these terms," When the militia was once embodied, was it lawful for the crown to keep them embodied as long as it should think proper?" The argument of the learned gentleman would go the length of saying, that when once the crown had been able to get the militia out, it might retain them to all eternity. Looking at the mere letter of the law, without regarding its intention, might do very well for a special pleader; but it might be expected from a member or parliament, speaking in his place, on an act of great constitutional importance, that he would have an opinion about its intention and spirit. In time of war, parliament had a right to expect that gentlemen of a certain fortune and situation should come forward to officer the militia; but if it were laid down that those regiments might be kept up at the pleasure of the crown, it could not be expected that the same description of men could be found for officers.

Sir A. Pigott was decidedly of opinion that it was most unconstitutional to keep up the militia six months after the definitive treaty of peace. Nothing could be clearer, than that when the purposes of calling out the militia ceased, the power of embodying them must cease. The construction which the learned gentleman had put

upon the act would convert the militia into a standing army. He looked upon it as a great constitutional question, and was sorry to find it reserved for those times that ministers should advise the crown as it had done.

Serjeant Best supported the Solicitor-general by recapitulating some of his arguments.

Mr. Ponsonby declared himself greatly surprised that the Solicitorgeneral bad asserted that he did not know what the spirit of the law meant: it was, however, the duty of that House to know the spirit of the law; and courts of justice constantly declared that they decided according to that spirit. It was said that the time when the crown should disembody the militia was not specified; but the sole discretion vested in the crown was this whether it was fit to continue the militia on foot, with reference to the causes which made it legal to embody it. He was of opinion that it was now unlawfully retained.

Mr. C. Grant argued in favour of the retention; and said that there was enough in the state of Europe, and while such a demand existed on the continent for our regular army, to explain the reasons and policy of still maintaining a portion of our domestic force embodied.

Sir S. Romilly made a recapitulation of the arguments that had been employed on the subject; and said that the real question was, whether the crown had an indetinite power to keep the militia on foot as long as it thought fit, contrary to the express tenor of an act of parliament. On this question

he would divide the house, though he should stand alone.

A division then took place, For the Motion 32; Against it 97; Majority 65.

It is observable that none of the ministers spoke on this occasion.

In a subsequent debate on the army estimates, a sum being moved for the expenses of certain militia regiments not disembodied, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in explanation, that the war with America, and the keeping up of a considerable body of troops on the Continent, requiring the maintenance of a large military force, government, on the most mature deliberation, thought that such force would best be rendered disposable by keeping embodied a part of the militia.

Mr. Whitbread affirmed that nothing could less have the appearance of a deliberate measure, since the Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire militias were stopped when on their march to be disembodied.— Mr. Bathurst allowed that the retention of part of the militia was not a systematic plan on the part of government, but was dictated by the demands for the employment of the regular forces abroad,

The result of the Court Martial held on Colonel Quentin, of the 10th Light Dragoons, (see Trials, &c.) was the cause of a parliamentary debate, of which it may be interesting to give a brief summary.

On November 17, Colonel Palmer rose, pursuant to notice, to' call the attention of the House of Commons to the subject, in which he was particularly concerned, as being, by his rauk in the regiment,

the

the prosecutor on that occasion. He began with asserting that the observation made by the courtmartial that "there appears to have existed such a want of cooperation among the officers of the regiment, as to render the duties of the commanding officer much more arduous than they otherwise would have been," was not founded on fact. He then proceeded to comment on the charges which had been produced against Colonel Quentin, and the evidence in support of them, in doing which, he quoted from the reply he had made before the court martial to the defence set up by Colonel Quentin. He concluded with reading that part of the sentence of the courtmartial, which, in his opinion, injuriously reflected upon the characters of those in whose behalf he was now imploring the intercession of the House; and with respect to himself, he said he had never wished to become the prosecutor of Colonel Quentin, but had been directed to undertake that task, not only by the authority of the Commander in chief, but by command of the Prince Regent himself. In fine, he moved for "An humble address to his Royal Highness, that he would graciously be pleased to direct the proceedings of the general Court-martial held on Colonel Quentin to be laid before them."

Mr. Manners Sutton, (Judge Advocate) said, that the course which the hon. mover had pursued was the most extraordinary he had ever witnessed in parliament. The motion had been deferred in order to give time for the production of the evidence, and he now expected to convince the House by

the

reading one half of the proceedings. He was himself clearly of opinion, that unless it was the intention to attack the integrity of the courtmartial, there existed not the slightest foundation for the motion. The court was a competent tribunal. The members stood high in public opinion, and it was sufficient to read the list to remove every suspicion of their being actuated by improper influence. The hon. gentleman then adverted to various particulars of the charge. He admitted that the discipline of the regiment was in a very bad state under Col. Quentin's command, and that under the previous command of Col. Robarts and the hon. mover, the discipline was excellent; but his reply was, that all this was known to the duke of Wellington, who applied proper remedy; and the courtmartial, deeming all the imputations upon Col. Quentin's courage unfounded, and holding that for the rest he had received a sufficient censure, had come to the judgment now under consideration. He then adduced facts to justify the court in its remark on the want of co-operation among the officers. He also adverted to the case of Col. Ross of the 85th regiment, who having been found guilty of improperly employing inen on duty, the captains by whom the charge was preferred were dismissed, and Col. Ross, in consequence of having himself previously instigated trivial prosecutions, was directed to retire, selling his commission: the officers in this case might feel aggrieved, but it was for an impartial witness to decide, whether any thing had taken place in the result of the prosecution

[P] 2