§ Mr. Windhammoved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Yorke ,pursuant to notice, proposed a clause to enable the government to suspend the execution of this act in such districts as might offer a sufficient number of volunteers. If the act before the house were to pass in its present shape, he was very much afraid that the volunteers would consider themselves deprived of that protection for which, from their services, they were entitled to look. The general understanding was, that the object of this bill was to substitute compulsory for voluntary services, and if the clause he submitted, which was to be found in the original bill, were expunged, there was too much ground to warrant that understanding. Were the right hon. secretary to adopt this clause, he was persuaded that the bill would be much more palatable even to its friends. But, however the clause might be disposed of, it was his wish to bring it up, in order that it should appear as a protest on his part, and that of his friends, against a measure in his and their judgment likely to produce the most mischievous consequences.
§ Mr. Windhamopposed the clause, as calculated to defeat the principle of this bill, which was not the substitution of a compulsory for a voluntary force; but the addition of the one to the other. As to those districts in which the volunteers were particularly numerous, there was a provision in the bill which enabled his majesty to return such districts in calling out, only so many as he saw occasion for; and therefore the object of the right hon. gent.'s clause was, in a great measure, answered.
Mr. W. Smithwas only sorry that the measure did not go far enough, by proposing to train the effective population of the country. His opinion was, that even children at school should be taught military 922 exercise, for his conviction was, that in the present state of the world, we should not, unless a greater portion of martial spirit were infused into the people, be able to maintain our rank among the other nations of Europe.—The clause was negatived.
Mr. Yorkethen proposed a clause, to winch he hoped there would he no objection, that every man called out under this bill should take the oath of allegiance. Such was, he observed, the clause of the former act, and such was uniformly the case with regard to the volunteers.
§ Mr. Francisasked whether, if a man should refuse taking this oath he should therefore be exempted from training?
Lord Castlereaghprofessed himself really surprized to hear the supposition supported, that any of his majesty's subjects would hesitate to take that oath, which by the common law it was the bounden duty of all to take, at as early a period of life as possible; and he would be glad to have the performance of that duty superinduced by any act of this nature.
§ Mr. Francissaid, that he did not suppose that any individual would hesitate to take the oath alluded to, from a principle of disaffection; but if a man were conscientiously to decline it, what would be the consequence? Was he, therefore, to be excused from the training, or was he to be punished? If the latter, the measure would be compulsory indeed, with a vengeance.
§ Mr. Windhamsaw no necessity for proposing this oath; conceiving that every one of his majesty's subjects was equally bound to the duties which the oath prescribed, whether he took it or not; and he rather apprehended that the proposition of it might excite alarm among the more ignorant part of the community, and so defeat the object of the bill.
Mr. Yorkenever heard of any alarm that was excited by the proposition of tins oath to the volunteers, and why then apprehend it in this case?
The Lord Advocatewas at a loss to conceive the object of this clause. Compulsion was deprecated by those who proposed it, and yet they now enforced this oath. If, however, a man refused to take it, it did not appear from the bill what consequence was to follow.
Mr. Yorkeobserved, that a man was bound by the common law to take the oath of allegiance, and in this case if a man refused such oath, he would of course be subject to the penalties which attached to a man refusing to be trained.
§ Mr. Percevalcorroborated this observation, and begged the house and the right hon. secretary to recollect the salutary consequences which resulted from the administration of oaths during those unhappy scenes which were gone by, he hoped, never to return. But a statesman, framing a permanent measure like the present, should provide against even the possible recurrence of such an evil; and, remembering that men who took the oath of allegiance were always the most difficult to draw into the societies of disaffection, he would take care to extend that additional guard to loyalty.—The house divided upon the clause, Ayes, 38; Noes, 84. Majority against the clause 46. The bill was then passed.