The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-22 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS:-MONDAY.

On the order of the day being read for the house to re-
solve into committee on the Chelsea Hospital Out-pen-
sioners' Bill,
Mr. HUME rose on a point of order. He thought it was
now proposed to take a course different from that which
the house had ever taken. He was not aware that the
pensioners were other than civilians. He was not aware
that they were subject to martial law, or liable to penal-
ties for the breach of martial discipline; and, therefore,
be thought that they could not be placed under the provi-
sions of the Mutiny Act, unless the house first determined
the number to be employed. The house must fist resolve
into committee, and settle the number. He believed
there was no precedent for a contrary course, and if
there was a precedent, he was not disposed to attend to
it. (Laughter.) What he menot to say was, that the
precedent would be so dangerous that it ought to be dis-
regarded. By the sixth clause of the bill, the pensioners
were to be made subject to the Mutiny Act and the Arti-
cles of War, aid he wished to know whether there was
any precedent for proceeding with such a bill without the
house first deciding the number of men to be employed ?
He had also an objection to the house passing the bill
without provision being made by Parliament for the pay
and expenses of the men.
Sir H. HARDINGE desired to lose no time affirming the
fidelity of the army, who, he assured the house, would be
found loyal and incorruptible. He vindicated the princi-
ple of a standing army, and the absolute necessity of such
a force under the present constitution of this country.
The measure was founded on many precedents. The pen-
sioners had been called out by i,ord Grey's government
in 1832-3, and by Lord John Russell when Home Se-
cretaryin 1839. Arms had been put into their hands,
but without the organisation now proposed ; for then
they were to act as mere special constables, but now it
was proposed to place them under the command
of commissioned officers. Exemptions, however, would
be liberally allowed, where any valid ground could
be assigned.

Lord lisaLucusToNr did not concur with his friends in
their apprehensions of this bill, the effect of which he
understood to be, that it enabled the crown, instead of
calling out the pensioners in entire classes, which it might
do without this act, to select those individuals among
them who were found to be really fit for service. The
powers of the bill could not be exercised but on a very
small scale, and for a very short time, without a vote of
the house ; and, on the whole, he saw no reason for op-
posing the bill.
Mr. BRIGHT was adverse to standing armies. He
wished that the government, instead of relying on such an
instrument for quieting the people, would redress their
grievances.
Mr. ROCHE was not surprised that the last days of a
session, in which nothing had been done for the people,
should be spent in providing against their probable dis-
content. But this provision should have been made, not
by the sword, but by reason and justice. If this bill were
passed, he hoped it would be a useful lesson to the British
people to see that the same legislature which was so ready
to coerce Ireland was willing also to coerce England.
Mr. 1-1 umc denied that public opinion could be gath-
ered from a constituency composed of only one man in
six of the whole people. Ile recurred to his former argu-
ment, and contended that this bill ought to have been pre-
ceded by an estimate.

Mr. BROTHERTON had voted for this bill in its prece-
ding stage on an understanding that its object was to pre-
serve the public peace. It went not to any increase of the
standing army. These pensioners would not be called
out if there should not be an outbreak ; if there should,
every body must wish for their aid. He feared the liberals
injured their own cause by allowing it to be thought that
they were not anxious for the public peace. Still he was
always staggered when he found himself differing from his
friends, and even now was not sure which way he should
vote.
Mr. HAWES did not regard these pensioners as adding
to the standing army, any more than the yeomanry did.
He was not friendly to the government, but he was always
anxious for the public peace.
Mr. W ktv:v combated the bill on the ground of the corn
laws.

The house then divided—For the order of the day, 92;
for the amendment, 16 ; majority in favour of the bill, 76.