APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



307 



into the clause, for which there is 

 not in any part of it the least au- 

 thority. The truth is, that the du- 

 ration of the service of the substi- 

 tute is neither confined to any de- 

 finite period of years beyond five, 

 nor is it absolutely unlimited, but 

 it is made to depend wiiolly on a 

 contingency, namely, the continu- 

 ance of the embodying of the mi- 

 litia by his majesty's command. If 

 the militia had not been ordered 

 to be embodied within the pre- 

 scribed period of five years, the 

 substitute's service would have 

 ceased, as well as that of the bal- 

 lotted man, at the end of five years 

 from the date of his enrolment ; 

 but such order having issued, the 

 substitute is now bound by the 

 express words of the act of parlia- 

 ment, and of his oath, to serve 

 as long as the militia for which he 

 is enrolled shall remain embodied, 

 and no longer. The meaning of 

 the act on this subject is so clearly 

 and plainly expressed, that it ad- 

 mits of not the least doubt ; nor 

 is there in any part of the act any 

 clause which, rightly considered, 

 in the smallest degree militates or 

 interferes with this construction. 

 The sections relied upon in the 

 petition (all of which we have at- 

 tentively read) are perfectly con- 

 sistent with it. Some of them have 

 no reference whatever to the dura- 

 tion of a substitute's service, such 

 as sections 15, 32, 37, 38, 4-5, 61, 

 and H3. The 59th, 96th, and 

 132 clauses, in which the discharge 

 of the substitute is mentioned, and 

 a power given to inflict, by way of 

 punishment, an extension of his 

 ■ervice, which the petition states to 

 render the limitations contended 

 for indisputable, afford no such in- 



ference ; on the contrary, these 

 clauses will be found perfectly 

 consistent with the construction 

 above given of the act, as to the 

 true nature of the limitation of a 

 substitute's service. 



The fallacy of the argument used 

 in the petition arises from not con- 

 sidering that the act which passed 

 in 1802, necessarily provided for 

 every case which might arise as 

 well in a time of peace as of war ; 

 when the' militia should not be, as 

 well as when it should be, embo- 

 died. 



In many events which might 

 have taken place (as has been al- 

 ready shown) the substitute's ser- 

 vice might have terminated at the 

 end of five years, and it will still 

 terminate, as to all who have served 

 their five years, whenever the mi- 

 litia ceases to be embodied, except 

 as to any substitute who may, for 

 any offence, have been sentenced 

 to serve for a more extended pe- 

 riod. 



There is, therefore, no incon- 

 sistency in any of the provisions 

 of the act ; nor does it follow that 

 because the serviceof thesubstitute 

 is not limited to any definite period, 

 that it is therefore wholly unli- 

 mited, and admitting of no possi- 

 ble extension, unless extended as 

 a punishment for transgression. 

 The service of the substitute, 

 though not limited by time, is li- 

 mited by events ; and, till those 

 events take place, the service can- 

 not be discontinued, without the 

 peril of incurring a direct violation 

 of the law. We hava written, our 

 opinion thus at large on this sub- 

 ject, not from any difficulty or 

 doubt really belonging to it, but 

 from the great importance of ob- 



X 2 



