The Sun.
London, England, 1806-04-18 00:00:00

L WITNESSES' tILL.

. .. . • . .
. .
were prescribed- by no Statute ; .they ,arese, out of
the common law itself, and were in many, and'theso
the most -important points, coeval With- it. The
dotariues of equity were 'thruparatively rriOdern.—
Though the >Bill-. was necessary, it was better it
should not pus-, than to pass clogged with this pro-
viso: It was true a Court of Equity would not

compel a defendant to disclose anj thing that may
invalidate bis title, in case of purchase, for a.valua-
ble ,consideration, without notice ; but the geheral

rule of equity was, thnt no man could refuse answer-
.
mg on the ground that the answer might involve
him in civil suits. The Judges at Common Law

were often called upon. to decide nice . points inci-
dentally, and on the moment, and he thought it
wrong to shackle them with references to the prac-
tice of .a Court of
.Equlty.. He allowed there were
exceptions to, the rule, but the Bill did not go to
take them away. The Clause was unnecessary and
inconsistentwith.the spirit of the Law of England:
The ATTORNEY GLEN RAL defended: the
Bill on the ground that it had received, the
,sanc-
tion of one of the branches of the Legislature,. and

the highest Court of Judicature in the Kingdom,
in which every thing had been done to render- it
perfe&. He, however, thought the Amendment
made by the prOviso desirable. The Bill could not
be said to be exaaly'conformable to the opinion of
the Judges while no notice .was taken of the ex,
ceptions they-made to the rule. It was the objea
of the proviso to attend to these • exceptions. The
exceptions, if they were
,exceptions in law, were
not,on any legal-record, neither were the rules to
which they applied. There was no-reason to think the:
rules ofevidenceobserved in Courts of-Law coeval

with the embarkation of .Richard I. for the Holy
Land, the era of the Code of Common Law. These
rules were not fiitnid in any book of law. They
could not, therefore, be'' said to be anterior to the
Courts of Equity. On the contrary, it was notori-
ous that many of the rules of evidence were of late
invention ; and that some of them had been esta,
blished by a Chief Justice who had presided 30
years in the Court of King's Bench, and who was in
theyemembrance of many of those who heard I:irn
(Lord Mansfield). All admissions that may, involve
penalties, and forfeitures by law, were necessarily ex-
cepted. The other exceptions the Judges may have
thought necessary, and therefore he supported the.
proviso. , •
The MASTER of the ROLLS agreed, that.the
Courts of Law ought hot to refer to a Court of
Equity for rules of - evidence ; but when they took
any principle from a Court of Equity, he thought
they ought to take it with all the
.I...mitations,and
qualifications the pra&ice of equity had annexed to
it. Chief Baron Parker had allowed' the right to
demur to such-questions as would not be insisted on
in a Court of Equity. Lord,Kenyon 'denied the rule
of general obligation to answer ; but in the case of
admissions ;before arbitrators; he allowed the quali-
fications established in equity. According to the old
law of England, - no man_ could be called upon to.
make any admisSion intplicatihg himself • in the
smallest degree ; no more to make an admission in-
volving a pecuniary loss than an 'admission involving'
the penalties'of felony ; the law of England abhor-
ring reducing a man to the alternative of-committing
perjury or doing himself an injury. A legal penalty.
of 51. was allowed to he a g!od consideration forre-
fusing to answer; Why then should not a witness
be exempted from admissions .that--may involve the
annihilation of his whole, property ?: It may be' said
the interests of justice required the admissions. en-
joined by the Bill ; but the interests .of justice re-
quired equally.theconfession of a Murderer called as
a winless against. a person falsely accused of the
crime, of whose innocence this confession would be
the fullest 'testimony.: Yet, this confession was not
required. It was-not theinterest of justice 'that was
in question, but thrprote4ion allowed by the' 'law
for -the security of the sublet% In every other coun-
try a debt may be put.without any evidence 'to the
oath of the person in charge. In this country that
could' not be done. The principle and the train of
cOmpurgation it involved were easily got rid of by our
Courts. Formerly, every aa that gave rise, to a
civil action ;involved a penalty to the 'Crown ; for-
withholding the just demand in cases of civil action;
and for the offence vi et qrnai's, in cases o 1 trespass,
a capias was issued on the amerectnent, till the time
of King Williams when it had been done away.
From all this he was convinced that there Was no,
thing in the common law to compel witnesses to'
answer questions involving civil anions, any' more
than those involving pecuniary and corporeal penal-
ties. It was only from the-Courts of Equity 'that
the rule was taken, and the qualification existing in
those Courts ought to be taken with it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL maintained, that
the Judge was at liberty to decide on the legal ex-
ceptions without the proviso. The Bill went 'to
enaol, that witnesses could not refuse to answer, on
the sole ground 'that their answers Might involve
them in civil suits. That was the principle now in
force in the Courts of Equity. Omittinethe proviso,
the point would remain as it was before. He under-
stood tint the Judges were very ronch averse to- the
introduCtion of the rules of the Courts of Equity into
the Courts of Law. It was the opinion of ten of the
great law authorities, that witnesses were bound to
answer without respect to civil suits. Now, that so
great a law authority had questioned the opinion of
the Judges, it must appear to all particularly neces-
sary. to.settle the point in question.
