the bill, were proved by such a multitude of individual facts, brought forward by county members, unconnected with party, that no reasonable or candid man, could doubt for an instant of the justice and propriety of its repeal. Lord Castlereagh having boasted that Leicestershire had raised its quota of 200 men, at the rate of five guineas a head, Mr. Babington, one of the members for Leicester, rose and stated, that these 200 men had been furnished to the county by recruiting officers, and consisted of persons who, being under-sized, were admissible into no other corps.

A debate arose in the committee, (May 8th) on a clause of the repeal bill, remitting, in favour of the parishes, the penalties which they had incurred, for the non-execution of the act, and refunding the fines which had been already paid. It was argued, that by this proceeding the parishes which had raised their quotas were placed on a worse footing than those which had neglected to comply with the law. It was answered, that it was not from any reluctance or ill will that the parishes had not found their quotas, but because it had been impossible for them to get men, without violating the provisions of the act, and that it would be unfair to fine them for not doing that which it was impossible for them to do. After some debate the clause passed without a division. Thoroughly as the merits of the bill had been already canvassed, and convinced as was every impartial person, that whatever might be the value of the new system that was proposed to be adopted, the additional force bill had failed in its operation, and ought to be repealed,

as in itself a positive evil, opposi tion, with unexampled perseve rance, renewed the debate on the third reading of the repeal bill, and brought again into the field all the old topics of discussion. Mr. Percival having on this occasion suggested some amendments in the bill, which were adopted by the ministers, the third reading was postponed till next day, (May 14th) when the bill at length passed the commons,. after having encountered a most active opposition, in every stage of its progress through the house.

On

In the house of lords it met with comparatively little opposition. As the new military plans had not been submitted to that house, it was impossible for their lordships, in discussing the merits of the additional force bill, to introduce the same topics, which had given rise to so much debate in the commons. the second reading of the repeal bill (May 20th) a division took place on an amendment proposed by earl Camden, similar to that moved by Mr. Canning in the house of commons. On the question, whether the bill should now be read, contents were 71, proxies 26; total 97.--Non-contents 30, proxies 10; total 40-majority 57.

The spirit of determined hostility to the new military system, which had marked the conduct of the opposition, in their defence of the additional force bill, continued to animate them throughout the subsequent debates, when the different parts of that system came in detail before the house. The Mutiny Bill, the Chelsea Hospital Bill, the Training Bill, and the Militia Officers' Bill, gave occasion to very long debates, which, from the continual recurrence of the same topics,

became.

became at length tiresome and uninteresting. We shall, therfore, in our account of these transactions, rest satisfied with giving a mere out line of the proceedings of the two houses; selecting such arguments only, as when first used on either side, had the merit of novelty to recommend them.

In a committee of the whole house (May 30th) the introduction of limited service was proposed, by the insertion of a clause to that effect in the Mutiny Bill. The engagement of the infantry was limited by this clause to seven years, that of the cavalry to 30, and that of the artillery to 12; but a discretionary power was given to commanding officers on foreign stations, to retain the men under their command, for six months after the expiration of their engagement; and, in time of war, a power was given to his majesty, by his royal proclamation, to extend this additional term of service to three years, provided peace should not in the mean time be restored, in which case the additional term of service should cease and determine, within six months after the ratification of any definitive treaty. In submitting this clause to the committee, Mr. Windham entered at length into the defence of his military system, and answered the objections brought against it. He denied that any of the measures he had proposed were of that nature, that should their re. sult be different from what he anticipated, they could not be recalled or corrected. That there was a necessity for something to be done, he argued from the innumerable plans and projects for the improvement of our military system, which had been proposed and acted upon

since the commencement of the present war. After so many temporary expedients he wished now to give a fair trial to the effect of voluntary enlistment, without competition, and would resort to no other means for promoting its success, than to make the article of proper value to the purchaser. It was true, that limited service existed in the army at present, but then it was service li mited with respect to place as well as limited with respect to time. Unlimited service with respect to place, might be a boon, where unlimited service with respect to time was a check. Fears had been entertained lest the character of the army should suffer by this innova. tion; but, how the character of soldiers should be injured by limiting their service to a term of years, had not been very intelligibly made out, and every known fact was against the supposition. It had been the practice of the French to enlist for a term of years, from the time of Louis XIV. to the revolution; in the Swiss regiments the same rule had universally prevailed; and dur ing the American war a great part of our own army had been raised on the same footing. The mischief apprehended from men demanding their discharge in time of war, was obviated by the power given to his majesty, of extending, in that case, the term of their service. When regiments were in future ordered to the colonies or foreign possessions of the country, those soldiers, whose term of service was nearly expired, might be drafted into the second battalions and left behind. The benefits he expected from limited service, were not confined to an increase in the number of recruits. He looked also to an improvement

in the quality and description of the persons who would be induced to become soldiers, and he trasted, that in consequence of this improve ment, the necessity for severity of discipline in the army would be diminished. It might be worth consideration at some future period, whether the elective franchise ought not to be extended, in the English counties at least, to soldiers who had retired from the army, after completing their full term of service.

The speeches of the opposition side of the house, besides containing a repetition and amplification of all their former objections to limited service, and calculations of the vast expence which it would entail upon the country, were distinguished upon this occasion by the introduction of a new topic, from which the most important consequences were expected to arise. They alleged, that, as the new mode of enlistment could be carried into effect by his majesty's prerogative, without the interposition of parliament, it was disrespectful to his majesty to insert such a clause as this in the mutiny bill; that it seemed to imply what it was highly improper to insinuate, that the same faith was not to be placed in a pledge from the crown as in a pledge from parliament; that, as his majesty could at present ealist men either for limited or for unlimited service, the new clause, by prohibiting the latter entirely, was a direct invasion of the royal prerogative, and by its insertion in the mutiny bill, neither the king nor the house of lords could express their disapprobation of it, without refusing to pass the mutiny bill, and thereby disbanding the

army. It was acknowledged, that in general when a measure of this importance was brought forward by his majesty's government, it was fair to suppose that his majesty's approbation had been previously obtained; but very broad hints were given, that, on the present occasion, his majesty's sentiments were far from being in unison with those of his ministers. A distinction was attempted to be drawn between the regular army of the crown, raised by voluntary enlistment, and the other descriptions of force, such as the militia, army of reserve, and additional force, which were raised by means more or less compulsory, and which, it was said, might fairly be called the parliamentary army, and were, therefore, regulated in their term of service by act of par. liament.

The ministers in reply, ridiculed the distinction of a royal and parliamentary army, as one which no writer, no speaker, no man at all acquainted with the constitution, had ever taken notice of. A par liamentary army had never been heard of before, except in 1641. Every army in this country was royal, and every army was also parliamentary. If the present measure had been introduced in the mutiny bill, it was because such was the constant usage of parliament. They who declaimed against the interference of popular assemblies or parliaments, with the army, forgot that they were making this objection in a house, where the mutiny bill was annually passed, for the avowed purpose of subjecting the army to parliamentary control. When a bill was annually passed, declaring it lawful for his majesty

to