1814.

BOOK XIII. would himself enter into a few details on the subject. The Americans sending no fleets to sea, but CHAP. XI. possessing numerous seamen, and a multitude of privateers, the question of success or discomfiture was to be decided by looking to the protection afforded to trade against their means of annoyance. We had now, within a few hundreds, 20,000 American seamen prisoners of war. We had captured from them more than 200 ships of war and vessels, and had taken 900 other vessels. Not withstanding the increase of their privateers, the premium of insurance was somewhat less in last June than in the June preceding. The captures made from us, from the peace of Paris down to the last month, were reported at 172; but of these ninety-four were running ships; and of the rest, thirty-eight were separated from convoy, either through stress of weather, or wilfully; and the whole number of the coasting-trade lost was only eleven. With respect to the noble lord's assertion, that when our ships met with an equal force of the enemy's they were beten, except in a few instances, he could assure him that he was totally mistaken. If the events of the war in Canada were alluded to, when the noble lord should bring on his enquiry in a regular shape, he trusted he should be able to satisfy him.

Lord Grenville said he was not to be drawn off by this parade of detail from the actual fact, that there was a general impression in the country of great mismanagement in the naval administration. The opinion of the community could not be misunderstood, when the merchants of England, after having been repelled from the Admiralty with flippant and empty answers, were seen laying their remonstrances at the foot of the throne. After some further observations to this purpose, he said he hoped there would be an early day appointed for the inquiry; and that it would be entered into with solemn and impartial seriousness. His lordship then, adverting to the address, acknowledged that with all his desire to look favorably on the prospects of the country, they were clouded to his view. The speech told them only of new burdens, of severe additions to those which were already severe; no economy, no husbanding, no reduction. He lamented its language respecting the negociation with America. He professed a readiness to make peace on just and honorable terms; but these were mere words of course, and he should have expected a declaration what were the grounds on which peace would be made. He hoped the war still carried on was not one of resentment or revenge, much less of punishment, in order to make the people of the United States feel the weight of our power. This topic led his lordship to consider the devastation made at Washington, which he condemned in the most unqualified manner, as an act which

gave

could tend to no useful purpose, and which the first example of recurring to the maxims of a barbarous and antiquated policy. It had indeed been defended on the ground of retaliation, which, however, ought to have been expressly stated at the time. A subsequent proclamation had been issued, in which, on the same ground, a necessity was declared of carrying on war against the pri vate property of the American people. If it were true that we were in a situation which impera tively called for such measures, he trusted that parliament would be made acquainted with the circumstances which had brought affairs to such a deplorable crisis. With respect to the general state of Europe, his lordship could not avoid mentioning it as a great omission in the speech, that no notice was taken of our still keeping up on the continent an army of 40,000 men. In what part of our history was an example found of such a force in British pay in a time of profound peace, and what power had a King of England to keep it without consent of parliament? On the whole, the speech appeared to him ill suited to the exist ing state of the country, and with these objections it was impossible for him to give his approbation to the address.

The Earl of Liverpool could not agree with the noble baron that the address was marked by any peculiar features of a warlike character. He thought it more consistent with the dignity of the crown to describe the state of the country as it actually was, than to hold out hopes as to the result of events and proceedings still depending, The earl then went through the several objec tions of his lordship, and replied to each. He justified the acts at Washington as an exercise of retaliation; and with respect to the proclamation of Sir Alexander Cochrane, he said that a subsequent instruction had been sent to the commander on that station. As to the circumstance of keeping up a large army on the continent in time of peace, he allowed that there might be no precedent for it, because no state of things similar to that in which the war concluded had ever before existed. The policy of the measure was connected with the state of our foreign relations, and might become a future subject of discussion.

The question for the address passed without a division.

In the house of commons the address on the speech was moved by Lord Bridport, and se conded by Mr. Graham. A conversation on a variety of points relative to the state of politics, foreign and domestic, ensued, which, after the summary above given of the debate in the house of lords, it is unimportant to specify. The address was agreed to without a division.

