§ Mr. Percevalobserved, that the reason why he had given notice, the preceding day, of his intention to take the sense of the house on the third reacting that day, was, with a view to have a fuller attendance; the material objection to the bill, which he had before stated, was the lateness of the period to which it was brought. Considering that the militia had till now been on the same footing, as to pay, with the army; that most of the militia officers were now absent on other duties; that none of those who remained had voted with ministers on this question, while several voted against them; and that two servants of the public, the one paymaster of the forces (lord Temple) and the other a person belonging to the ordnance, both officers of the militia, had opposed the bill, he thought the house ought to pause before it assented to it. He was sorry that he did not see those persons now present. But still he must give as much opposition to this impolitic measure as he could. He had already stated the inexpediency of bringing forward such a measure at this late period of the session. The only argument which was urged for departing from the established system, was, the point of economy, which, in this instance, was quite paltry; and setting the lateness of the period out of the question, it was not such as to make it worth while, on this account, to run the risk of giving dissatisfaction to the militia officers. But when we were at war, and in possession of the services of these men, it was impolitic to give them dissatisfaction; and we had it from the militia officers themselves, that this increase would do so, not on account of being refused the additional pay, but on account of the invidious distinction made between them and the line. He thought the objection of an hon. colonel (Bastard) very strong, when he stated that injustice was done to the militia; for when they entered, they might, as the law stood, take it for granted, that they should always be kept on a footing with the line, and might, in justice, now claim their discharge. When the prize-money was taken from the seamen, it was said, they had no right upon this to claim their discharge, as they had been pressed. He (did not think that the engagements even 1185 with them should be violated on that account; but this, however, did not apply to the present case. He then went on to state, that he saw no reason why the seven-pence a day given to the soldiers in the line who had served seven years, should not be extended to the militia. At all events, it ought to be extended to the non-commissioned officers, who were on the same footing as those in the line. He also objected to the bill, because it gave ministers the power of doing as they pleased on this subject, either to give or withhold pay at their option, and this was the reason why an honourable colonel had said, that it put the militia more in the power of the crown. This measure totally altered the nature of the militia system, and was breach of parliamentary faith. The right hon. gent. seemed, indeed, to admit this to a certain degree. It was a breach of faith, but a little one. He was somewhat like the lady who owned, that she had had a natural child, but then it was a very little one. This measure ought, at least, to have been proposed in time of peace. concluded by moving, that the word "now" be left out, and that the words "this day three months" be substituted.
Lord Folkestone,though he supposed it would be a material objection to the gentlemen on the other side, that he was not a militia officer, must still assert his opinion on the subject. He maintained, that there was no reason whatever for any dissatisfaction on the part of the militia officers, for they suffered no injustice. The field-officers and captains were, by law, required to have certain qualifications, which rendered this additional pay unnecessary. Besides, they could not reasonably expect to be put exactly on a footing with officers of the line, who gained rank through toils and dangers, while they immediately attained their rank, on account of their property. The old mistaken principle had been departed from already; and, besides, it was a quite different service. He would, therefore, support the bill.
Mr. Secretary Windhamsaid, he was not sorry that the gentlemen on the other side had taken an opportunity of renewing this discussion, as he felt convinced, that the more the subject was discussed, the more it would be generally approved of. The lateness of the session was, to be sure, an argument that told well in so thin a house; but it should be recollected, that this was not a substantive argument, and there 1186 ought to be some other reason assigned for opposing any measure. If it were contended, that there was any greet constitutional principle, which required that the two services should be exactly placed on the same footing, he must deny that doctrine. There were already distinctions between the services sufficiently marked. The regular officers had half-pay, when the militia had not; and the militia officers were required to have qualifications, which the regulars had not. The militia officers might, perhaps, have some reason to complain, if any regulation, extending benefits to every other branch of the service, were to be withheld from them. That was not, however, the case in the present instance. A distinction was also made between the infantry and the cavalry, and the distinction was founded on the same reason, merely that the latter description of officers did not stand so much in need of the addition, and that if an addition was to be made to the pay of those who were not in need of it, there must be a diminution to the allowances, which the liberality of the house was called upon to give to those officers who were in need of the addition. This was the principal reason for making exceptions, and the exceptions did not extend merely to militia field-officers, but to those of the cavalry and the guards, who certainly could not consider this distinction meant as a slight to them. As to the alleged breach of faith, it was the strangest thing he had ever heard asserted, that the legislature was so bound by any one of its own acts, that it would be a breach of faith even to alter it. Would any person consider it a breach of faith to make an alteration in the mutiny law, even to make it more severe, if necesary? Would any body suppose, that it would be a breach of faith to the army to alter the discipline of one part of it, and not of another? As the militia was always to subsist in some shape or another, therefore, on those grounds it might be argued to the end of time, that it would be a breach of faith for the legislature to make any objections. It would be a breach of faith to do it in time of peace as well as in time of war; and yet the hon. and learned member (Mr. Perceval) was himself the person to propose its being done in time of peace, and not in time of war. If, then, he considered that it was a great breach of faith in time of war, and only a little one in time of peace, the story of the lady and her "little natural child" was only applicable 1187 to the argument of the hon. and learned gent. and he might have done better to have kept it to himself. The exceptions were not so much made upon the ground of economy, as on the ground of justice. It was but justice to the regular officers to give what was absolutely necessary for them. If this increase was not considered so necessary to the militia, they should rather consider it as an honourable distinction, than any sort of ill treatment.
Mr. C. Wynneobserved, that the principal argument on the other side of the house, that the militia officers were injured by the arrangement prescribed in this bill, was a total mistatement, and a complete inversion of the fact: for how could the militia officers, who suffered no diminution of pay, be injured by a small increase of pay to the officers of the line? They, in fact, would sustain no injury whatever, and he was confident, would feel none, notwithstanding the arguments of gentlemen, who assumed to advocate their cause; but whose arguments reminded him of a petition of the celebrated lord Chesterfield to his majesty for a pension, professing, "that it was purely for the honour of it, and not for any pecuniary consideration."—The question being now loudly called for, on the third reading of the bill,
§ the house divided; Ayes, 35; Noes 24; Majority for the bill, 11.