duct, while in actual fervice, it would be The Duke of Manchester answered Lord Lord Carlile rofe again, declaring he was in hopes he should not have had occafion to trouble their Lordships a fecond time, but that he should have received fome more fatisfactory reafon for the alteration than had yet been affigned. His Lordship contended, that fpeculative expediency was a bad ground to state to a Houfe of Parliament as a reafon for altering a bill of fo much importance; and that if the cafe was, as it had been faid to be by the noble Lord high in office, the remedy now propofed did not at all fuit the grievance. A few plain words, thrown into the form of a claufe, enacting that brevet officers fhould not take command but by virtue of a letter of fervice, or fome fpecial authority from his Majefty, would anfwer the purpofe much better. His Lordship reafoned upon the subje& for fome time, and alluded to the conduf of Government in having called out the officers on half-pay in 1715, when they were ordered to repair to fpecifick place by certain days, for the purpose of being immediately employed in actual fervice, and threatened them with the forfeiture of their half-pay in cafe of difobedience of the order. If the Crown had no legal authority fo to call out the half-pay officers, his Lordship faid Government had, in that inftance, been guilty of an act of the greateft cruelty, or rather the greatest ty ranny that ever was practifed. He concluded with faying, as the proper time for propofing an amendment would be when the bill was in a Committee, he would referve what he had to fay further on the fubject till then, but that he thought t fair and candid to apprize his Majefty's Minifters of his intention beforehand. Lord Portchefier faid, he had come into the Houfe after the debate began, but from what he could collect, the question turned upon the doubt, whether officers hoid. ! ing commiffions by brevet, and exercising command without pay, were fubje&t to be tried by courts martial or not. His Lordfhip fpoke for fome time or the fubject, and touched upon the idea of the right of the Crown to call upon fuch officers, as well as half-pay officers, to come into actual fervice, and maintained, that unless the doctrine was established that every man who had been once a foldier, was a foldier for life, no fuch pofition could be fupported. Lord Sydney, in a fhort fpeech, recapitulated the heads of what he had first said, and defired to be understood correctly.His Lordship, in the courfe of what he faid, hinted, that if any amendment were made, the bill might be loft: that, however, was not then the confideration. Lord Stormont rofe again to repel even an infinuation that if their Lordships made any alteration or amendment in the Mutiny Bill, the bill would be in danger of being loft. His Lordship warmly contended, that fuch a doctrine was not to be tolerated within those walls, and pointed out the effect of its admiflion, which would go to deprive their Lordships of the right of exercising their legiflative functions as Peers of Parliament. Having laid down this pretty ftrongly, he recur. red to his former argument against the alteration propofed, and added fome reafoning in fupport of it. The 15th article of war, and contended, that it was the commiffion did all, and that letters of fervice, on which fo much stress had been laid, did nothing more than call out into exercife thofe functions the com miffions had previously bestowed. Lord Townshend faid, the alteration ftruck him as a matter that went to a much greater extent than had been stated in the courfe of the debate. It tended to encreafe the power of the Crown, and might ultimately affect the conftitution.— Now, though he had no dread of any ill ufe being made of this encrease of the power of the Crown in the present reign, or even in the reign of any of the prefent family, it was their duty to guard against the bare probability of fuch a circumftance. His Lordfhip therefore thought it ought to be fully confidered before the Houfe adopted the alteration; but, he faid, he should referve his fentiments till the next day, when they were in a Committee, and, in order to obtain a full Houfe, he moved that their Lordships should be fummoned. Lord Hopetoun fupported the alteration, declaring, that in proportion as the difcipline of the army was perfect, the liberties of the fubject, and the prefervation of the conftitution, were more fafe and fe The Lord Chancellor left the woolfack to reply, and began with declaring, that he joined the noble Viscount in the whole of his fentiments refpe&ting the impropriety of having it ftated to their Lordships, that they ought not to alter any bill that came before them, just as much as to their wifdom fhould feem meer. Since he had the honour of a feat in that House, he had never fhewn himself over anxious to ward off any objections to bills, merely becaufe they were money bills. It was fit for their, Lordships to difcufs every bill fent up to them, and thofe who contended, that becaule the House of Commons voted the difpofition of the publick money, that their Lordships were not competent to make any alteration in bills enacting that difpofition, ought to take care that their bills were fo correctly drawn, as to ftand in need of no alteration whatever. Having Rated his opinion on this point precifely and firmly, the Lord Chancellor proceeded to the queftion under difcuffion, and declared, he complained not of furprife in the converfation's having been brought on, when, he owned, he had not expected any debate would have taken place. It was, in his opinion, perfectly