In consequence of the unsettled state of affairs on the continent of Europe, and the continuance

of the war with America, the British government deemed it advisable to keep a part of the militia embodied; but this measure caused considerable jealousy both in and out of parliament; and, on the 11th of November, Earl Fitzwilliam rose in the house of lords for the purpose of submitting a motion relative to the continuation of certain militia regiments without disembodying. He said that great care had been taken by the legislature to prevent the burden of the militia-ballot from pressing more heavily than the exigences of the public service required; the prerogative of the crown was therefore restrained, and the establishment of that species of force was regulated by various acts of parliament. The cases in which the militia might be called out were specifically stated, and were, 1st, actual invasion; 2d, imminent danger thereof; 3d, insurrection; 4th, rebellion; but none of these at present existed. It was a great hardship upon the ballotted men to be detained from their families longer than the continuance of the exigence which had empowered the government to call them out, after which time they were legally entitled to return to their homes. It was also a hardship upon the counties and townships which lay under the obligation of providing for their wives and families. These considerations induced bim to move, That an account be laid before their lordships of the regiments of militia which had been disembodied, and also of those which still remain embodied.

Lord Sidmouth, as the person who presided in the department whence the order for suspending the disembodying of the militia had proceeded, felt himself called upon to reply to the observations of the noble earl. The legislature had been anxious to guard the militia force by regulations, not merely for the purpose suggested, but with a view to restrain the prerogative and influence of the crown with respect to it. The acts of parliament to which the noble earl had alluded, as pointing out the cases in which the militia might be called out, were not be construed narrowly; and it was always understood that the country being at war was an exigence justifying such a measure, and that during the continuance of that state, the militia services were to be continued as long as the crown should judge it to be of public advantage. There could be no injustice in such continuance towards the men, since the ballotted man was bound by his oath to serve five years, and the substitute as long as the regiment continued embodied. As to the hardships on the counties and townships, he did not know but they might have an equitable claim for re-imbursement. He affirmed that there had been no partiality shown with respect to the particular regiments embodied or disembodied; and would not oppose the production of the account required.

Lord Grenville said, that specific cases being

CHAP. XI.

1814.

pointed out by the militia act, it was illegal to BOOK XIII. wander from them. The militia had been called out only four times since the original act, and each time in strict conformity with the cases provided. These were, in the seven years' war; in the American, war, but not till after France and Spain joined in it; in 1792, when there was danger of insurrection (the extent and depth of which danger, said Lord G. no man now living, perhaps, knows better than myself); and the beginning of the war just now closed, in which invasion was fully determined on by the enemy. But even in the case of the apprehended insurrection, which was probably the most formidable of these periods, the house thought it proper to examine at length the grounds of embodying the militia.

Lord Sidmouth said that the noble lord's facts would serve him for nothing, unless he could shew that the militia was disembodied the moment the first cry of invasion or insurrection was over, which did not correspond with the fact.

Lord Donoughmore was surprised to find that the measure of retaining some of the militia regiments was meant to be permanent, as he conceived from the intended introduction of a bill; and he thought there might be reasons of patronage connected with the choice. He knew that in Ireland a militia regiment was thought one of the best things that could be given away.

Lord Liverpool affirmed that there was no idea of turning the present mode of disembodying the militia into a permanent measure; and said that the bill was merely to relieve townships from partial pressures, such as providing for the families of militiamen and the like.

The question was then put and carried.

The subject was afterwards taken up in the house of commons. On the 28th of November, Sir S. Romilly, after, by his desire, the militia acts of the 48th and 49th of the king had been read, rose and declared, that having used his utmost endeavours to investigate the matter, he was of opinion that in omitting to disembody the militia the ministers had acted illegally and unconstitutionally. It was a question that admitted of no doubt, as it depended entirely on the plain words of the statute. He then referred to the four causes for calling out the militia, as stated in a former speech; and proceeded to say, that if the house would consider the object of the militia-laws, it would be confirmed in the opinion that without a violation of the constitution, ministers could not, in time of profound peace, hold the militia from their houses and families, subject to the privations of military service. The militia was not an army, but a mass of armed citizens, not loosing, but only having suspended for a time, the advantage of the equal laws of their country. If, in the pre

CHAP. XI.

1814.

