Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Windham upon the character and constitution of the volunteer associations. With respect to that right hon. gentleman's charge against the volunteers, that they formed an armed democracy, he wished to know how such an imputation could apply to an union of all classes in the community, and, from whom less political danger was likely to arise, than from corps which were composed of the first rank in the country, and commanded by officers who had received their commissions from the crown? Admitting that a sufficient number of field officers might be spared from the line to perfect the discipline of the volunteers, he declared that, according to the constitution of the generality of volunteer corps, by whom the officers were elected, it would be impossible to introduce such an officer, without the approbation of the corps; and the proposing such an officer, to control the greater part of their original officers, would, he was apprehensive, create much discontent among the privates, and perhaps still more among the officers.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the resolutions of the committee were severally put and agreed to.

himself to a mere statement of the provisions of the bill. They were intended to enable the commandants of corps to make returns at any time after the passing of the act, and to legalize such as had been made since the 21st of Sept., each of which was to exempt the individual from the ballot for the militia, as well as for the army of reserve;-and to enable these commanding officers to make special returns in certain cases As it had been impossible for government to issue the quantity of arms required by the volunteers, the second clause was to legalize such special returns, where the members had attended, without them, the full number of days, for the purpose of being trained. The bill had also in view to give uniformity to the existing regulations respecting exemptions. Mr. Yorke therefore proposed that a title to exemption, both from the militia and from the army of reserve, should be ac-. quired by an attendance of twentyfive days.

The introduction of the bill gave rise to much irrelevant discussion; -but the following are the chief arguments against the adoption of the measure. It was urged, that as all the volunteers were engaged upon the condition, expressed or implied, for which their services had been accepted, the faith of parliament required that in these con

The only subject of any kind of importance which was submitted to the consideration of parliament, before the adjournment, was a ditions no arbitrary alteration motion by Mr. Yorke, for the house to resolve itself into a committee on the bill, for the introduction of which permission had already been given, to explain and amend the acts of 42 and 43 Geo. III., so far as they related to the exemptions to be enjoyed by the volunteers. Mr. Yorke confined

should be made. The number of days required to give a title of exemption from the militia were altered by this bill, and consequently this amounted to a breach of faith towards the volunteer, where a specific engagement for a smaller number of days already existed. The necessity of susC2 pending

pending all exemptions was insisted upon, in order that recruiting for the militia and the army of reserve should not be obstructed by thus locking up, in the volunteer system, those who would otherwise be liable to be balloted for a more extensive service. Under the present circumstances, those upon whom the ballot fell for the army of reserve, found it much more difficult and expensive to procure a substitute for personal service, which was represented to be equivalent to a fine of fifty guineas. It was also asserted, that the bill, in a very small or in no degree obviated the difficulties in question. On the other hand, it was contended, that no breach of faith was committed by the introduction of a new condition, if the volunteers had the option, either to submit to it, or to retire. Nor were the ex

emptions injurious to the recruiting service, since it appeared that the regular army had obtained, within the short space of seven months, no less than 15,000 recruits. It was stated, that although in the metropolis the enormous sum of fifty guineas might have been given for a substitute, in the country the price did not exceed 20 or 25 guineas. And notwithstanding the stress which had been laid upon the insufficiency of the bill to remove the obscurities and difficulties which had arisen, it was confidently asserted, that the measure before the house fully obviated them, by settling the important point relative to the exemptions.

On the 20th of December, upon the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, the house adjourned to the 1st of February.

CHAP.

CHA P. II.

The Object of the Motion for the Rejection of the Middlesex Petition.-Debate on this Subject.-Debates on the Bill to consolidate the Volunteer Acts.Observations on the Volunteer System.-His Majesty's Indisposition—and Recovery.

BEFORE we proceed to give an analysis of the discussion which arose on the subject of the Middlesex petition, it may be proper to state the political views of those who supported, or opposed, the motion for its rejection. If an election petition should not be presented before a certain period of the session has elapsed, its admission, conformably to one of the standing orders of the house, may be refused. In this case, the sitting member retains his seat in parliament, until the illegality of his return shall, at a future time, be reported by a committee of the house. The time for receiving the Middlesex election petition having very nearly expired,its rejection,upon the ground of informality with respect to the allegations which it contained, would have secured to sir Francis Burdett a seat in the house. another petition could not be presented, at that period of the session, without a suspension, in favour of the petitioners, of one of the standing resolutions of the house, or the introduction of a bill for their relief, it was of the utmost importance to Mr. Mainwaring that the petition should be received; especially as, at the time, it was presumed that the illegality of sir Francis Burdett's return would

As

thereby be eventually established. It was, therefore, with reference to these objects that the motion was supported and resisted. As the discussion was confined solely to the abstract merits of the question, in which the parties most interested in the issue of the debate were not even once alluded to, it has been imagined that this preliminary statement might assist its immediate comprehension. For, to those who have not had leisure to study the spirit of this important discussion, it might otherwise have appeared destitute of interest. Seldom, however, has any subject been treated more argumentatively in parliament; and its importance may be duly estimated from its involving the very material point of a literal, or equitable, construction of the laws of the realm.

