Lords Sitting of 17 June 1806

MUTINY BILL.
Ld. Grenvillemoved the third. reading of the mutiny bill:
Lord Hawkesburysaid, after the full discussion the bill had undergone, he would not detain their lordships by going over the same ground again. His object now was to. move an amendment, which was calculated, in his opinion, to render the measure before the house less objectionable. Many of the arguments urged by noble lords against the bill, still remained unanswered, and formed in his mind very strong objections to the measure. He way still of opinion, that if a choice was allowed to persons enlisting to enlist either for life or for seven years, that ninety-nine out of a hundred would prefer the former. The only fair way of trying the measure in this way would be to allow persons to enlist in either way, giving 16 guineas bounty for enlistment for life, and 12 guineas for 7 years. As it was, however decided by the house, that enlisting for a limited period should become a general measure, it only remained to him to propose what he conceived would be a beneficial alteration of that period. He was of opinion that enlisting men for the short term of seven years would produce little benefit to the army, whilst at the same time it would not be any real advantage to the men enlisted. He thought that 20 or 21 years would be a period much more likely to prove advantageous. Let a man serve for that period, and then, if he survived the contingencies of the service, be entitled to a pension for the remainder of his life. The army would, by this means, always have a certain number of experienced soldiers; the value of whom were well known to all military officers. On the other hand, it was to be feared that if men were enlisted for only seven years, they would become restless and unsteady, and the army not derive much benefit from soldiers of that description. The present bill rendered the period of military service shorter in this country than it was in any other state in Europe, without, as he conceived, promising any adequate advantage. On the contrary, great inconvenience must necessarily arise

683
from such a system in drafting regiments, and with respect to our colonial service. His lordship, after recapitulating some of the former arguments against the bill, concluded by moving to insert in the oath the period of twenty years, instead of seven.
The Earl of Lauderdaleexpressed his astonishment that such a motion should come from the other side of the house. On a former evening noble lords on the other side had arraigned his majesty's ministers for trenching, as they alledged, on the king's prerogative, by the enactment relative to limited service contained in this bill, and now they themselves came forward to propose another limited period of service, which was as much an invasion of the king's prerogative, according to their own arguments, as the proposition made by his majesty's ministers. He thought it wholly unnecessary to argue as to the superior inducement which there must be to every man to enlist for seven years rather than for life, as such a disposition was clearly deducible from the slightest experience of human nature. The same argument was equally applicable to an enlistment for seven, instead of twenty years. If noble lords on the other side were told that they must remain in a state of sorrowing and suffering, as it had been termed the other night, for twenty years instead of seven, they would doubtless declaim loudly against it, and endeavour to make the period of seven years still shorter. The opposition made to this measure appeared to him very singular, as the principle of enlisting for a limited period had been applied by noble lords on the other side before they quitted office, to the marines, and it was from the success of this very measure that a very convincing argument was to be deduced in favour of the general application of the principle to the whole army. His lordship stated an order made on the 3d February, 1806, directing men to be enlisted for the marines for a limited period during the war, and read extracts of letters from general Campbell, to prove the success of the measure in obtaining recruits, but did not state the numbers enlisted. As to the objection taken by the noble lord, with respect to drafting, it was well known that when a regiment was ordered to a distant clime, or on foreign service, that there were always individuals belonging to that regiment, who, from age or other causes, were incapable of encountering the fatigue of a voyage, or the heat of the climate to which
684
the regiment was destined, and who were, therefore, drafted into other regiments. If this measure was carried into effect, he did not believe that there would be at any time more men to draft on account of their terms of service being near expiring, than there were now for other causes. Another objection had been taken by the opponents of this measure, as to the expense with which it would be attended; and, he must say, that this had been most unfairly argued. Those who had argued on this ground, had included in their estimate the pensions given to disabled and retired soldiers, when it must be evident that these pensions were what soldiers disabled by wounds or age were justly entiled to, as a provision for the remainder of their lives, and that they formed a strong inducement on the side of the recruiting service. He would not detain the house by entering into any further discussion of the subject, the arguments urged on the other sidle had already been fully and completely answered. He should therefore merely declare his determination to oppose the amendment.
Lord Hawkesburyin explanation, said he had no knowledge whatever of the order alluded to by the noble earl.
The Earl of Suffolkargued generally in favour of the bill, and objected to the amendment.
The Earl of Westmorelandrepeated several of his former arguments against the measure, and denied any knowledge of the order to which the noble earl (Lauderdale) had alluded. He supported the amendment.—The question was then put, that the word "seven" stand part of the bill, which was carried. The bill was passed, and a message was sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.