BOOK XIII. sent circumstances, the militia might continue embodied, there was no reason why it might not remain so during the rest of his majesty's reign. The only defence he had heard of this measure was, that we were still at war with America; but was there a man so timid or credulous as to fear invasion from that country? Should it be said that the restrictions of the act had a reference not to the disembodying, but to the calling out, of the militia, would not such an argument render it merely an option in the crown whether the militia should be disbanded at all? He understood that the conduct of the ministers was sanctioned by the authority of the law officers of the crown. If the opinion had been given first, and then acted upon, it would have been much better. He did not mean to insinuate that it would have been different under different circumstances; but it was impossible not to see that the question came before those officers cloathed with the authority of the statesmen in whose opinions and measures they must be supposed to concur, as they still held their places under them. After several other pointed observations on this topic, the honorable and learned gentleman concluded with moving a resolution, in substance, That it appeared to this house, that as peace had been concluded for more than six months, and the country enjoyed internal tranquillity, the still keeping part of the militia force embodied was obviously contrary to the intent and spirit of the act of the 42d of the king, and a violation of the principles of the constitution. The solicitor-general avowed, that notwithstanding the arguments of his honorable and learned friend, he still held the opinion on the subject which he had given. He acknowledged that ministers would act illegally, if they advised his majesty to call out the militia except in one of the cases specified in the act; but as no specific period had been assigned at which it was to be disembodied, he would assert, that they having been legally embodied, it was legal to keep them so. He did not say that such was the intention of the legislature, but looking at the let ter of the law, and called upon to give his opinion as a lawyer upon it, he must say he saw no illegality in keeping part of the militia force still embodied. Whether this exercise of the prerogative in the present instance were a discreet one, was a different question; and in this, as well as on all other exercises of the royal prerogative, the ministers were responsible.

Lord Milton wished the learned gentleman, instead of confining himself to the mere letter of the act, had also taken into consideration its obvious meaning and spirit. He should be glad to know what opinion he would venture to put upon paper had the question been stated in these terms, "When the militia was once embodied, was it

lawful for the crown to keep them embodied as long as it should think proper?" The argument of the learned gentleman would go the length of saying, that when once the crown had been able to get the militia out, it might retain them to all eternity. Looking at the mere letter of the law, without regarding its intention, might do very well for a special pleader; But it might be expected from a member of parliament, speaking in his place, on an act of great constitutional importance, that he would have an opinion about its intention and spirit. In time of war, parliament had a right to expect that gentlemen of a certain fortune and situation should come forward to officer the militia: but if it were laid down that those regiments might be kept up at the pleasure of the crown, it could not be expected that the same description of men could be found for officers.

The

Sir A. Pigot was decidedly of opinion that it was most unconstitutional to keep up the militia six months after the definitive treaty of peace. Nothing could be clearer, than that when the purposes of calling out the militia ceased, the power of embodying them must cease. construction which the learned gentleman had put upon the act would convert the militia into a standing army. He looked upon it as a great constitutional question, and was sorry to find it reserved for those times that ministers should advise the crown as it had done.

Serjeant Best supported the solicitor-general by recapitulating some of his arguments.

Mr. Ponsonby declared himself greatly surprised that the solicitor-general had asserted that he did not know what the spirit of the law meant: it was, however, the duty of that house to know the spirit of the law; and courts of justice constantly declared that they decided according to that spirit. It was said that the time when the crown should disembody the militia was not specified; but the sole discretion vested in the crown was this-whether it was fit to continue the militia on foot, with reference to the causes which made it legal to embody it. He was of opinion that it was now unlawfully retained..

Mr. C.Grant argued in favour of the retention; and said that there was enough in the state of Europe, and while such a demand existed on the continent for our regular army, to explain the reasons and policy of still maintaining a portion of our domestic force embodied..

Sir S. Romilly made a recapitulation of the arguments that had been employed on the subject; and said that the real question was, whether the crown had an indefinite power to keep the militia on foot as long as it thought fit, contrary to the express tenor of an act of parliament. this question he would divide the house, though he should stand alone.

On

A division then took place for the motion,

thirty-two; against it ninety-seven; majority sixtyfive. It is observable, that none of the ministers spoke on this occasion.

