§ SIR R. PEELsaid, that a notice had been given on his behalf, by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, which he believed would meet with the general concurrence of the House, and not subject any parties to inconvenience, either on account of public or private business. To-morrow being the 30th of January, he proposed that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEwished to ask a question on a subject which had caused considerable excitement in various parts of the country—he alluded to the supposed intention which existed on the part of the Government to enrol and embody the militia. It was generally understood that the Government intended to enrol the militia under the Act now in existence. The right hon. Baronet was perhaps aware that militia clubs had been established, for the purpose of enabling persons to afford a passive resistance to the enrolment. Some 368 individuals had scruples against serving, and others thought the circumstances of the country did not require the embodiment of the militia. If the Government did not intend to enrol that body, he trusted they would at once put an end to the excitement which prevailed. He wished to ask, in the first place, whether it was the intention of the Government to embody the militia during the present year; and if so, whether the enrolment would take place under the existing law, or under a new law? If it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present year, he trusted it would be brought forward at an early period, and not be postponed until nearly all the Members had left town.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMreplied that his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War intended to lay upon the Table a Bill for the propose of amending and consolidating the Militia Acts. The Bill was in course of preparation, and would be laid before the House at an early period.
§ Mr. ROSSwas opposed to the adjournment of the House. He considered a reformed House of Commons ought not to keep such holidays as the one named, and for which the House was asked to adjourn. He thought that it was a reproach to those hon. men, Sir John Elliott, Pym, Hampden, and others, who had shed their blood in order to retain the chartered liberties of the country. They had sacrificed their lives in the defence of those liberties, and he thought that it would be foolish, with that fact before them, to keep that absurd fast. That was his opinion, and he felt bound to declare it. At least that was his impression, and he found it was published in the Papers of the House, and entered in the Notice-book, that to-morrow was to be observed as a fast in commemoration of the martyrdom of King Charles. There could be no doubt that such was the case, and if he only went out with one or two of his friends, he would divide the House on the subject.
§ SIR R. PEELsaid, that he had yesterday endeavoured to put the matter in such form as would not offend the most sensitive mind, and to express the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for moving the adjournment. He had expressly stated that the reason of the adjournment of the House was really because there was no public business before them for that day, and because it would conduce very much to the public convenience. He conceived 369 that this constituted a sufficient reason for the adjournment.
§ MR. BRIGHTthought the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had not given a distinct answer to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He understood from the answer of the right hon. Baronet that some new law was to be introduced; but the question put by his hon. Friend was, did the Government intend to call out the militia during the present year? A permanent law, perhaps, might be necessary; but the country wished to know whether the Government intended to call out the militia in the course of the year.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, from the manner in which the question had been put, the hon. Member did not appear to be aware of the existing state of the law. By the Act annually passed, power was given to Her Majesty in Council, in the event of certain contingencies, to call out the militia within a fortnight. At the present moment there was no intention of acting upon that power; but if the contingency should arise, it would be open to Her Majesty, by the advice of Her servants, to call out that body at a fortnight's notice. In answer to the other question, put by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had already stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit to the House a Bill for the purpose of amending and consolidating the Militia Acts; and his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War would, at an early day, give notice of the time of the introduction of the measure.
MR. WILLIAMSunderstood the right hon. Baronet's proposition was that the House should adjourn over to-morrow in consequence of there being no business, and not on account of its being the anniversary of the martyrdom of King Charles I. With that understanding, he (Mr. Williams) had no objection to the adjournment. But this he must say, that nothing could be more derogatory to the present generation than an adjournment on account of the martyrdom of that tyrant ["Oh!"]. Yes, he repeated, of that tyrant, whose head was laid upon the scaffold in consequence of his superseding the authority of the House of Commons. If he had not violated the Constitution of the country by an attempt to supersede the authority of the House of Commons, in levying taxes upon the people 370 without the authority of Parliament, that event never would have occurred. The character of that Parliament who resisted the tyrant ought to be respected, rather than the fate of that man. However, as the adjournment was not moved on the ground to which he had alluded, he would make no objection to the adjournment.
§ LORD J. MANNERSsaid, whatever the understanding of the hon. Member for Coventry might be, it was not his (Lord J. Manners') wish to enter into any discussion of the topic suggested by him; but he must protest most distinctly that he utterly and entirely dissented from every word which had fallen from the hon. Member; and in approving of the adjournment of the House, he did not coincide in the reasons assigned by the hon. Member.