MILITIA OFFICERS' BILL.

HC Deb 14 July 1806 vol 7 cc1137-43

Mr. Windham

moved the order of the day, for the house to go into a committee on the Militia Officers' Bill.

Sir W. Elford

strongly objected to the present bill, on the ground of its making a distinction between the militia and the army, that was utterly inconsistent with those acts of parliament on which the militia was established. It was founded on the absurd principle, that men of fortune should accept no remuneration for those services which they might perform to the public. But supposing, for a moment, that a gentleman of large fortune, in the county of Norfolk for instance, should be appointed one of the secretaries of state, and that his colleagues should propose to him, that he should perform the duty, without any salary, he had no doubt that the proposition would appear to him very absurd. The militia, he contended, were placed on the same footing with the army, and the officers, without distinction, were equally entitled to the same additional pay that might be thought proper to bestow on those of the regulars. Was it not dangerous to innovate on what had been determined by the wisdom of our ancestors; and what, besides, had given general satisfaction? It was not so much the idea of pay that was to be considered, as the distinction which was now proposed to be made, which, he was convinced, would sow the seeds of discord in the militia.

Mr. Yorke

contended, that this bill might have been brought in, weeks and months ago, when there was a full attendance of 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 hon. gent. 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 necessity of defending the measure. He then took a view of the arguments against the bill, and observed, that the invidious distinction now proposed to be established, would not save more than 5000l. to the country. He complained of the right hon. gent.'s want of attention to the arguments which came from his side of the house; but, however, as an individual, he might be inclined to turn a deaf ear to what was said against his measures; yet, as one of the king's ministers, it was his duty to listen to the arguments and sentiments of independent gentlemen, when they thought it necessary for the public service to deliver them in that house.

Mr. 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 hon. gent. He could not approve of 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 hon. friend, respecting the volunteers. Those topics were now introduced into every debate. He would, however, leave it to the house, from what side the expressions 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 rested, 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 brought forward at such an advanced period of the session, when a regular and decent attendance of members could not be expected.

Mr. Secretary Windham

took a review of the objections that had been urged by different gentlemen, from the temperate and argumentative speech of an hon. baronet, (sir W. Elford,) to the intemperate, unreasonable, uninteresting, and, as he conceived, most unargumentative speech of a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke). He differed 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 supposed 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 as 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 before 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 necessary 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 allowances. In point of fact, too, a difference bad 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 array and another. As to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) he must say, that, with whatever gravity of manners, or authority of tone, he chose to lecture hint upon what was his duty as a minister and a member of parliament, the whole weight and importance of his lectures depended upon the strength of the arguments 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 right hon. gent. had adopted, might serve as an useful example, not to follow, but to avoid. The thing, however, which seemed most to have offended the right hon. hon. gent., was, that he seemed to think, that he (Mr. W.) had not received his arguments 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 oh 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 right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) so loudly complained.

Mr. Yorke

in explanation, Said he was ready to apologise to the house, if he had, made use of any unparliamentary 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 parliament, and he hoped he had not transgressed the proper bounds. He had also conceived, that he saw a marked inattention from the right hon. secretary, with which he confessed that he felt himself very much hurt. Since the right hon. secretary had, however, disclaimed what he conceived to have been a marked inattention, he was ready to apologise 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 when 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 time army. Certainly, no little saving, in point of economy, could compensate 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 balloted men, certainly their substitutes stood in no better situation than they did. Of a man that voluntarily inlisted in the regular army, it would be right to consider, strictly, the terms under which he entered; but the militia-man, 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

said, he was decidedly adverse to the bill, as, he thought, it went to disgrace a great military body, and to create an odious distinction between the militia and the regular army.

Mr. O'Hara

was for the bill. He was sure, that both the field officers of the militia and of the volunteers, would cheerfully yield to any deductions, that could tend to give the country a greater disposeable force at the present moment.

Sir W. Lemon

considered that it might be the cause of much discontent, that when the officers of the regulars and militia messed together, the one should say, "We are superior to you; our pay is higher."

Mr. Ellison

said, it had been his misfortune, wishing, as he did, to give his support to the ministers, to feel himself under the necessity of successively objecting to all the measures they had brought forward. The bill, then the subject of debate, he was sure, would give the greatest dissatisfaction to the militia, who, from recent intercourse which he had had with some regiments at the barracks in the neighbourhood of the district from which he was returned, he knew, were led, from the late measures of the right hon. gent., to expect an increase of allowance, and were, at present, anxiously awaiting the promulgation of it. He thought, that economy was not a sufficient consideration for a distinction like that proposed to be made in this case, as the militia were liable to the same duties as the regulars, and had always been found to perform them as well. He should vote for the bill to go into a committee, under the hope, that sufficient would transpire therein, to induce the right hon. gent. to relinquish the bill.

Colonel Craufurd

could not at all agree with the opinion of the hon. baronet. So far from the regular officers being entitled to claim any superiority, on account of this distinction, he thought the superiority, as far as income went, was on the other side; and that the militia field- Officers, who did not receive the increased pay, merely upon the ground that they were men of somewhat superior fortune, and who, therefore, did not require it, ought, on that ground, neither to claim a superiority over the regular officers, who were, in general, inferior to them in point of fortune. He knew that it was unparliamentary, to impute any improper motives to members of that house; but he must say, that if, in any other assembly, men had acted the same part as had been pursued by those of opposition; if, on every question that could be brought forward, so much was said in praise of the volunteers, and so much had been said of certain expressions of his right hon. friend (Mr. Windham), he should think, that their object was merely to catch at popularity, to win to their side that numerous and respectable body of men, and to make his right hon. friend as unpopular and as odious as they could to that body. This would have been his opinion, if a similar conduct had been adopted by any set of gentlemen out of that house; but, in that house, he knew that it was most unparliamentary to suppose, that any member could be actuated by such motives, and, therefore, he did not impute such to them. As to the distinctions of pay, such distinctions .already existed in the regular array, and were not complained of.

Colonel Milford

said, it had always been understood to be the rule, that the militia should have the same advantages as the soldiers of the line.

Mr. Windham

said, he rose for the purpose of withdrawing, for the present, his motion for the speaker leaving the chair; and moved, "That it be an instruction to the said committee, that they have powers to extend the provisions of the said bill to the volunteers and yeomanry corps."—After the gallery had been ordered to be cleared, this was agreed to. The bill then went into a committee. In the first clause, sir W. Elford proposed to leave out the words "officers, or;" upon which a division took place: Ayes, 17; Noes, 38. The bill then went through the committee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.