MUTINY BILL. (Hansard, 6 December 1813)

Lord Holland
had no positive objection to state to the progress of the Bill; far less did he intend, under the present circumstances of the country, to vote against it: but at the same time, he could not help now observing, that this most important measure was one which the legislature had formerly regarded with peculiar jealousy, although it was now become old fashioned to attend much to the annual progress of the Mutiny Bill. Nothing, however, but the peculiar circumstances of the country could excuse the second reading of the Bill without having even summoned the House, in order to call their attention to what they were doing. It was proper to observe upon this remarkable proceeding, that it might not be drawn into a precedent. There was hardly a precedent for such a mode of proceeding in modern times, or for the long, adjournment for which the passing of the Mutiny Bill at this early period of the session was a preparatory step. If such long adjournments 245 were to become frequent, it would go near virtually to deprive one part of the united kingdom of its representation. He was aware, however, that the very peculiar circumstances of the world at this critical period, did afford something like a justification of this extraordinary proceeding. He was aware, that in case of a long adjournment, it was proper to have the Mutiny Bill passed, in order to prevent the confusion that might otherwise ensue; and, wishing to interpose no difficulties in the way of ministers, at a moment when so many important particulars required their utmost attention, he did not absolutely object to the progress of the Bill; nor, when the adjournment came to be proposed did he say that he should oppose that: but he again solicited the attention of the House to this fact, that nothing could justify this mode of proceeding, except the very peculiar circumstances in which the country was at this period placed, and the very important duties which devolved upon those who conducted the government.

The Earl of Liverpool
did not consider it old-fashioned to pay particular attention to the progress and provisions of the Mutiny Bill. On the contrary, he considered the annual passing of that Bill, and the attention which the legislature was by that means enabled to pay it—the army being by this means, as it were, kept constantly under the controul of parliament—as one of the best securities of the constitution. But the noble lord would observe, that the object of this Bill was not to extend the provisions or the operation of the Mutiny Act. The object was merely to pass it before the recess, that there might be no danger of that important Act being allowed to expire. He admitted, however, that it was unusual to press forward this Bill at so early a period of the session, though the noble lord was mistaken in supposing it to be without precedent in modern times; and he mentioned as an instance the precedent of the year 1795. It was, however, unusual, and he was perfectly willing to rest its justification on the extraordinary circumstances of the times, which rendered it certainly desirable that this Bill should be passed now, rather than in February, or the beginning of March. With regard to the not summoning the House, he acknowledged that it would have been more proper and decorous to have called the attention of their lordships to it that way. The neglect arose 246 merely from inadvertence, and he was ready to admit that some blame attached to him on that account.

Lord Holland
had nothing more to say, after the candid manner in which the noble earl had admitted that it would have been proper to have summoned the House, for the purpose of calling its attention to a measure of this consequence. His object merely was, to prevent this mode of proceeding being drawn into a precedent. The noble earl had said that there was a precedent in modern times for this. He (lord Holland) had not said that there was no precedent; he had only said that there was hardly a precedent: and when he talked of a precedent he meant a precedent in good times; and no impartial man would say that the period of 1795 was of that description.