Mr. PERCIVA L was. sure it was intended by the
Judges to make exceptions to the general rule they
bad laid, down. A proViso. similar ttl that now pro-
posed had been tirgedin the .Lords, and agreed to in
the first-instance; but the Bill had been sent down
without it. He did not hesitate to say, however,
that without the proviso the Bill ()light not pass, and
that the_ questions arising ought to- be left to be
determined in a legal way;. The question before the
House was
,one of which the House ought not to
take cognizance. Certainly it was one that, ought
nut to be decided on in haste. The Attorney and
Solicitor-General were in direa opposition upon it.
He could not:say, that the pasing of the proviso
would do
,away his obje&ions altogether,; but cer-
tainly, , without passing the proviso, his obje&ions
could not be overcome.
Mr. Secretary FOX pitl, he had not heard of the
propriety of passing the Bill. Notwithstanding his
high opinion of the Hob. and Learned 'Gentleman
on the Bench be4oW him (the MaSter *of the Rolls),
whose distinEtness of expression evinced the clear-
ness of his mind he was not satisfied that this Bill was

On the Motion of the- ATTORNEY-GE-NERAL the
House went into a Committee on the WitnesseSY
Liability Bill.
The MASTER-of the ROLLS complained, that
while the Bill pretended to be only declaratory, it in '
reality ena&ed very largely and very illegally. The
opiniQD which the majority of tne Judges 'expressed,
but expressed with much limitation and qualification,
vas/generally, and without exception; established as
law by the Bill as it stood. He wished to guard
against this excess by alloWing the witness-to objeCr,
and the judge to allow the objeaion, in all cases in
which a defendant to a bill in equity would not be
bound to answer. in allowing to a Court of Com-
mon Law the same power over witnesses that a
Court of Equity had over defendants, he did not
'wish to make those powers compulsory, without the
:exceptions allowed in equity. 'Me therefore moved
a proviso, by which the witness should be allowed
to-plead an exception' to the rule laid down in the
Sal, in all cases where such an exception would he
allowed in a Court of Equity ; and that the Judges
should be at liberty to alloW, that exception in the
same manner as if this Mt did not exist. .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL .had..always less
• confidence in his own opinion,.when it differed from
that of his Hon. and learned Friend ; but if. this
proviso were to pass, it would go to the establish-
ment of a new principle unknown to the' Law of
England, that of regulating the rules of 'evidence in
the Courts -of Law by the practice of a Court of
Equity. The rules .of evidence in common 'law
iC"\

t • 2.

Y ; - e
peecontormalelete the opinions df .ilie iratiOt;l:i 0 ( fiurcli an argerresete in the eiseeentscSjiicekl atteo; .
the Juhass. ;Ille Jilt WO! ildeeraark; beeatie4tne leeifairs, agniust-tr;:iiie. and:. 2, laai'ehtdoUil .(-1i•-•-n•
—e• ,--, • e- • - • n r-ent
• • v.
io' it itfvolehil. waa de:ly fippeeable, haehvery-mite- I- e;S tint. in ihe tanoh. An ClnieEliari: Might:, • ft&lheY
riai dltlerenCeS ei•isteal . npen, it. ; Wlien the .great a
sljeanade tcrifhia Motion, en the score that those edi-n-
-lath 'authorities differetl It waS.MoSt essential to. set I munications hid been prjvate; and ;hit tihsde ‘;rith ,a
the peint at rest. . The Irlng-h•age of the indges., 1 View tit. their thei'iting tlie. public , ii.,;.e Such ,ath too:- '
in saying, that • a witness ~e'es generei 3., , o'- as jcchon would noid good against tile .produaiori -of
some expressed, it, generally speaking,' bound Many documents-of different descriptions ilisit itefeen
to answer, though what they .inny answer May quently becathe necessary to call for. If it Were in
I
involve them in a civil suit, w+ s- precisely, ConH this instance to be •adrnitted, he trusted that Ministers
to the liirignag-e of the Bill before the • Would
,take care that the opinions Whieh he viii ilia: to
House, which lahent to establish that' i. \vitneaa may procure-Should come before the House in 'some sk-pe .
not refuse to answer solely on the groundethat his which•they might considet less .exceptiounble.. This
answer -May inYolve him in iheivil suit.- ~The queSe. 'objecl -Might be effe&ed by calling for a ReportfriiM
tion was, whether the uncertainty existing should be the General Offieers,pr by examining Lb. m either
decided by an Act of Parliament, ofeleft to. remain at the Bar of the House; or in a Secret C mmittee, .
