"

This propofition was oppofed by the Earl of Weftmoreland, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hawkesbury, and other Peers. One of the leading arguments was, the impolicy of depriving the King of the power of accepting fuch offers as might be made to replace thofe volunteers who may retire, now an unlimited power of refignation was recognifed; it was not contended that the number of corps ought to be increased, and ftill lefs that the aggregate number, with a reference to the other military fervices of the country, fhould be increafed beyond its prefent amount.

The Lord Chancellor particularly remarked the inconfiftency of those who profeffed to cenfure Government at one time for repreffing the zeal and energy of volunteers in coming forward, and now blamed Minifters for keeping them up in too great numbers. He believed there was not a fingle volunteer who would, in the event of invafion, take advantage of his power of refignation, but would come forward and die, if neceffary, in the defence of the country.

Lord Grenville argued in defence of his propofition, and noticing what had fallen from a noble Lord (Auckland), refpecting the impropriety, under the prefent circumitances, of rendering the country diffident of his Majefty's prefent Government, he faid he for one ftrongly felt a dif fidence. He had affigned his reafon for fuch, and it was his object to infpire their Lordships alfo with a fimilar diffidence.

Lord Hobart, in remarking upon the noble Lord's confident affertions of the difficulties thrown in the way of the volunteer fyftem, obferved, that did fuch clogs and difficulties exift, the numbers could never have fwelled to their prefent amount.

The Duke of Montrofe differed from the noble Lord (Grenville) in many of his pofitions, and feemed to think the power fhould be given, when the liberty of refignation was confidered, to his Majefty to accept the future offers of fervice by volunteers.

The queftion, was then put, and the claufe ordered to ftand in its original form.

One or two other amendments propofed by Lord Grenville were alfo negatived.

On the clause relative to the exemptions from compulfory fervice, a difcuffion took place.

Lord Grenville viewed the fubftance of that claufe as a measure of partiality, from the very obvious nature of its

tendency,

téndency, and as a measure which was framed on princi ples directly oppofite to thofe principles of freedom and equal diftribution of juftice which are the pride and glory of a British conftitution. His Lordship concluded by moving an amendment, in fubftance purporting that thofe whofe fervices fhall be hereafter accepted of fhall not be entitled to exemption.

Lord Hawkesbury ftated, that the exemptions were regulated in the most equal manner poffible. Exemptions had been granted to fome perfons by the Legiflature, under a former act. He fubmitted to their Lordthips if it was not juft that the fervice of thofe, whofe offer was not only coextenfive but in fome inftances more extended, fhould be confidered as fairly entitled to the privileges or immunities which had been granted by the former act?

Lord Harrowly called to their Lordships' attention the probability of feveral having entered into volunteer corps with other views than that of defending their country against a threatened invafion. The minds of men were not altogether fo pure that we could fairly foppofe that when they found themfelves threatened with a very fevere fervice, they would not, in many inftances, endeavour to commute it for a lighter and an easier fervice.

The Earl of Westmoreland declared that he thought it would be impoffible to frame a measure of this defcription without being liable to fome objection. The invasion which was now impending, or fuppofed to be fo, could not with propriety be reckoned more alarming than any former state of the country, taking in all the circumftances of the cafe, though that was a point which was too generally dwelt upLaft war we had fedition at home in Great Britain, rebellion in Ireland, and an enemy conftantly on the watch to affift the difaffected, and promote the extenfion of their plans.

on.

Lords Darnley, Carnarvon and King, fupported the amendment, and urged the impropriety of the claufe in its prefent form.

Lord Bolton allowed the inequality of the operation of the exemptions in fome cafes, but flated that the preroga tive of the Crown fhould be exercited in a liberal and extended view in time of danger.

Lord Grenville declared, that there was no fuch principle admitted in the Britith conftitution, as that of the Crown having a right to felect any one clafs of its fubjects for exemption, and point out others for military duty; it was ab

horrent to the very foundation of a free conftitution. But it appeared to him, that his Majefty's Minifters had no fixed plan or fentiment by which to regulate their conduct. A vafiety of inftances were to be adduced if neceffary; for the prefent, however, 'he fhould content himself with noticing one inftance of their inconfiftency: laft February circular letters were sent to the different Lord Lieutenants of counties, defiring them to expedite the levy for the army of re ferve as much as poffible, and yet now they wished to fufpend the operation of the act by which that force is to be raifed. In fuch perfons he could place no confidence, and in fuch hands was this bill brought forward with fo many inconfiftencies and contradictions.

After a few obfervations from Lord Hawkefbury, Lord Winchelsea, and Earl Romney, their Lordships divided. The numbers were,

For the original claufe

For the amendment

Majority

The Committee then reported progrefs, and had leave to fit again the next day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, APRIL 5.

