HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



63 



and was utterly inconsistent with 

 the British constitution, as it now 

 stands. He did not think it worth 

 disputing how the prerogatives of 

 the crown might be understood in 

 the time of Henry the fourth ; but 

 he thought they were now under- 

 stood very differently : and certainly, 

 since the period of the restoration, 

 v.o such power was ever claimed or 

 exercised by any sovereign of this 

 country. The militia laws were 

 supposed entirely to supercede the 

 necessity of recurring to such a pre- 

 rogative, even if it did exist. There 

 was, however, no precedent in mo- 

 dern times in favour of such a pre- 

 rogative. In the beginning of the 

 civil wars, the crown lawyers con- 

 tended for it, but, even then, the 

 first law authorities determined that 

 it did not exist. 



The Lord Chancellor observed 

 that the present discussion was not 

 regularly upon the volunteer system 

 that had been already adopted, but 

 upon a bill that protest to regulate 

 and amend it. He felt persuaded 

 that neither the talents of the noble 

 lord, nor all the united talents of 

 those connected with him in the late 

 administration, could have produced 

 any thing more perfect than the vo- 

 lunteer system. Every body would 

 allow that a large regular force was 

 extremely desirable, but every one 

 must allow also, that that eould not, 

 by any possibility, have been raised so 

 expeditiously as the volunteer force. 

 As to the (question of prerogative, 

 he not only contended that the 

 •rown had been always possessed 

 of it, but that, if it never had been, 

 it was necessary that it should now. 

 An invasion might take place when 

 parliament was not sitting, and, in 

 8uch case, the country might be lost 



unless such a prerogative was ex- 

 ercised. 



Lord Grenville, in explanation, 

 said that he had never denied the 

 prerogative of the crown, in ex- 

 treme cases, to call upon all classes 

 of the people : what he denied was, 

 that the crown had a right to take 

 individuals, and send them into re- 

 gimente of the line or militia. 



Earl Spencer could not approve 

 of the volunteer system, although 

 he highly respected the volunteer 

 corps, and the individuals that com- 

 posed that body of men. He thought 

 administration had taken a wrong 

 course with the volunteers, if, as 

 they now said, they only intended 

 them as an auxiliary force. 



Lord Hobart defended the con- 

 duct of administmtion generally, and 

 thought they had used exertions at 

 least eq-'il to any of their predeces- 

 sors. There was now, in the united 

 kingdom, a force of 621,000 men 

 in arms, which was more than we 

 have had at any former period. — • 

 The regulars were also really as nu- 

 merous as at any period in the last 

 war. 



The Duke of IMontrose did not 

 obje6t to the volunteer system, or to 

 the principle of the bill ; he disap- 

 proved, however, very much of some 

 of the clauses. He had a high opi- 

 nion of the efficiency of the volun- 

 teers, and he had been informed, by 

 officers of great experience, that 

 the first quality of a good soldier 

 was the disposition to fight. Lt 

 this quality, he was sure that it 

 would bo allowed, that the volun- 

 teers were not deficient. 



Lord Westmoreland would not 

 allow that the volunteers had hurt 

 the regular army, or the militia: al- 

 though it might have diminished the 



num. 