fair and candid in the noble Lord, to have acted as they had done, and previous to going into a Committee on the bill, to apprize the Houfe of their objections to the alteration, of the nature of which he wifhed their Lordships to be fully in poffeffion. It was merely the changing of the word mußtered, to the word commiffioned. He declared, he had not much confidered the fubject before the converfation began, but fince it commenced, a book had been put into his hand, (the Mutiny Act) from which HOUSE OF COMMONS. he had collected fufficient information to fatisfy his mind that the proposed altera tion was extremely expedient and proper. His Lordship then proceeded to argue from the printed act, in order to prove, that if any one chose to have the rank of a military officer, he ought to be liable, in cafe of misbehaviour, to the mode of trial that other military officers were. Either, faid he, let him be ftripped of the ornament, or let him wear it at the rifque and upon the condition that other men wear it. Either abolith all commiffions by brevet, or fubje& thofe who hold them, and exercise command, to the fame law that officers in actual fervice are fubjected to. If they choose to bear the name of foldiers, make them foldiers, fo far as to be liable to be tried by a court martial, as other foldiers arc. His Lordship touched on the cure. So far from the alteration encreafing the power of the Crown, his Lordship thought it tended to decrease it. The Earl added other circumstances in favour of the alteration, after which the bill was read a fecond time, and committed for next day. Monday, March 20, 1786. Mr. DUNDAS'S EAST INDIA BILL. Mr. Dundas moved, that the bill be committed for Wednesday next. Mr. Francis objected to fo early a day, and obferved, that not only on account of the great importance of the bill, and the material alterations it made in the principles of the conftitution, it ought to be fufferei to go through all the ufual delays of Parliamentary proceeding, but because the unusual circumstance attended it of its being brought in on the fame day in which leave had been granted. He hoped, therefore, the Right Hon. Gentleman would allow a longer interval for the commitC 2 ment. Mr. Mr. Dundas contended for the neceffity of an early day, in order that the bill might go out to India with the fhips fhortly intended to fail. The circumstance of its being brought in on the day in which leave had been obtained, was no reason for delay; because it did not proceed from any haftinefs in the mover, but from the acci dent of the motion for leave being prevented from being made, for two days, by the difappointment of a ballot for an Election Committee, which rendered it neceffary to make every amends that was poffible in point of time. As the queftion was going to be put, Mr. Jolliffe came in, and ftated, that he must request that a delay of fome days might be had on a queftion of fuch infinite importance, by which the, conftitution of this country was to be fo very materially altered, that by this bill the trial by jury was to be laid afide; that the foundation was hereby laid to fubvert and deftroy that dearest and most valuable privilege of Englishmen; that our lives, our liberty, our property, and our characters were all dependent on this inftitution; that the eftablishing a new mode of trial, was ad. mitting the principle that trials might be had without juries; which, if once cftablifhed, might be carried to any length. It therefore was but right that the country should know what an attempt was making. There was another great objection to this bill, it eftablished the most enormous power in the hands of Government that ever was heard of; it was in fact the most monstrous ftride to encreafe the power of the Crown that had been made at any period; and although the prefent Miniftry, or the next, might not mifufe it, the confequences might be dreadful. It was no lefs than giving abfolute dominion into the hands of the Government over every man who came from India. He was to give an account of his acquifitions to the Board of Controul only, and they might either proceed against him for perjury, in delivering in a falfe account, or for peculation, or any crime they might charge against him to have been committed in India, or they might withhold the proceeding, as they pleafed. This put all the wealth of the Eaft entirely at their difpofal: for thefe reafons, but moft efpe. cially on account of the alteration of the trial by jury, he moved, that the bill fhould be committed for Friday, inftead of Wednesday. The Houf: divided on the amendment, The original queftion for Wednesday was then put, and carried. HOUSE OF LORD S. Tuesday, March 21, 1786. MUTINY BILL. The House Having resumed itself into a Committee on the Mutiny Bill, Lord Scarfdale in the Chair, Lord Stormont came to the table, and began a long fpeech with declaring, that if he was not convinced that the ground on which the innovation proposed to be made in the Mutiny Bill, was a ground of doubtful expediency, if he was not fatisfied it would afford an inadequate remedy to a mere imaginary inconvenience, and if he was not decifively of opinion that if it were adopted, it would prove a matter of ferious mifchief to the conftitution, and to the liberties of the people, he would not again trouble their Lordships upon a fubject, respecting which they heard fo much the preceding day; but conceiving, as he did, that the innovation in question was of a nature truly alarming, and might, if once fanctioned by the legislature, lead to confequences that their Lordships little dreamt of, he held it his