This might be intelligible, but it #as not the case. The men that had hitherto formed the British armies were men of stout hearts and habits: men of spirit and courage; lovers of bold enterprise. These were the materials of which an army must be composed: give him such men, though not of the better description: the worse men were the fittest for soldiers; keep the better at home. Upon these grounds, hemust vote for the clause as it now stood.

Lord Sidmouth agreed with the noble viscount, as to the advantages derived to the army from volunteering from the militia, but differed with him in his opinion as to the present system of enlistment. His lordship entered into a detail of the measures adopted for re cruiting the army during the last and present wars; and contended that the system of recruiting now in operation was the only measure to which the late administration could look with confidence for keeping up the army, without resorting to compulsory service, which, on every ground that could be stated, it was so desirable to

avoid. His lordship said he had entertained doubts as to the system introduced two years ago, though he had given it his support as an experiment then necessary, in consequence of the failure of the additional force act. That system had succeeded in the most ample manner, and had more than equalled the ordinary mode of recruiting and the additional force bill put together. He was satisfied that the old mode of recruiting would never be sufficient of itself, without some subsidiary system, such as the army of reserve. By the new system we had procured a force better in quality, in stature, and in morals. He was, therefore, of opinion that any thing which might go to deprive the country of any part of the benefit arising from the system of limited service must be prejudicial, and ought to be avoided.

The earl of Moira spoke on the same side, as did lord Holland: the earl of Westmoreland was against it. The duke of Glocester replied, and the motion was negatived with out a division, and the bill was almost immediately past into a law.

over some interesting debates in the house of commons; among these was that on the expor

ed the lower house, and been read a first and second time in the house of peers, a petition was presented

against

against it by an individual M. de Testat, who, under license from the Spanish government, had opened a trade with the Spanish dominions in South America, by which means he exported a considerable quantity of British manufactures, and imported bark, of which he had a very large quantity on hand: his petition went to prove that the bill would be productive of serious injury to him. On the 7th of April he was heard by counsel, and witnesses were called to support the allegations contained in the petition. As soon as the counsel was withdrawn, the question was put for the third reading of the bill; upon which

Earl Bathurst stated the object of the bill, which, he said, had been miscalled a bill of privatior, as it went to allow the exportation of bark upon certain conditions. Information had been received, that the French government, wishing to obtain a supply of this article, had given directions that this article should be admitted into the French ports, although coming from this country, provided it formed the sole cargo of the vessel. It was thought a little too much, that the enemy should not only obtain this article of which he stood in need, but should also obtain it upon his own terms; and therefore this measure was resorted to, in order that the enemy might be prevented from obtaining a supply of this article, unless he took with it British colonial produce, or British manufactures. He could not conceive, therefore, that this bill was liable to any of those objections which had been urged against it. A noble and learned lord had, on a former night, urged an objection to it on the ground of religion; but surely there could be nothing in

consistent with the dispensations of Providence in assisting and pro moting human industry.

Lord Erskine, notwithstanding the arguments of the noble earl, still maintained the opinion which he before urged, that this measure was contrary to the dictates of religion and the principles of huma nity; and so strongly did he feel upon this subject, that he intended, in case the house agreed to the bill, to embody the reasons which operated in his mind against it in the form of a protest, in order that they might remain upon the journals of the house, and go down to posterity. It could not be said to be analogous to the case of a siege, because there the object was, in forcing the besieged to endure privations, to compel them to surrender, by which they might put an end to those privations; but by this measure, sickness and disease were to be bereft of a medicine which was an effectual remedy, and this without any object to be attained, but that of distressing the m nocent inhabitants of the continent. Such a mode of warfare was inconsistent with the dictates of the christian religion; and he rejoiced that, on this occasion, the reverend prelates, who usually attended that house, did not attend to vote in favour of this measure. As to the information stated by the noble earl to have been received, that house knew nothing of it, and therefore it could not form a ground of supporting this measure...