with the increased force given to it by the differepce as might he deemed advisable. 'He never; how-. -
of the great authorities this • day ) A great part of ever, could admit that it woald be prudent ta'pre-
what had been urged against the Bill went to arraign need in the Military arrangements which were then
the opinion of the majority *of the Judges, to which tinder the conSideratiOn of Parliament without bay-
he would, nevertheless, adhere as the best' standard • ing first obtained the sentiments of general and ex- • •
of the laW. He could not think the caSeaaf a wit,- perienced Officersewho.were not 'merely Soldiers in •
ness in laW convertible with that of a defendant in theory, bUt who had commanded Regiments' and
.equity,. or that the same rules were applicable to seen service. And here he would take the liberty of. .
both. .The question in that-case would be, whether. guarding the Right Hon. Gentleman against the
the Judges
.should :06 inquiring into the' practice in - error of listening to young and inexperienced' men,
Chancery, When a point of evidencewas before them. in preference to veterans who had established their
The indecency of such a proposition was obvious. . claim to esteem and confidence. It was for the pur-
A reference to, the practice of the Court of Chancery pose of obtaining the opinion of such men that be . -
was had in no Court of Law but tie Court of Ex- proposed this Motion, hoping tis it if the ' • '
opinions as
. chequer, which was partly a Court Of Equity as well • they now stood were deemed unfit for the public
as a Court of Law. The Judges at common law ' eye, they might be communicated to the House in
foupd and established their rules of evidence by ana- some other shape. If any expedient of this nature
• logy ; they did not 'borrow them from the Courts of were resorted to, he trusted that the opinions of such
Equity. He was sure that not one of the Judges, men as Lord Cathcart, General Hutchinson, General
not even those who were against the obligation to Prescott, &e. who had been forgotten by some .acci-
answer, was favourable to this proviso. He consi- dent, would not be omitted. M. Yorke concluded'
dered the adoption of the proviso by the• Lords, in by moving; that there be laid before the House a
the first instance, as a proof of their disposition to, copy of all such mintary opinions, in writing, as may
give•every thing in the irature of amendment due, have been giVen on the subject of limited service,- in •
consideration. The rejecting of it after. was a proof consequence of aiiy requisition from GoVernment to
that, on consideration, it did not deserve to be- re- that etfe6t. ' , .
tamed. General WALPOLE obsen'ed, that the enlist-
ment for limited service had been repeatedly and
Mr. TERMS, on the best consideration tie could
egive, thought therAmendment made by the Atto
/I' successfully tried in the British Army. Particularly
ney-General, on the first commitment, sufficient to in the seven years' war, and in the American war,
remove all objeCtions to the Bid. The situation of men-had been enlisted for a term of three years only, •
a Witness at Law, and a Defendant ii Chancery, d I ati tie number of men raised after the adoption of
i
this measure fir exceeded what had been raised
Were very. different. His Hon. Friends -below-,Thim
prior to if. Lie could not therefore see what neces-
would satisfy the House as to the principle' -of t 4
Bill, • sity thereexisted for calling for opinions on a sub--
The MASTER'Of the ROLLS explained. jeet, the merits of which had been -already decided
' Sir PICA RY GMBS defended his Learned by experience. ,
Friend behind him,. from the imputation of haYincr • •
Mr, Secretary, IVINDILPif, abstaining from any
confounded in his view -6f the stibjeEt a Witne::
diaeuasion of the merits of the
:military plan which
With a Defendant. He declared that hiS objeCtions
-he had submitted to the House, Weeld:confine him-
to the proviso had been strongly
:fortified by what
*lf .to a Ihw observations on the question immedi-
had fallen from the lieeht Honourable Secretary
ately before them. He was surprised thattlie:Hba.
and the Solicitor-General ; and, lie was decided -
Gentleman had not in .the first instance anticipated
ly of opinion that it ought not to be introduced -
be
to
obje&ions to his Motion. The effeta of it was,
, into the Bill. The Bill professed to da.;lare that tor
to put those who dissented from it in the disagree-
the law which the majority of the Judges had de-
able • situtttion .61 appearing to be apprehensive, that
dared tobelaw, the House was con,,equently bound
1 the opinions which it teeded to produce' would be
to adhere strictly, to that declaration, and not re-
found to militate against the system which they had
fir to any rule of equity, of which .nothing had.been
.adopted. This, however, was not a-fair inference.
said by the JudgcS. It 'was true,- that the terms of
No one knew better than the Hon. Gentleman ()li-
the opinion delivered by the Judges, 'implied a qua- I-
lification but the House ought
, polite, • that ..there were . papers- which it %yea' the
tin& nature and complete, extent
; ght to' know the dis-
tof that qualification • dety of Government to withhold, although in a late
. act of, the Administration, of which they had fin-meal
before they founded a measure on a supposition of
what it might be. On the third reading he meant to` --a:part, they appeared to have forgotten that principle.
