§ Mr. Huskissonobserved, that his objections to this measure had received strength from a more mature consideration of them. He still maintained that parliament ought not to bind itself to pay any money without an estimate, and he also thought that the plan was derogatory to the crown, as the object might have been attained by its power without this application to parliament. He then objected to the plan of limited service, which, in his opinion, would put it out of the power of parliament to disband any part of the army without continuing their pay, and might spread a number of veterans over the country, which, like those of Sylla, Marius, and Octavius Cæsar, might be dangerous to the liberties of the country.—Mr. Windham was rising, when
§ General Tarletonsaid, that such an important measure ought not to be discussed in so thin a house, and moved the standing order, that the house be counted. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; but there being 40 members present, the discussion was continued.
Mr. Secretary Windhamentered into a general history of the debates that had taken place on the subject of his military system, and observed that the arguments which were at one time advanced by the hon. gent. opposite, were so completely at variance with those adopted by the same hon. gent. at another, that the one set of arguments might very fairly serve fear an answer to the other. However he should endeavour to satisfy the hon. gent. as to each distinct point of objection, without any consideration of it in a relative view with respect to the objections which were at other times started. The argument as to what was called the invasion of the right of parliament seemed now to be principally dwelt upon. But he would beg gentlemen to consider for a moment, first, what was the nature of the confidence generally placed in the crown; then, what sort of confidence that was which was acted on with respect to the army in particular at other times. By, comparison, these gentlemen Would see how far the principle of the present bill was at variance with, or agreeable to, those general principles which have been uniformly acted on by parliament. In all 612 treaties, but most particularly in commercial treaties, was there not a degree of confidence reposed in the crown? But, more especially, did we see the existence of that confidence in any transaction relative to the army? Was not the soldier first engaged by the crown, and was not that engagement afterwards sanctioned by parliament? Were not the terms now agreed on for life, and yet did not parliament annually deliberate whether they should approve of that engagement or not? And there could be no doubt that parliament had the power of refusing to grant the pay to the soldier, or where was the use of an annual mutiny bill? In the interim the soldier had to rely on parliament for his pay; the same principle would still be to he acted on. Then, as to the argument, that by the periodical discharge of men, the country would be overloaded with these dangerous set of veterans, at a time when every statesman acknowledged the necessity of adding to the military strength of the nation, would any man seriously declare that it would be wrong to have such a corps-de-reserve to call upon in case of any sudden emergency? Were not the volunteers a military body; nay, were they not military with arms in their hands? and yet, danger was said to be apprehended from these unarmed men who shall have obtained their discharge front the army, and return to the avocations of civil life! Where, he would ask, was the consistency in these modes of reasoning? It was said, however, that we could not disband a regiment in time of peace because the terms had been agreed on, and that, it we discharged a soldier, we should rob him of the benefit to which he would have otherwise been entitled at the expiration of his seven years, and so forth. Gentlemen need only to look at the specific term of the oath, where it is expressly stated that a man engages to serve so long "in case the king shall have occasion for his services." Then, surely, there could not be any breach of contract, nor can we be said to have acted ungenerously by a man when we shall have told him that the king has no longer any occasion for his services; when at the same time the man knows that he has sworn to continue in the service with that precise condition that the king shall so long have occasion for his services. If this was wrong, he would ask again, what would become of the annual mutiny bill? Instead of these circumstances being objectionable, he should think it a considerable advantage to have such men 613 to recruit from, at the commencement of a war, or any other emergency. If it was true that such men were dangerous amongst us, then we must be considered as a most unwarlike people, who have nothing in ourselves for defence, but must entirely depend upon a standing army.
§ Mr. Huskissonexplained his objection to be, that after this bill, men would be receiving the pay of soldiers, without being really such.
Sir J. Pulteneythought it strange that a measure of so much importance should be debated and pressed forward in so thin an attendance.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he had a number of objections to offer, which he wished to submit at considerable length, but he thought it improper to be under time necessity of doing so, when there were not members present sufficient to constitute a house.
§ Mr. Windhamreplied, that he came down to the house in full confidence that no opposition would be made in this last stage of a bill, which had been so fully discussed before, and he was convinced it was under the same impression so many gentlemen left the house.
§ General Tarletonthen moved, that the house should be counted; upon which the gallery was cleared, and there being no more than 35 members present, the house accordingly adjourned.