This subject was brought forward on the 1st of February, the day on which parliament first met after the adjournment. Mr. Fox then gave notice, that he should next day make a motion for rejecting the Middlesex petition. Agree. ably to this notice, he on that day rose in order to call the attention of the house to the petition of certain persons, styling themselves freeholders of Middlesex, complaining of the return for that county.

He stated that the point to be con- did not mean to deny that the pe sidered by the house was so clear, tition might be signed by indithat he did not conceive it possible viduals who were freeholders, and that it could give rise to any differ- had a right to vote. He only asence of opinion. If the general serted that this was not stated, conprinciple were admitted, that acts formably to the 28th of his majesty, of parliament were to be inter- in the body of the petition. It was preted, as nearly as possible, in also to be understood, that there strict conformity to the precise were many persons freeholders letter, such a mode of interpreta- now, who were not entitled to vote tion became especially proper, at the time of the election. Mr. where the act itself was framed for Fox said that, upon examination, the express purpose of correcting it might appear that the right of any vague ideas of the intentions the petitioners to vote was unof the legislature. The origin of doubted. There might even be a the Grenville act was a virtual ad-great appearance of equity in the mission that the house were bad case; but still the law must be enjudges of law, so far as it concerned forced; for, if cases of equity were the mode in which the fairness of to supersede statutes, the beneficial elections was to be decided. But, effects of which were universallest any circumstances should occur ly admitted, legislative provisions which might endanger a recur- would be a mere nullity. He ilrence to the decision of the house, lustrated this argument by the rethe meaning of this act was put in jection of the petition, which he had a still clearer point of view by the himself presented, on the subject 28th of his majesty. All prelimi- of the conduct of the high bailiff of nary decisions were therein de- Westminster, in the contested elecelared to be beyond the province tion of 1784. The equity of the of the house; and it was moreover petition was generally admitted; bound to receive petitions under but it was rejected on the ground, certain specified circumstances, that the allegations which it conand to reject others in which par- tained were not such as the Grenticular allegations were not di- viile act had specified to be necesstinctly laid down. This act con- sary. Mr. Fox observed, that as tained a specific clause, in which the law now stands, the subject is it was distinctly declared, that the reduced to the simplest principles. house is not to submit to the con- The house is neither to deliberate. sideration of a committee, a peti- nor to decide. The matter of the tion, in the body of which it is not petition they are to leave wholly stated, on behalf of those who sign to the committee. They are to it, that they had a right, at the admit or to reject it, not because the time of the election, to vote as un- admission or the rejection is or is not exceptionable freeholders. In the founded in equity, but because petition in question, no such right the provisions of the act are perwas claimed. It was not even emptorily mandatory, and, thereclaimed indirectly; so that no fore, are not, under any circummotive was supplied for the consi- stances, to be disobeyed. If it be deration, whether or not the peti- asserted that petitions similar to tion could be received consistently the present have been admitted, with the law of parliament. He and afterwards submitted to a

com

Committee, such precedents would not in the least invalidate his argument. For, if the act points out a particular mode of proceeding, no precedent in direct opposition to its provisions can be advanced in justification of any subsequent irregularity. In short, Mr. Fox contended, that the house could not argue the question of the conípetency of any petitioners complain ing of an undue election. If the petition be signed merely by copyholders, who have no right of voting at the election, it must be entertained by the house, provided it be drawn up in strict conformity to the provisions of the act. On the contrary, the petition must be rejected if it does not contain the allegations required by the law, even in the case of its being signed by persons of whose right to vote no doubt can possibly arise. The house, he said, had a simple task to execute; they have solely to determine whether or not the petition complies with the terms of the

act.

The chancellor of the exchequer contended, that it was not in the contemplation of the legislature, at the time the act was framed, that the petitioners should expressly state their right of voting in the body of the petition. All that was meant by the clause was, that the general designation of freeholders should be observed. He mention ed many instances of petitions having been drawn up in similar terms, which had been submitted to the consideration of a commit tee. With such a body of prece dents in their possession, he trusted that the house would not conscnt to entertain the honourable memher's proposition. The petitioners, he asserted, had prima facie a right to be considered as electors from

their common law right of frec holders. With respect to the va lidity of their claims, it would be for the committee to decide. The petition itself, in which the common sense meaning of the act was complied with, and its mandatory injunctions obeyed, ought not to be rejected, from the mere circumstance of the petitioners having omitted to state, in a precise form of words, that, at the last election, their right existed in full force. In receiving the petition, the house would be guided by practice; in rejecting it, they would act with rigour and injustice.

Mr. Francis considered the question, relating to the reference of the petition to a committee, as a question of positive law, which could be determined by no other principle; and, as the legislature had foreseen and provided for the case, there was no appeal from the rigour of the act of parliament to the equity of the house. Mr. T. Grenville pursued a middle course; which appeared to be dictated by a conviction, that no inconvenience, hardship, or injustice, could result to any individual, by allowing the petition to be proceeded upon in the ordinary way; while it could not be denied, that a serious injury would be sustained by the petitioners, if the present motion were acceded to, since it would deprive them of the investigation of the subject of their petition. He endeavoured to justify the admission of the petition, upon an interpretation of the very clause of the 28th of his present majesty, which had been considered as the legal authority for its rejection. Before the passing of the 10th of the king, he believed it would be found, notwithstanding the discretionary power of the Louse at that C4

time,

« VorigeDoorgaan »