It might be supposed that these opinions were !kept
state histobjeEtions to the principle of the Bill : at
back in compliance with.the.wishes of GovernMent,
present, he should give his decided:, negative to "the
but the House would judge whatcredit was -clue to
introduCtion of the proposed, clause, because 'the
which they this supposition, when they were informed that the
Judges had not stated the qualification
opinions were so equally balanced, that it meg im-
annexed to the universality of their rule. .•
possible any inference ceuld be drawn from them.
• -The question on the Clause was then put, and ne-
gatived without a division. , • If tile. scale inclined any way, it was in his favour..
..
Opinions of fourteen Geoeral Officers had heen•ob-
e The House having resumed, the report was or,
• . . tamed. Of these six had decided in favour of the
dered to be received to-morrow.
- A Message from the Lords announced their Lord- . opinion maintained by the Hon. Mover, seven had
decided against it, and the remaining opinion was
ships' Assent' to the Irish Treashry Bills' Bill,- and
. . of such an ambiguous nature, thatit alight fhirly be
the British Fishery Bill.
i . disputed which side had a right- to claim- it. -So
MILITARY OPINIONS.
• much for the number of opinions; but if the nature
Mr. YORKE had flattered himself that no obe
of them were entered into, the balance of authdrity
jeaions would be made to the Motion which he rose
would evidently appear to be on his side. • Almost
for the purpose of submitting to the House—a Mo-
the whole of those opinions allowed that the system
tion which was calculated to put the House in posses-
sion of information the most material and important
of limited • service would give greater faCilities to
recruiting, and draw,' out a superior description - of
At the' present moment. He tinderatood, however,
Men ; the objeetions principally related to the Co-
that it was probable some objections would be started
to his proposition, conformable as it- was to the ge- , lonial Service., There was considerable difference
too in these adverse opinionS .as to the extent
reran principle, of procuring eVery possible facility
or the difficulty ; some thought that it might
in judging of a question intimately connected with
be easily surmounted ; others, that it would be
the vital interests of the Country. He thought,
inexpedient to make the nttempt in time of war.
hoWever, that the -louse would scarcely proceed to
Officers on
the discussion of the question to 'which he
.alluded, • . great objeCtion to the produetien Of those Papers
was, that _they had been communicated in con&
without- having previously obtained the •opinions o' f
the- most able and experienced Military deuce to the Commander in Chief. If an extreme
necessity for their produ6tion existed, this delicacy
the subject—a subject on which the judgment of ci-
Might be .over-ruled ; but he should be very enwil-
vil men alone was by-no means sufficient. He did
not mean to say that the House should abide by ling to do so otherwise: He should be very unwilling
to put the Officers into the unpleasant situation of see-
those Opinions, he only contended that they, ouglil•
not to decide- without having heard them. The ,ing their opinions unexpectedly brought forwardeand
canvassed and disCUSi.ed by the:House and the Pub-
, 'Right Hon. Gentlerpan opposite had afforded the
lie. Sieh a step Would weaken confidence be-
' 4-ions.e no information, no authority on, the subjfgA,'
tween military men aid their Commanders ; it
except his assertion, that limited service 'as the
basis of all the military ,s stems of Enrope. It Was might be produelive of many serious consequences.
Besaies, after all, these were merely the opinions of
highly esirable, that the details of ahte,military sys,
military men, and the subject rested -on grounds
tems of the greater Continental Powers
:should be
much broader than military knowledge aloire could
before the douse : it `would -then, he believed, be
ine`- limited' . funlish. A General might be an excellent Officer,
found, that in no country was the ter
understood :is it was described' by the Right Hon.: .and yet not possess thateknowledge of mankind
which was
:necessary •in the form:llion of,: such; a
' Gentleman, but that before these Powers discharg-ed
a part of their Arthies, they -dearly ascertained the _system as that in contemplation. After some further
sabservatinns; Mr. Windham coticluded by- declaring
number of men which they still possessed. Heknew
tiler he must vote against the Motion.
thatthere ha•d•been in the possession of a very re-
Mr. Yortic 'explained. '
spe&able Officer in thiecountry (the Deputy Quar- - 1
ter-master General) a detailed account of the Manner k . GeneratTARLETON thought it would be highly
in -which the Austrian Government applied this sdesirabletto know the names, and consequently to
principle of limited service .to their Army. He be enabled to estimate the authority of the General
wished this account could be laid oh the Tablee and Officers who had.-delivered the opinions alluded' to.