Mr. Dickens, from the Secretary of State's office for Ireland, prefented an account of the exports and imports, in pursuance of a previous order of the House.

A meffage from the Lords announced their concurrence with the innkeepers' allowance bill, and feveral other public and private bills that had paffed the House previously to the recess.

Mr. Creevey moved, that the order of the day of the 17th inftant, for taking into confideration the petition against the election for the county of Stirling, be read, in order to its being discharged. The order having been read and difcharged accordingly,

Mr. Creevey moved, that the petition be taken into confideration on Tuesday the 1ft of May; which was agreed

to.

Mr. Secretary Yorke, in pursuance of a former order of the Houfe, brought up lifts of fuch militia corps in Ireland as had volunteered their fervices to Great Britain, which VOL. II. 1803-4.

3 A

were

were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed for the ufe of the Members.

Certain accounts relating to the armied fhipping of the country were laid before the Houfe, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Vanfittart moved for the production of the accounts of the outlanding Exchequer bills of laft year, which were accordingly ordered.

Mr. Corry brought in a bill to amend the exifting laws for the better regulation of the linen manufactory in Ireland, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a fecond time the next day, and to be printed.

Lord Caftlereagh, in purfuance of a previous order of the Houfe, brought up a copy of the correfpondence that had taken place between the Government of India, and the King of Candy, in relation to the caules of the prefent war, which was ordered to be printed..

Mr. Purdue prefented certain accounts from the Excife office, which were ordered to lie on the table.

The Dublin police bill was read a fecond time and committed.

LISKEARD ELECTION.

Mr. Sheridan moved, that the order of the day for refuming the adjourned debate on the election at Lifkeard be read, which having been read accordingly,

The Speaker recalled the attention of the Houfe to the fituation of the debate on the day of its adjournment. The original motion was that the order of the day for taking into confideration the petition of Mr. Hufkiffon on the 9th inft. be read in order to be difcharged.

The question therefore having been put that the faid order be difcharged,

Mr. Burroughs oppofed the difcharge of the order. He animadverted particularly on the inconfiftency of Mr. Sheridan oppoting, in the firft inftance, the legality of the return, and on the next day objecting to the legality of the election. He contended, that the petition of Mr. Hufkiffon did not complain of a double return but of the inconveniency of being prevented from taking his feat, by means of a fehedule annexed to the indenture of his election, purporting to be a return, but which in fact was nothing, as it had not been legally figned by the returning officer. He laid the more ftrefs upon this, as neither of-the petitions denied the mayor to be the legal returning officer. The queftion to be tried by the Committee, the hon. Gentleman thought, was quite competent to the House, as Mr. Sheridan

Sheridan had given up the double return, and concluded by urging, that there was no reason whatever for difcharging the order in queftion.

The Secretary at War ftated that he had formerly moved the adjourninent, in order that Members, as there existed fome difficulty in regard to the rules of the Houfe on the fubject, miglit have time to make up their minds, and to afcertain the ufual practice of the Houfe in fuch cafes. The hon. Gentleman who had juft fat down, he thought, had gone much farther than he ought, as the decifion of the Houfe on a former day, in referring the queftion of re turn to a Committee, had completely fuperfeded every opinion in that refpect. But the petition of Mr. Hulkiflon, he contended, did complain of a double return, or a falle return, which to all intents and purpofes was the fame thing, fo far as the proceedings of the Houfe were concerned, and which equally required the appointment of a Committee. He argued farther, that Mr. Sheridan might withdraw his petition against the return, and fupport, notwithstanding, the rights of his election. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by fupporting the motion.

Mr. Henderfon could not be convinced, notwithstanding all that had been faid, that the return in queftion was a double return; not a fingle allegation even in Mr. Sheridan's petition went to make a double return of fuch a nature as required the interference of the Grenville act. He argued that the conduct of the theriff was highly culpable, and adduced feveral cafes to thew that the Houfe ought not to be deprived of the prefence of Members, either from caprice in the electors or obftinacy in a difappointed candidate. He argued that no return was good, unlets figned by the returning officer; but the return in queftion was not only not figned, but was pofitively retufed to be figned by the mayor, who was allowed on all hands to be the returning officer.

Mr. Sheridan replied to the objections that had been offered. He maintained that Mr. Hulkiffon's petition did complain of a double return, and turned over to the words which he apprehended must admit of that conftru&tion At any rate the double return had been already recognised by the Houfe, inafmuch as they had fent it to a Committee. So far was the conduct of the theriff not to be condemned, that measures were now taking against the mayor, on account of his obftinacy in refufing to fign the return in queftion. The double return, however, was not the shape

3A 2

in