Lords Sitting of 21 July 1806

MILITIA OFFICERS' BILL.
On the third reading of the Militia Officer's Pay bill,
The Earl of Radnorprotested against it as a bill that offered an insult and injury to the Militia, whilst it was at the same time a breach of faith towards that valuable body of men, it having been clearly declared by parliament that the pay of the Militia officers should be equal to that of the officers of the line. He lamented that every party who came into power seemed inclined to give a blow to the Militia. The engagements that had been entered into with the Militia had now nearly all been broken; the men had been taken out of the regiments to serve in the line; officers had been appointed without the requisite landed qualifications; now the pay of the officers was to be rendered less than that of the line, and he supposed their rank would next be affected. He wished to speak against this measure in the strongest terms which his liberty of speech in parliament would allow; and viewing it in the light he did, he felt it his duty to move, that the bill be read a second time this day three months.
The Earl of Westmorelandalso thought the bill a breach of faith towards the Militia, and was at a loss to conceive on what grounds it could be supported. On a former occasion, when discussing one of the military measures of his majesty's ministers, it had been said, do not take a measure singly, but look at the whole plan, and with this license he would take the liberty of adverting to a bill for regulating the rank of volunteer officers, which either through his mistake, or the mistake of others, had passed through the house without his having an opportunity of making any remark on it;— a bill which he conceived calculated to give offence to the volunteers, without any benefit being likely to be derived from it.
Lord Grenvilledeclared himself a warm friend to the Militia, which he considered a very valuable part of our military force, not only as affording a force for the defence of the country in the hour of danger, but also as giving an opportunity to gentle-

1249
men of landed property, not chusing to enter into the regular military profession, of evincing their zeal and spirit, and of obtaining that degree of military knowledge which would render them essentially useful in a crisis of public danger. There was not the slightest intention on the part of his majesty's ministers to give a blow or offer any insult to the militia; nor could he conceive how this bill could be so construed. He denied that there was any breach of faith: all that had formerly been declared by parliament was, that the officers of the militia should receive the same pay as the officers of the line, that is to say, the pay which the latter then received; but it never could be contended, that from thence a principle was to arise, that the pay of the officers of the line was never to be augmented without, at the same time, augmenting, to an equal amount, the pay of the officers of the militia. It should be recollected that the officers of the line made the military profession the business of their lives, and were liable to many duties of service to which militia officers were not; the latter besides, might pursue other avocations, at the same time continuing the exercise of their duties as military officers. He could not, therefore, conceive in what way the bill could operate as a hardship upon the latter.
Lord Eldonobjected that the bill was inconsistent with itself, inasmuch as it merely professed in its title to be a bill for regulating the pay of militia officers in England and Scotland, whilst in the body of the bill there were enactments applying to the yeomanry and volunteers of Ireland.
The Earl of Moiraobserved, that a trifling amendment would obviate the inconsistency of Which the noble and learned lord, complained. He professed himself a warm friend to the militia, and, coinciding completely with the arguments urged by his noble friend (lord Grenville), he could not conceive in what way the bill could be considered as offering any insult to that valuable part of our military force. He thought the lamentation of the noble earl (Westmorland), that he had missed an opportunity of debating the bill for regulating the rank of volunteer officers, was needless, as every part of the plans of ministers as embodied in the different measures brought up to that house had been most amply discussed by noble lords on the other side, who had scarcely omitted any opportunity of attacking them. With respect to that
1250
bill, however, he would observe, that not only no offence was intended to the volunteers, but he was convinced that no offence could be taken by the volunteer officers, as they must feel that, from want of experience in actual service, they were not competent to take the command of field officers of the line and of large bodies of troops in the event of their being actually called out for the defence of the country.
Earl Fitzwilliamlikewise defended the bill, on grounds similar to those urged by lord Grenville and the earl of Moira.
The Earl of Hardwickeobjected to the bill, on the ground of the increase of pay not being extended to captains in militia, many of whom, he said, from having been appointed without the qualification previously required, stood as much in need of an increase as any of the others to whom it had been extended.
Earl Spencerthought, if the not extending the increase to captains had the effect of bringing back the militia in that respect, to its former principle, that of only having captains possessed of the landed qualification before required, it would produce a good effect. He defended the bill on the grounds before urged, and as to the rank of volunteer officers, he, as a volunteer field officer himself, considered that bill as a boon, and he had no doubt it would be generally considered by volunteer officers as a favour, as, with all that zeal and spirit which they would doubtless evince in the hour of danger, they could not, from want of experience, feel themselves adequate to the command of large bodies of troops.
The Duke of Rutlandexpressed his entire disapprobation of the bill, which he conceived to be subversive of the constitution of the militia.
The Lord Chancellorcontended that the former declaration of the legislature, that the pay of the militia officers should. be the same as that of the line, could only apply to the then pay of the regular army, and not to any future augmentation. Those noble lords who conceived that this augmentation ought to be extended equally to the militia, might use that as an argument against the bill, but it never could be maintained that the not extending to that force an increase of pay, granted under special circumstances to the regular army, was subversive of the constitution of the militia.
Earl Camdenopposed the. bill. He thought the measures brought forward by ministers were not exactly in unison with

1251
their professions of regard for the militia and volunteers.—The house then divided on the question, that the word "How".stand part of the motion. For reading the bill a third time. Contents 13; Not contents 8.—Majority 5. On our readmission, we found the Earl of Westmoreland on his legs, speaking on the question for reading the same Bill a third time. His lordship expressed his disapprobation generally of the measures which had been brought forward Joy ministers, and considered his own honour and character, as well as that of those with whom he recently acted, involved in his opposition to them.—The bill was then read a third time and passed.

PUBLIC HARBOURS BILL.
On the question for going into a committee on the Public Harbours bill.
The Earl of Limerickcomplained that a bill of this importance had been brought forward at so late a period of the session. It. appeared to him likely to be mischievous in its operation, as it tended to prevent persons having property on the banks of navigable rivers, as far as the tide flowed, from making the least improvement on their estates without giving notice to the secretary of the Admiralty. The penalty for not giving this notice was 200l. and many persons might thus be entrapped without being at all aware of the nature of the law. He thought it would in many cases be useless as to the interests of the pubiic, and' instanced the river Shannon, in Ireland, where the tide flowed a mile higher than vessels of any burden could come up, yet this bill would equally operate in that part of the river where it could not be of the least use.
Lord Grenvillesaid the bill had been brought forward as soon as the grievance to which it applied was known; and it was a measure which he contended was highly necessary in order to preserve our public harbours and navigable rivers from obstructions. It was merely required of the Person making any embankment or other work in the situations mentioned, to send notice to the secretary of the Admiralty, which could be but a very trivial hardship. Many other rivers might be in the situation of the Shannon, where the tide flowed higher than vessels of any burden could navigate, but it was, notwithstanding, important to prevent obstructions in those parts of such rivers, in order to prevent the navigable parts of those rivers from being ultimately injured.—The bill then passed through the committee, and was reported.