the House would then see the difficulties in which He wished likewiSe that_ it should be prevtously as,
•the Austrian Government bad 'been involved. Whe- R certained in what way the questions had 'been teat
ther, however, that document could. or could not to them, on which - a great deal depended. The
be produced, surely the opinions of our own Officers questions•might not•have been fairly stated, and the
on this system might. He understood that there answers cduld. therefore not be, satisfaaory. All
existed in some, of the Offices, opinions in writing, this it was, .highly 'necessary- should be publicly
by some of the_ most respectable and experienced i known. .He doubted nil:etheror not the questions
Officersin the--British Anny, given in-consequence • had proceeded from the Commander in Chief, lite
of a requisition from Ministers for their opinions on . rather thought they had been 'proposed by ttie*Ad-
that particular point. It •was 'highly desirable that ministration. , Military- opinions onshi military nub-
' these opinions should be, laid .before' the . House, that •• jea were' indispeusible; and the House .ought: to be
the House might be in possesiOn of the groUnds very jealous of con-indult-1g the whole direction of
upon which they were fo.inded,. and •:know What • the Army to a eiVilL.military•Gentlenran. • Ile had.
variety of sentiments had been expressed, and the •, conversed on the stibjeEt with: some` of . the most ex-
:general bias of the whole. If the opittionsa,of- the' perienced Officers in the kingdom, and he had rea-
- General Officers ltad been very mtiehllivicied, it was i -son to. believe, that the inducelterit of lloited Service

~~~

-

would not produce a thousand additional men in five

years.
SA7retary
.FOX said, that the I-Ton Gentle-
man seemed to argne as if the questions • had been
put by the present Administration. They had been
put by the Commander in Chief during the conti-
nuance of the last Admitistration, and the balance
of opinion reflected great honour on that Illustrious
Personage, as it shewed that be was desirous of ob-
taining fair and impartial informatien- on the subjea.
Lord CASTLEREAGH admitted; -that in two or
three instances these opinions ,might not have been
so formally stated," as, if the
,individuals had been
aware that they would meet the public eye, bids the
remainder had been drawn Up with all the correa-
ness drat belonged to official papers, and would do
credit to those by whom they were contributed. To
prevent; however, any, infrincrement-of personal deli-
cacy, it would be easy-to referb these papers back to.
the Officers who ,were the authors of them, to receive
any eorreClions that they may -think-rie.cessary, and
in some eases . it would be desirable, wholly to with-
held themiif such were the disposition of those
Officers. He conceived these opinions to be of the
last importance, and he was convinced that the last
Administration would not have been able to do their
duty, as he trusted they had done, without: having
possessed the 'advantage of them. They could not '
have sOen the yarions bearings of the ,subjea unless it
had been argued as it Were by military counsel., ;The
. inference be drew from those opinions was contrary
to that of the Bight. Hon. Gentleman opposite ; :for
if there was any thing like a balance of opinion, it
related only to the general and not to the local ser-
vice:, Op military questiens,.-Parliament seemed to
be assuming an authority which did not„belong to it,
and which -V,-as krtirely novel. 'ln raising Militia,
Vohinteers, and Troops of that description, Parlia-
Aleut had -a right to interfere ; but. certain)), not
the Regular' Army: That had always been consi-
dered of safe wlith the Cromin; under theßroteCtion
.• of the' MutipyrAa. .It 'bad, never been the custom.
Of Parliamen-t to die-tate' to the Crown, the mode -.of
enlist ing:the Regular Ariny ; and he thought those
bold Ministers 'who ventured to _ make this ,great
change in the vital principles ofthe CenstitutiOn.
. Lord- HEW.. PETTY was surprised, as the
Noble •Lord asserted that the ,late'Adminisfration
bad derived, considerable advantage from these Pa-
pers, that they had not
,submitted them to the notice
of the House, -at a time when their military measures
wßreunder.diseussion., An Honourable Gentleman
had said, hat it was impossible to ascertain the pre-
cise nature of the question that had, been put to
the General Officers. It was certain that they could
not have, beep -adapted to the present circumstances,
and he answers were consequently rendered .iess
valuable. Would the House think of framing ques-
thps on the particular provisions in agitation ? Would
they put the propdSed Bill iota the hands of these
General Officers, and call. upon , them to change
their military, for a deliberative and legislative
charailer, and to give their opinion aye or no ?
He contended, in opposition to the Noble Lord,
that the House had assumed no new power.—
If there was any thing on which-the House had a
right to form and express an -opinion, it was-on the
term of enlistment of the Army. His objection to
.the produitien of . these opinions was not that they
would be unfavourable to the sentiments of Admi-
pistration, but that such a measure would be-too
great a departure from /the usage of Parliament.----
. The regular'course was for the House to obtain the
-opinion delivered in the House of those respeaable
military men who belonged to it; anct for the'Mem-
hers; by conversing with- experienced General Offi-
cers out of doors, to chine doWn- prepared 'to disdtlss
the subjea, without being,under the necessity of de-
viating-from the general principle of conduct which
ought always to be adherect-te,
Mr. CA NIV./ G should' abstain from the .discuS-
sion of, the'merits of the opinions that had been given,
because as- he had not seen these opinions he was not
prepared for such discussion. It was . true that 'the
Right Hon. Gentleman who was lately at the head of -
bis Majesty's Councils had expressed, an opinion -fa-
yourable to• the recruiting for limited service, but
- he had. also . given a pledge to Parliament not to,
agitate the oi,testion till he should. colic& the opi-:
nionsof these best capable of forming a judgment-
- upon It: Lie had 'done so, and had decided ;Ton-
. the information Which he received, that he ought
not to'bring it ferward. Did it follow, when he
formed such opinion, that .he Should come down to -
-- the Hbuse to state this opinion, in order that it might.