duty to go more at large into the fabje&t than he had done, in order to flate to the Houfe the grounds on which he refted the opinion he entertained; and he trufted, he should not hear those who might do him the honour to answer him, take advantage of any inaccuracies he might cafually fall into, for want of a profeffional knowledge of military affairs; neither did he expect that the fhortness of the time that the prefent Mutiny A&t had to exift, would be urged as a plea for refufing to receive any amendment that might be propofed, becaufe he did not believe that thofe who brought in the bill, kept it back till the laft moment, with a view to have the advantage of fuch artifice; for if they did, he should not scruple to call it a paltry artifice, and because the amendments he fhould offer, would not neceffarily delay the bill a fingle day. They might, if thought fit to be received, be received that day, and the bill fent down to the Houfe of Commons, and be brought back, and receive the Royal affent to-morrow. It had, his Lord hip faid, been infinunted by a noble Lord high in offic, the preceding day, that the House would would endanger the lofs of the bill. if collected and embodied as an army; and doctri doctrine laid down the preceding day by Lord Effingham, that half-pay officers were out of the army. The very reverse, he faid, was the fact; half-pay officers had dormant commiffions. Their halfpay was the benevolent boon of their So. vereign, provided for by Parliament; but, he believed, the half-pay officers would confider it as a great hardship, if their commiffions were taken from them. He ftated, that if the innovation ftood, it would fubject half-pay officers to military law, reminding the Houfe at the fame time, that for two years they were exprefsly fubject to the Mutiny Bill, a circumftance that created great uneafinefs without doors, and was much refifted and debated by both Houfcs of Parliament; and in the year 1748, when men grew more moderate upon the fubject, that part of the Mutiny Bill had been omitted, and it had been left out ever fince. It was clear, therefore, that the fober voice of Parliament had at all times declared, that half-pay officers fhould not be subject to military law, and that, upon the principle he had before stated, viz. that military law ought to be confined to actual military fervice alone. His Lordship illuftrated his arguments with various facts and obfervations; and faid, that no man was lefs willing to compliment the prefent Miniftry than he was, when he faid, he did not believe they had any finifter intention in refpect to the alteration they had introduced into the bill; what he charged them with, was with inattention, with inadvertency, and with inconfideratenefs; with having neglectfully and carelessly adopt ed an alteration, to the probable and ferious confequences of which they had not fufficiently turned their views. This was the whole of the misconduct he afcribed to them, and he trufted it was all they deferved, as far as the prefent inftance went. He concluded with declaring, that when the Chairman had come to the proper claufe, he would propofe his amend not refift the impulfe he felt to make a few short obfervations on the subject of an innovation as uncalled for by any actual ground of neceffity, and of as much real importance, as any one topick that had for fome years engaged the attention of either Houfe of Parliament. According to the conftitution of this country, a standing army, his Lordship faid, was illegal, nor could his Majefty, by the common law of the land, keep up fuch a force; but the neceffities of the ftate having for fome years rendered the maintenance of fome ftanding army a matter of expediency, a ftanding army had of late been allowed; but fo jealous of it had Parliament ever been, fince a standing army was first permitted, and fo jealous had it fhewn itfelf on the fubje&t, that it would fuffer no standing army to exift for more than a year at a time, and thence Parlia ment from year to year voted a Mutiny Bill for the difcipline of that army, conftantly declaring in the preamble of the bill, that a ftanding army was unconftitutional, and that it was permitted on principles of indifpenfible ftate neceffity. The Mutiny Bill, therefore, was a bill which it behoved their Lordships to watch, and every, even the flightest alteration made in it, ought to be attentively confidered, and weli weighed, before it was concurred in. With regard to the alteration now propofed for the first time, it was a matter that ought to awaken every one of their Lordfhips to a sense of their duty, and induce them to take care, that under the pretence of providing against a fanciful inconvenience that might never happen, they did not connive at á ferious and alaiming attack upon the conftitution.Rumour, his Lordship obferved, had faid, that an affair that had happened in the Eaft Indies, was the foundation and cause of the innovation now propofed. The affair he alluded to was that of General Stuart, which had been moft grossly mifreprefented in every particular: their Lordships, therefore, if they relied upon that, relied upon what had no fort of reference to the cafe of a brevet officer fuperfeding another officer in actual fervice, who might have a command where that brevet officer chanced to be. General Stuart, his Lordfhip faid, had a Major General's commillion, fpecially conftituting him Commander in Chief in India. That commiffion authorifed and obliged General Stuart to act as he had done, and if he had not fo acted, he would not have done his duty. But was it imagined that General Stuart |