measure which was universally acknowledged to be burdensome and unjust in itself, which had been unproductive, and at the same time operated as a drawback on the ordinary recruiting. They then proceeded to introduce a limited endurance of service, with the double view of increasing the number, and of introducing into the army a new order superior in zeal and energy, as superior in knowledge. The volunteer force still existed, and now the present bill was brought in, for the purpose of forming a force in addition to it, by which, in time, the whole country should be instructed in the use of arms. He informed the noble earl (Westmorland) that it was the intention of the present government to disperse 200,000 stand of arms among the people of the country; so far were they afraid of this, that they even intended to instruct them how to use them. Neither should they think it necessary to have them deposited in some castle or fortress; but should think, that in enabling every man to become habituated to the use of arms, and the people thus to become an armed people, while they in no wise endangered the peace of the country at home, they rendered it invulnerable against every foreign attack.

Lord Harelesbury entered into an investigation of the different measures alluded to by the noble lord, and particularly of the great advantages of voluntary services, which he was convinced would be greatly affected by the present measure a measure which, in his opinion, would be equally expensive, and by no means so efficient as the voluntary force. He should not, however, press the matter to a question,

Earl Westmorland and Lord Grenville mutually explained.

Earl Rosslyn shewed that the volunteer service could not at all be affected by the present measure, which was not a substitute for, but an addition to, the volunteer system. He took a view of the different immunities, such as exemp tion from ballot for the militia, army of reserve, &c. which had been formerly held out to them, and maintained, that instead of being degraded, as it had been termed by this bill, it also went to encourage the entering into the volun teer corps, by exempting all such from the provisions of the bill. He asked, too, if it could be contended, that the same number of volunteers would continue having nothing but the August establishment, while the contributions were discontinued? Ile adverted to what had fallen from the learned

509 learned lord (Eldon) as to the volunteers being the saviours of the constitution, and trusted it could not even be insi nuated that such an idea was at all well-founded in the present state of the country.

Lord Eldon, in explanation, declared, that he had never either insinuated or dreamt of such a thing. He had simply alluded to the volunteers at the time of their formation, and had attributed to them, he was convinced correctly, that this country had escaped those destructive and desolating principles by which the liberties of the rest of Europe had been overturned.

The question was then put, the House went into a committee, in which not a single amendment was made, and the bill was reported.

The militia ballot suspension bill also went through a committee, and was reported without any amendinent. The West India intercourse bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

The other bills on the table were forwarded. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, JULY 11.

The London dock compensation bill was read a third; time and passed.

The Malta trade bill, the sugar bounty bill, the warehousing bill, the French wine bill, and the silk bounty bill, were committed. Report the next day.

The report of the insolvent debtors' bill was ordered to be further considered on Monday..

Lord Primrose moved that the Committee on the joint account between England and Ireland should be allowed to report from time to time. Ordered.

His lordship then brought up a report from the Committee. Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. He then move for an account of several payments made, between the years 1801 and 1806, on the joint account. Ordered.

Mr. Vansittart moved that the Committee on the Malta. bill should be postponed till Monday.

Mr. Baker and Mr. Tyrwhitt Jones adverted to the detriment which the maltsters had suffered by the law, and hoped that the bill would be carried forward as soon as possible.

Mr.

Mr. Vansittart said, that the maltsters could not have suffered much inconvenience, as they enjoyed the advantages proposed to be given them by this bill under an order of the treasury.

Mr. Yorke asked on what principle such an order had been issued contrary to law?

Mr. Vansittart defended it on the ground of its being a common practice.

Mr. Plomer begged of the honourable gentleman to consider that general warrants had once been issued, and that the plea for them was, that it had been a common practice. It was a practice, however, which was found to be illegal, and therefore put an end to, and he hoped that this practice too would not much longer be sanctioned.

After a few words from Sir Charles Price, the motion was agreed to.

The Grenada loan bill was brought in and read a first time. On the motion for the second reading, .. Mr. Baker stated some doubts as to the propriety of such a bill.