, -be discussed whether or not he Was Justifiedin form-
ing; O Did it follow that he, vas
,hOund fo furnish
information .to the. ;:louse, when he was of
opi-
utiori that no change was to be made, and 'that no
• - information ;vas to be given—,when such a vital
change was. to be made as, would amount to a re- .
volution in the state of;the Army ? The- two ease's
were widely different, unless it should be contended;
that, to avoid danger, and to run -Into 'it, were
precisely the same.. It/ eras much better to. con--
suit those whose experience enabled them- to give
correa information on the subjea,
.than, to trust
to the most enlightened speculations, in human
nafure. • He, could ,not 'see what objection Mi-
nisters-could have to refer back these opinions for
• correCtion tb the Military Officers, in order to their
being .afterwards _laid' before ,the ,House, if it
- should. be deemed indelicate 'to produce them .in •
their present shape. He thought thut Parliament
was incompetent to decide on this questiOn,'
with-
out the aid of, sucli'opinionS from professional -au-
thorities. The- balance er opinions shewed the
necessity .of,further investigation. He thought that
Ministers ought to-accornipodate their practice to
thei`r former professions. He had - heard an old
Reman moralist's sentiment panegyrised' in .that
House. He did not know of what order of archi-
teaure his lionse or windows sere; but if he wished
• no more of his concerns to' be known than the pre,
sentMinisterS, be should suppose the windows to
have been great Gothic ones,
,to exclude the light.
- Sir JAMES P OLTE NEI' was of opinion that mi-
litary men, from their experience, and acquaintance
-. • 'with the pra&ice of recruiting, were most competent to
judge of the best mode of raising men for the Army.,
As the question was a new one, 17e' thought the House
ought to see the opinions of Gcialernen who had
thought deeply on the subjea - He wished to see
those opinions in which he might possibly find
.omething to hictuse him to alter his own,.or possi-
._

~ ~~

-

LONDON : Printed by RII
At tiw Sus-0

-thy to confirm its. It Was rather whiplsiCal that he
had quoted the instance of recruiting men for
ii
aimited term in the American War, in order to spew
the insufficiency', of such an arrangement from its
failure in that instance. .They were totally different
cases, to raise a single Battalion in that manner, and
to raise the whole Army. -
Mr. WILLIAM DOI\Ir.DA S. felt considerable ribT
jeelion to the produetion,.of tile Papers called for, 'as
they had not been framed with a, view to their being
made' public. He knew that one or two of the
Gentlemen whOhad given in their. opinionsfett great
relnetance to their being • produced. If they had
known that they were to be laid on the Table of that
House, their opinions would have beenslnce elabo7
rately• drawn up: He therefore deprecated the prfc,)-
duetion of confidential communications. If the opi-
nions were referred back to the fraMers of, them, be
should have no objection to their subsequent prO-
dtiaion.
Lord. DE BLAQUIERE thought, that on ques-
tions'relating to the operations of armies, military
men ought to be consulted, but with regard to the
means of recruiting armies, they couldnot be so good
judges as that House. ' He was aorry, to differ from so
many of his friends on this subject,, but he thought
they could not have an army without- the measure.
prOposed by the Gentleman opposite. Recruiting for
a limited term was not a novel measure.
.In 1779, he
,bad the honour 'of being employed to raise the 17th
Regiment of Dragoons ; he enlisted the men for three
years, at a small bounty, In 17.32 he unlisted the whole
Regiment again, then quartered at Coventry, fer one
guinea bounty.. He afterwards ,enlisted the Whole,
with the exception of a very'small number;',,fw the
third' titre, and his regiMent went
_afterwards, to
America, Where they fought like lions. He thought
the enlistment for a terth of years would tend to `the
security of the Country,,
,as well. as the-glory of the
Autry, and the comforts of the Soldiery.; but.he did
not approve of the little crooked sixpence at the end
of the veek. .
Mr. YORKE,"in consequenee of 'what had fallen
from his Hon. Friend,. bad no objeetione with the
permission' of the House, to withdraw his Motion,
provided His Majesty's Ministers should, give the.
House to understand, that-they would take the opi-
nions of high military anthorities„ for the purpose of
laying them before the House.
Mr. SECRETARY FOX. stated that ~this ,was
quite another question from the one that had been
Were under discussion, find required -time toCon-
sider how far it< may be proper to assent to it: There
was not '-a single instance that he was' aware of` in
which Parliament had 'resorted to militartauthori4
ties, except with a ; view
,to., retrospective measures.
