violated; not only on the last election, but on former occasions. The outrages, committed at the last, were of such peculiar atrocity, as to call for a special report from the committee. The object of this bill, however, was neither to disfranchise, nor to punish; but to preserve the peace of that town, in future elections, by giving the magistrates of the county a concurrent jurisdiction with those of the city of Nottingham.

Mr. Pierrepoint stated, that he was in the town of Nottingham, during the election; and thought the present bill absolutely necessary; it was impossible to describe the confusion and riot, which daily interrupted the election; and which was owing, in a great measure, to the negligence of the magistrates.

Mr. Fox did not oppose the bringing in the bill, but felt himself convinced, from the most attentive examination of the minutes, that Mr. Davison, the mayor, was not guilty of negligence; he had done every thing in his power to preserve the peace, except calling in the military, and surrounding the booth, with armed men. This was what, he believed, the magistrates of the county would be as incapable of proposing, as those of the town. He hoped this country would never witness such an election as had been described, by a naval officer, (Sir Sidney Smith) to have taken place, at Brussels, in a hollow square, of the French army. He did not deny, however, that a remedy might be necessary, and, as a remedial measure, he should not oppose it.

Mr. Bond stated, some shameful outrages, which had come to

his knowledge; and, after some conversation, leave was given to bring in the bill; and it was ordered, that a new writ should not be issued, sooner than three weeks.

Previously to the second reading of the bill,

Mr. Fox presented a petition against it, from the mayor and corporation of Nottingham, who stated, that such a bill would be a virtual censure upon, and degradation of, the corporation, without any imputation of delinquency and a violation, in the persons of the magistrates, of those rights and privileges, which Nottingham had now enjoyed for nearly 400 years. This petition was ordered to lie upon the table, till the second reading of the bill..

The next day a debate took place, upon the report of the committee, upon the Irish militia bill.

Mr. Windham rose, to protest against the mischief, with which it appeared to him, that the present measure was fraught: he avowed, candidly, that he was not a friend to the militia system: he had a sort of prepossession for it in his early years; but he had none at present. He gave every credit to the patriotism of the militia officers, and the courage of the soldiers; but, from want of experience in real danger, he thought the militia would always be inferior to troops of the line.. Even the bravery of the militia, might operate as a mischief, when not regulated by that prudence and discretion, which is only to be got by experience; he thought, it was highly dangerous, to rely upon them for the defence of the empire; and that they never could be equal to regular troops. He said, the

constitution of the militia was every way bad. A militia colonel could not be disposed to correct severely, men whose votes he was soliciting for the next election; besides the militia was merely a defensive force; in which respect, the regulars had a great advantage over them, as being equally calculated for defensive or offensive operations. Had we a disposable force of twenty or thirty thousand men, when Bonaparte marched to Marengo, the most vital part of his empire, would have been left exposed to invasion and insurrection!

Mr. Wallace considered, the honorable gentleman was not in order, in pursuing such a line of reasoning on the simple question, of what bounties should be given to recruits in the Irish militia?

Mr. Windham resumed; he thought when the question was about a bounty, it was a thing to be considered, whether the force to be raised was worth that bounty, or not. As to the constitutional question about standing armies, that was now merged in the question, how long are we to keep the country? Another argument in favor of the regular troops was on the ground of accuracy. The bounties given to militia men, prevented maay from entering into the regular service; he thought it a very whim sical mode of reasoning, adopted by gentlemen on the other side, that because exertion was acknowledged to be necessary, that therefore, it was unimportant to consider how that exertion could best be made. For his part, it was his decided opinion, that it was to regular troops, and not to militia, at the defence of the empire

should be intrusted at the present crisis.

The secretary at war, was astonished, that the right honorable gentleman (Mr. Windham) had now thought proper to complain of the militia; a force, which when he himself was in office, he had increased to a most unprecedented degree. Not only the militia of England was very much increased under his administration, but the militia of scotland, and he believed of Ireland too had been formed on the same plan, and upon those occasions he made no objection. As to the militia, it must be allowed, that they were not altogether equal to regular troops, but they had rendered great services; in 1780 they saved the metropolis: in Ireland, the Irish militia, in conjunction with theyeomanry, saved that country to the British crown. Upon the expedition to Holland, a great part of our force were volunteers from the militia, and on every occasion, both the English and the Irish militia men, had shewn every disposition, to meet the enemies of the British empire.