The earl of Westmoreland, lord Mulgrave, and lord Redesdale sup ported the bill. The earl of Albemarle, lord Holland, and the earl of Lauderdale, opposed it; as did also lord Grenville, who particularly cautioned the house to look well at the consideration they were tore

as the price of the honour, justice, and humanity of the country. The assertion of the noble lord (Mulgrave) that we were entitled to resort to whatever species of warfare might be adopted against us, he confessed surprised him not a little. Were we, if at war with a nation of Indians, because they might scalp our men who fell into their hands, to retaliate on them by scalping their people in return? If at war with the Persians, and they penred poisoned weapons into our tents, were we to poison the weapons with which we fought? If they poisoned our streams of water, were we to retaliate by poisoning their fountains? If they employed assassination against us, were we to turn our swords from fair and honourable war, to match them in deeds of treachery and disgrace? Such, he thanked God, had never been our system of waging war; nor, till the present measures were introduced, had we ever sacrificed a particle of our national charactér. It had been remarked, that one of the greatest crnaments of the city of Lyons was an hospital for the sick and infirm: when that city was attacked by Robespierre, he ordered his cannon to be directed principally against this struc ture, as being an object the destruction of which gave peculiar delight to his sanguinary and inhuman disposition. In adopting the present measure, we endeavoured to assis milate ourselves to that monster of inhumanity; for what else was the present bill, but a cannon directed against the hospitals on the continent? The bill, however, had this additional disadvantage, that it was completely futile and inadequate. So all that we should gain by the measure would be, to evince

Majority

221

4.4.

66.

Lord Grenville presented a clause by way of rider, with a view to indemnify individuals who should be injured by the bill.

Lord Hawkesbury opposed the clause, as laying down a bad precedent, and it was rejected without a division. The bill was then passed without any further opposition.

On the same day, in the lower house, another reversion bill, which had passed through some of the forms, was debated at length: we shall give an abridged account of the speeches made by Mr. Bankes, and the chancellor of the exchequer, which will abundantly explain the nature of the measure.

Mr. Bankes rose, and reminded the committee of the situation in which they now stood, from the former bill having been rejected by the lords. They were therefore precluded, in point of form, from bringing forward exactly the same measure this session. It was on this account that he had brought in a bill, with a limitation in point of time. If this was carried, it would at least secure one object,

namely,

fore the house, otherwise than as being conveyed in a manner in which it could not be expected to pass the other house. He had at that time intimated his intention of proposing a clause, the object of which was entirely mistaken. Understanding that one great ground of complaint against grants in reversion was, that the want of notoriety attending them was likely often to give occasion to their being given to improper persons, he suggested as a remedy, that every future grant of the kind should be published in the Gazette. This proposition for regulating the mode of granting, was supposed to imply a determination that grants in reversion should be made, whereas the object of the committee of finance was to keep every office as free and open as possible to any reform they might think proper to introduce. His proposition was by no means intended to impede this object; but having been so misunderstood, and misrepresent ed, he should abandon it. He was glad to find that so far, at least, he proceeded with the general approbation of the house. With the alteration in the preamble, also, he gladly coincided, as it fell in with the wish of presenting a new measure to the other house. The former bills proposed to abolish grants in reversion altogether. The present proposed only to suspend the exercise of that part of the prero gative for a time to be limited. Thus the present bill was different from others in substance and form. Whether, after all, the measure was likely to be so supported in the lords as to pass that house, it was not for him to say; but he thought it incumbent on the friends of the measure, and on the friends of the cordiality of both houses, to avoid

framing it so that there would be obvious ground of objection on the face of it, and consequently very little probability that it would pass. On these grounds he approved of the measure as it was now proposed by his honourable friend, and forbore to press the amendments he had on a former night suggested. He had had some other amendments also in view, all tending to the same effect, of making the measure more acceptable to the lords, by coming in a new shape; but he confessed that the course pursued by the honourable gentleman, on mature consideration of all the circumstances and all the reasons connected with the general principle, rendered these amendments unnecessary. His opinion of the bill itself was not changed. He neither saw those great benefits which some supposed likely to result from it, in point of public economy; nor did he see that danger to the prerogative which existed in the apprehensions of some of the lords. So far as it was represented to the public, that any great diminution of its burthens could be effected by the retrenchment of these offices, the promise was delusive, and would be attended with great disappointment; to that representation, therefore, he wished to be no party. On the other hand, with respect to the prerogative of the crown, though some alteration may be made by the bill for the present, by taking away the liberty of making grants in reversion, yet, when the offices so granted should fall in, the power of the crown, in that respect, would be increased rather than diminished. He was of opinion, that grants in reversion were often a cheap mode. of rewarding public service, which would otherwise be to be rewarded

by