.;
If they 'were .once to m nCtion .the principle of
calling for communications from Officers tO their
Comrpander in Chief,. it would causb a greater re-
-volution in the Army than the measure proposed
by his Right Hon. Friend. Much had been said of
altering the condition of the Seldiere but this would
alter, in a'very extraordinary way, the character of
Officers, if their opinions, confidentially communci-
cated to their COintriander in Chief, were afterwards
to be called for by that House. He did' not know
whether it was contrary to the practice of that House.
to resort to Military Authorities for ,information,
but he wished to know what had been the usage in
'former cases. Such a principle would place that
House in a situation different frena that of the Lords,
who had- twelve Judges',to, resort to; for it Would
give them 150 Generals to refer to for information.
He shotild.yote against the present. Motion, and if
it should be brought forward .in any other .shape
'again, he should then be yeady to :atate his opinion
with resneet to it.
Mr. Yeiiicx referred to the case of the Report
of the Officers consulted with respect to the Forti-
fications ofi the Country, in 1786, to chew. that it
was not unprecedented to have recourse to Military
Authorities in that House ; and, Mr. Secretary Fox
observed thereon, that there was a considerable dis 7
tiation between the Report of a Board'of Officers`,
'and [heir opinions 'individually taken..
• Colonel CRAWFURD._contended, that the ques-
tion "respecting the. Fortifications of the Country
was.a purely Military one, whereas the question re-
specting the means of recruiting the Army was not
'so. He 3 thought it rather singular,,.that the measure
of his Right Hpit Friend should be represented as
likely to cause a revolution in ,the state of the Army,
when the principle upon which it was founded was
that upon which the .Defence of the Country rested.
The first. Act of the Administration, of -which the
Hon: Gentleman who brought forward this Motion
Was a Member, , was to call out the Militia to 'the
number of 90,000 ; the next was for raising a force
of 50,000 men for 'the Army.of:Reserve„ These.
Forces were raised for a liMited term,
,and to -them
the Country was to ,look for, its defence. And yet
they Were now told that the application of the-same
principle to the mode of raising the Regular Force;
inferior in number, would 'cause a revolution in time
Army. The Infantry of the 'Line athounted in the
whole to 80,000, and the Force engaged for limited
service was at present above 100,000 men.
Mr. YORKE. stated, that the Militia in Great
Britain bad only been raised to,-48,000. Colonel
CRAWFURD replied, that the Returns on the Table
shewed the Militia to be at present 64,000, after 'al-
fordine, a supply of 15,000 •to the Rugulars ; and
Mr. /TAWTHORN observed that the Militia in: the
United Kingdom had been above 85,000 on. time Ist
of -January last,
Mr. 'PERCIVAL , begged the House, to bear in
mind; that the Country had at present a Force of
20,000 men ; and• asked whether this wasa-time
when any measures were necessary for. the salvation
of the Army ? It had been said by a-Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite, that to establish the principle
ofresorting to Military Authorities would create a
greater revolution in the. Military System than the
, proposed alteration.
•But did it follow, that because
that cousre should. be adopted in the present instance,
it -should be,followed in every other ? the question
was not a theoretical, but a praetical question. The
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Windham) was fond of
- theories, and therefore wished to exclude informa-
tion that might militate against them. In stating
that the balance of authorities was in his favoer, the
Right Hon. Gentleman bad no doubt stated the
pres,,ion 'on his mind ;-•but he could not be consi-
dered Unbiased. Per his own part, he wished to
see the opinions:of Military Men in detail; -rather
than combined in the Report of a Board. No rational

grounds bad been statel, against the I;rotl,i6tiou
the PaOerS, and "thierefore‘the inference would beo:
that they afforded an argument against the,rneasure.-.
of the Rig lit Hon; Gentleman: - •;
Lord DU BLAQUIERE, 'Alr: PERCIVAL, Mr..Fox,-!
and Mr.. Witcon ANI severally explained. . .
Lord .TEMPLE contended, that the case,Of re-
sorting to th:.! authority of military men, when the-
Duke of Richt-riot-id was at the head of the Ordnance.
Department, in 1786,,was not . at, all similar to
.the
present. The Noble Lord read an' extra& from.the
Journals, to spew that the information in that-case
laid before the House was only an extra& from a
Report made by a Board of Officers appointed by
His Majesty, who wore responsible- for their'opi-
nions.- It was tinconstitutiond to refer to opinions
stich as those coinuMnicated in the manner by which'
those that were- the obje& of the present Motion
were 'given in and as there Was no precedent.
for: examining Officers at. the Bar of the House on
such subjeaSJie should obje& to that course of pro
ceeding also. .. • •
Mr. ROSE thought, that the subjea- on which a
Communication had been made to the House,when
the bake of Richmond. had been at the head of
the Ordnance Department, respeEting the:best mode
of fortifying the Doek=yards, was, a snore delicate
question than the present, and argued that the:Pa-
pers ought to he granted.