In a subsequent debate on the army estimates, a sum being moved for the expenses of certain militia regiments not disembodied, the chancellor of the exchequer said, in explanation, that the war with America, and the keeping up of a considerable body of troops on the continent, requiring the maintenance of a large military force, government, on the most mature deliberation, thought that such force would best be rendered disposable by keeping embodied a part of the militia.

Mr. Whitbread affirmed, that nothing could less have the appearance of a deliberate measure, since the Bedfordshire and Oxfordshire militias were stopped when on their march to be disembodied. Mr. Bathurst allowed that the retention of part of the militia was not a systematic plan on the part of government, but was dictated by the demands for the employment of the regular forces abroad.

The principal business that afterwards engaged the attention of parliament in this session was the Voting of the supplies. For the sea-service of 1815, 70,000 men, including 15,000 marines, were voted; and for the land-service, 204,386 men, exclusively of the East-India, the territorial, and the foreign service. :

Two of the most distinguished statemen in England (Lord Auckland and Lord Minto) died this year. As these noblemen had filled the highest offices in the administration of this country, both at home and abroad, we shall here give a biographical sketch of their lives. William Eden, Lord Auckland, descended from the ancient family of Eden, of West Auckland, in the county of Durham, on which the rank of baronetage was conferred by Charles II. in 1672, was the third son of Sir Robert, the third baronet. He was educated at Eton; became a student of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1763; in 1765 was admitted of the Inner Temple, and called to the bar in 1768. In 1771 he was appointed auditor and one of the directors of Greenwich Hospital; and about the same time published "The Principles of Penal Law." In 1772 he quitted the bar for the office of under-secretary of state, which he retained for six years. In 1774 he was. returned to parliament for Woodstock, and continued a member of the house of commons till 1798, proving himself, during the whole intermediate period, one of the most active, able, and useful representatives that ever sat in that assembly. In 1776 he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations, and was of that board till 1782, when its duties were. transferred to a committee of the privy-council.

He

1814.

Early in his parliamentary career, Mr. Eden be- BOOK XIII. gan to take a distinguished part in the proceedings of the house. In 1776 he brought forward CHAP. XL. the bill for incorporating the commissioners and governors of Greenwich hospital, and another to authorize, for a limited time, the punishment by hard labour of convicted offenders, instead of transporting them to the American colonies; both which measures were adopted by the legislature, and passed into laws. In 1778 Mr. Eden went to America, as one of the five commissioners deputed to the colonies, for the purpose of reconciling their differences with their mother-country; but on the failure of their negociations, he returned to England in January, 1779. In November of the same year, he published four letters, addressed to the Earl of Carlisle, on the spirit of party; on the circumstances of the war; on the means of raising the supplies; and on the representations of Ireland respecting a free trade. This publication, at once ably and candidly written, called forth a considerable degree of public attention; it was afterwards enlarged, and gave rise to a good deal of party-reasoning in print. These letters were followed by a short controversy with Dr. Price on the population of England; a discussion which was pursued by others with great ability. In 1780, when the Earl of Carlisle was invested with the vice-royalty of Ireland, Mr. Eden accompanied him as chief-secretary. was soon afterwards sworn of the Irish privycouncil, and elected a member of the Irish parliament. He remained in that country, during a period of considerable fermentation and anxiety, till April, 1782, pursuing measures equally calculated to conduce to the prosperity of that part of the British dominions, and the welfare of the empire at large. Among the various acts of his administration, which warrant this eulogium, not the least useful and important was the establishment of a national bank. In April, 1783, Mr. Eden was sworn of his majesty's privy-council in England, and appointed vice-treasurer of Ireland; which office he resigned in December, following. In 1785 he was nominated one of the lords of the committee of council for trade and plantations, and sent as minister plenipotentiary to the court of Versailles, for the purpose of negociating a treaty of commerce between Great Britain and France. That treaty was concluded and signed in September, 1786. In January, 1787, he signed a farther commercial convention; and inAugust the same year, another for preventing disputes between the subjects of the two crowns in the East-Indies. In these truly important treaties, the consummate abilities of Mr. Eden as a man of business, and his intimate knowledge of British commerce and manufactures, and the true interests of both, were conspicuously dis played. The connexion between the two coun