Mr. Macdowal said that its object was to enable him to dispose of some property, in order to pay the debt to the crown. This he would have done five years ago if he had not been impeded in his exertions by the late law officers of the crown. He had for some time 180,000l. of capital: floating in Scotland with this view. He trusted that when the documents and the whole case were before the House, his honour would be found, to be unstained. It would be found that he had been very hardly dealt by; but he was already acquitted by his own feelings of any impro-: per conduct.

Mr. R. Dundas did not wish to oppose the bill; but said. that the late law officers of the crown in England and Scot. land ought not to be accused till the whole case was before the House.

After a few words from Mr. Baker, the Attorney General, and Mr. Johnstone, the bill was ordered to be read a se cond time the next day.

Mr. Bankes stated from the bar, that in answer to a request of the Commons, the Lords had agreed to a confer ence on Tuesday next at five o'clock.

Mr. Hobhouse reported that he had carried to the Lords the message respecting Sir John Gordon's divorce bill; and had received the said bill from the Lords.

On

On the motion for the third reading of the grain bill, -Mr. Foster opposed the bill on the grounds that as it stood at present, he saw no advantage that could arise from it, and it might be the cause of much harm.

Sir John Newport stated, that it was a measure of the same nature with that which had taken effect with regard to North Britain, and no inconvenience had arisen from that measure. This was the beginning of those measures for extending the benefits of the union which had not as yet been done.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

The Irish quit rents bill was read a third time, and passed.

ARCOT CREDITORS.

Mr. Hobhouse moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Arcot creditors' bill.

Mr. Ryder moved, by way of amendment, that the words appointing the commissioners to report to the House the grounds of their decision on every claim that was brought before them," be erased. He contended, that this clause made the House a court of appeal, and would prevent the decision of the commissioners from being final. Besides, they might sometimes find themselves obliged to decide in opposition to the evidence that was laid before them, and when this evidence was submitted to the House, it would not furnish them with the grounds of the commissioners' decision. He conceived the commissioners to be the ultimate resort in this case, since they were a sort of arbitrators between the East-India Company and the creditors of the nabob.

Lord H. Petty stated the origin of the clause now objected to, which had been proposed as an addition to another which he had introduced, for the purpose of obliging commissioners to report their decisions to the House from time to time. However, he saw no material objection to the amendment how proposed; but he should wish to hear the opinions of his legal friends on the subject.

Mr. Windham supported the clause as it now stood; and observed that it did not bind the House to investigate the grounds on which the commissioners decided in any fustance, but merely went to enable parliament to review their proceedings whenever it might judge proper.

Mr. Perceval supported the amendment, and contended,
VOL. IH: 1805-6.

that

A

that the clause introduced by the noble Lord was quite sufficient, as it would shew that the commissioners did not sleep over their duty, and gaye a proper degree of publicity to their transactions.

Mr. Francis contended, that the public were the party most interested in the whole business, since so large a part of the revenues of India, to which the country must look for the payment of its just demands on the East India Company, would be consumed in liquidating the debts. He therefore objected to the whole measure from first to last, and maintained, that the disposal of so large a sum as thẻ debts were said to amount to, should have been given to parliamentary and not to private commissioners. He wished to press on the House, how dangerous it was to devolve a business so important on private individuals.

The Attorney General said, that were he one of the com mission, he should wish that the grounds of their decision should also be laid before the House. The debts were a public subject; they were to be paid out of revenues in which the country had an immediate interest. If any suspicion of fraudulent dealing should arise, it was proper That Parliament should not only know the decisions, but the grounds also on which they were founded.

Mr. Rose supported the amendment..

Mr. Sheridan said, that every word be had heard convinced him that it was an unfit commission. It was in reality the public money by which the debts were to be liqui dated; for how was the public to be paid by the East India Company, if their revenues were swallowed up by the payment of these debts? Who were the fit persons for deciding on these debts? Were they not commissioners so constituted as that their decision should be final? Was it not monstrous that commissioners should be appointed whose decisions should be subject to appeal? This House was the most fit place for revising them, and why not at once appoint parliamentary commissioners, whose decisions should be final? What was known already with regard to India debts in 1704, justified him in making a supposition, that some collusion might take place between the creditors and the Company, by which the public might be defrauded.

Lord Castlereagh was glad to see the right honourable gentleman in his place, but as he had not attended before, he had misconceived the object of the noble Lord (Petty)