Sir William Pulteney, was surprised that Mr. Windham could think the militia not to be depended upon in case of invasion, when it was recollected how much they had been employed, and how gloriously they had done their duty: it could not be forgotten that an American militia, had, in defence of their homes, defeated the best British troops of the line, who attacked them as invaders; and there would be little doubt, but that an English or Irish militia, would act with equal spirit against those who should invade their country. There was another powerful consideration in

favor of the militia force, namely, that they were incomparably less expensive than regulars, and in the present situation of the country, he would recommend it to gentlemen, pot to despise économy.

General Tarleton, thought it imprudent to compare the merits of the militia and troops of the line; but of this he was sure, that there was no officer in the house who would not prefer 15,000 militia to 10,000 troops of the line for any service; and such a body as 18,000 Irish militia, must, with the 25,000 regular troops in that country, bẻ a powerful means of securing it from the attempts of the enemy.

Sir Lawrence Parsons, said the entire question at present was, whether when Ireland possessed all the materials of an army, it should or should not be allowed to use them, in the only manner that it was possible to apply them? The Irish militia had, in the course of last war, conducted itself uncommonly well, not only in their own country, but in volunteering their services abroad, and in garrisoning the isle of Guernsey.

Mr. Addington, in defending the militia system from the objections of Mr. Windham, took an opportunity to compliment Colonel Vereker, (who was then sitting in the house dressed in his militia uniform): that honourable gentleman had, at the head of a small corps, on that establishment, checked and defeated French troops in Ireland, when in the full career of their success./

Mr. Wilberforce strongly supported the motion: he said, if any political principle was more strongly impressed on his mind than another,

it was his attachment to the constitutional defence of a militia. It was a force, which none but a free country could enjoy; while a standing army was a sort of force, to which every one must look with constitutional jealousy. He thought it likely, that it was from his love of expeditions, that, that right honorable gentleman (Mr. Windham) was so attached to standing armies, and so averse from militia.

Mr. Elliot, approved of the principle of the militia system, and wished that a militia should always be kept up, but on a very reduced scale; he considered that the militia principle was abandoned in the present bill, as it went to raise a force by bounties, instead of by ballot; in the place of a militia force, he would consider this as a fencible force of the worst species, which was not to serve out of Ireland. The Irish militia had been completely disbanded, and the system dissolved at the conclusion of the last war; the question now was, whether it should be revived, in a manner the most likely to impede the general recruiting service? He thought, a board of French general officers, could not contrive à measure, more likely to sap the military strength of the empire, than what was contained in the resolution now before the house!

Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Hiley Addington, and Mr. Dawson supported it: the resolution was then agreed to, and a bill ordered pursuant thereto.

This dereliction of the only mode of raising a militia force known to the law and the constitution, was a sufficient, but melancholy proof, that the confidence, so often and so recently

IN

N the house of lords, on the eighteenth day of March, the earl of Carlisle, called their lordships' attention, to a motion he should have made had he seen ministers in their places; the motion which he had intended to make, respected the artificers in the dock yards; and at which he particularly wished the noble earl at the head of the admiralty to be present. He came down as an independent peer of parliament, unconnected with parties, and perfectly unbiassed; he was happily,

"Unplac'd, unpension'd, no man's heir or slave;"

He was unsolicitous whom his public language or his conduct might offend: he declared his intention to bring forward his proposed motion early in the next week, if he should then see ministers in their places.

The lord chancellor said, that as to the motion of the noble earl, he could say nothing, because he knew nothing of its object; but as to his other observations, he must say, that although he was convinced that the parliamentary conduct of

the noble earl, would always be guided by fair and honorable motives; yet he should recollect that others had feelings as well as himself, and felt wounded at unfavourable imputations thrown out against them. He was convinced, that those with whom he acted, had the confidence of the country, as expressed by its constitutional organ, the parliament.

After some mutual explanations between the earl of Carlisle and the chancellor, the conversation dropped.

On the same day there was a debate in the house of commons, upon the second reading of the militia officers' completion bill.

Lord Folkstone, considered this bill would be the death blow of the militia. The constitutional principle of the militia, rested alinost entirely on its being officered by men of property; and therefore highly disapproved of giving commissions in the militia to unqualified persons. He thought the halfpay officers, ought to get commissions in the line.

The