Mr: CA LCRA FT contended, that ,there could
have been no breach of delicacy laying.in- before the.
House -the Report of Officers appointed to draw up
their opinions upon a public question referred to
them for Consideration. The opinions'under discus-
sion stbo4-UpOn cfifferentgroundS, having been con,-
f?dentiallycOmmunicated to the Commander iniChief,
at hisidesire, to assist his own judgment. It has been
said that their opinions might be referred back to
those Who gave them, in order to their 'being pro
duced •in a more perfe& form. • But ',were they
all in existence ?, Were they at hand ? Or was -it
•Copvenient to, do so ? No Parliamentary ground had
been laid' for the Motion, and he should therefore
oppoSe. it.
Aftera few words in explanatiOn from General
TARLETON; the question was put on the Motion, and
negatived, without a division. • •-•
REPEAL OF ADDITIONAL 'FORCE-11l LL-:

Mr. Secretary WINDHAM brciught up the Bill for
the Repeal of the Permanent Additional Force Bill
of the 44th of His'Majesty. On the question that
it be read a first time, •
Genertd.TALETON begged to call the atten-
tion of the House to the Papers that had been printed
since the Right Hon. Gentlenian had opened his
sketch or the measures he• had. proposed to:bring
forward. These-Papers would chew, that the 'Bill
now proposed to be repealed afforded the' -best
means of obtaining a` supply tbr' the Army, as'it .was',
now in full -fOrce,and all the difficulties which ithad
encountered were g'at over. He hoped the House
Would interpose its authority to prevent the Country
from being .deprived of its effeas. He balled' On
Gentlemen to examine these Papers, in order to pre-
pare themselves for the debate on'the second reading
of the •
Mr. HAIFTHORNE also called dron • tb e • House
to peruse carefully this Volume of Papers; becausei
Gentlemen- Would there
,find distinet evidence that,
the Bill had totally failed.
Mr. PERCIVAL recommended to the House, in
his turn, an examination of these Papers, because he
was sure the result would be the reverse of what
had been stated by the Hon; Member who preceded
him. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt), who
had brought forward the 'measure, had stated-last.
,Session, that on the average of the three weeks' pre-
ceding the Gth of March that year, it had produced
nearly 200 per week;, and on the average of the
three months preceding, it vould. produce nine or
ten thousand in the year. And in the fifty weeks
ending the 14th last, March, 'it bad -produced aboVe
-000 men. ,In the last fifteen weeks it' had pro,
ducekan average'of 258 per week,. which- Would
.give 13,2.00_ in the year. In . the last ten weeks an
average Of 277, or, 14,600 in the year : andin the
last five weeks, an average of 356' per week, being
at the rate of above 18;00 in the year; andthts
under'all the discourlgements which interfered' with
its operation.' They would. also find by the Papers,
that the Bill had,not been 'effectual' in the first in-
- stance, because it had not been understood. When
it- had been explained' by the Inspeeting Field Of-
' ficers, the result had been to give renewed activity ,
to the Bill.
Lord TEMPLE thought the House Obliged to
the" Learned Gentleman for the course of reading, he
recommended ; but was opinion that they should
adopt a more enlarged ,system of education. Ile.
begged the House would consider not so much the
number of men raised, as the Means by 'which they
were raised, and the manner in which the Bill had
been received in the Country. -
• Colonel CRAUFURD observed, that the Hob.
Gentlentn opposite , seemed to assume ' that the
whole of the men had been raised by the prOvi7,
sions of the Bill. He, on the Contrary, Was per-
suaded
that not a n.-lan had been obtained but. by
means extraneous to the Bill, every one of whom
would have been produced if no, such Bill had been
in existence. Sixteen guineas bounty were given
tOr the Regular Army.. TWelve guineas were given
for this Force, and ten afterwards on entering the
Line, so that by this means the individual obtained
a bounty of 22 guineas.
After a few words from Mr. VANSITTAPT, the Bilk
Was rend a first time ; and on'the question that it be
read a second time,
Mr. CANNING gave notice that on the day on
which this Bill should be fixed for a 'second reading
he should. move to defer,that stage of the Bill ti!l
such time as the House' should have an opportunity
of judging of the measures to be. brought forward
by the' Right Hon. Gentleman. This Bill was for
the repeal of a measure that afforded a resoureetO.
a certain extent to provide melt for the Army. He
did not mean to,discuss the merits of that measure,
but was sure the 'House would do fight not to: get
rid of it until they should. knoW what would be
substituted for it, The course he shotild• take would
be, not to get rid of, the present Bill,biitto'susgend
its progress till they Should be able to judge the
measures to be brought forward.' Hon.
Gentleman' appeared to have. proceeded 'in an invert-
ed order, by proposing to repeal a' measure that af-