HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



^1 



cec(led;he should therefore TOte for 

 its repeal. — Mr. Langham, Mr. 

 Whitbrcad, lord Archibald Hamil- 

 ton and Mr. Tierney, spoke in 

 favour of the motion, and general 

 Norton, colonel Stewart, and IVJjr. 

 Bragge Bafhurst against it. 



Mr. Fox thought the right ho- 

 riourablc gentleman (Mr. Pitt,) 

 should be tlie last to throw out any 

 taunts againstcoalitions or junctions 

 of parties, for were it not for the 

 coalition he formed last year, he 

 ■would not be now sitting in the 

 place he occupied. As to the ob- 

 structions it was said to have met 

 with, through the country, he 

 thought it a strange defence of any 

 bill, to say, that its absurdities were 

 so palpable, and its inefllcacy .so 

 manifest, that all men believed that 

 it must be repealed ; and was not 

 this to acknowledge, rather than 

 to palliate,' the failure ? 



Lord Castlercagh cohfcndcd for 

 ihe efficacy of the measJire, and also 

 that it was far milder in i(s opera- 

 tion, than any other military mea- 

 sure the country had ever known. 

 After an animated and brilii:int re- 

 f)\y from ?.lr. Sheridan^ the house 

 divided, and the numbers were, for 

 Mr. Sheridon's m. tion of repeal, 

 257, — majo- 



it, 



127, — against 

 rit)',— 14b. 



On the 7th of .Alarch, a .short de- 

 bate took place in (he commons, on 

 the repeal of the salt dirty bill, in 

 which many of the Ibrmer objec- 

 tions to it were renewed, and an 

 fexi)lanation given, by the ministers, 

 that it would not alfctt the fisheries, 

 as they vvould continue ta liave thcMr 

 salt duty free. 



J^ord King, on Friday the 8t]i of 



^larch, moved for " a committee to 

 *' revise the different acts i)as«ed, in 



*" the two l;i>t sessigns of parlia- 



" meat, for the military defence of 

 " the country, and to (Jonsider of 

 " such further measures as may be 

 *' necessary to make that defence 

 *' more complete and permanent." 

 In supporting his motion, he fol- 

 lowed very closely the line of ar- 

 gument pursued by Mr. Windham, 

 on iTiuking a similar motion in the 

 house of commons, and of which wis 

 have before given an account. Hi 

 insisted that, in all the measures 

 adopted, there was tiothing lik« 

 order, regularity, or system, and 

 that every step taken only added to 

 the difficulties, and departed wider 

 from the attainment of the propo,- 

 sed object. His lordship then went 

 into a detailed consideration of th« 

 measures of increasing the militia, 

 the army of reserve, the ballot sys- 

 tem, and the additional forc« bills, 

 all of which he considered as equally 

 objectionable, and every way in- 

 adequate. He reprobated the prac 

 vice of enlisting men for life, and 

 illustr.*ited his arguments in favour 

 of a reversal of it, by the example 

 of all the great military powers of 

 the contiiicnt. He recommended 

 a well regulated plan of relational 

 service, for the regiments to be 

 sent to the West India colonies, and 

 improve^d regulations for the estafa- ' 

 lishment of the black corps. 



Earl Camden opposed the motion, 

 and, from A variety of documents 

 and calculations, asserted, that the 

 disposable force of the country had 

 been gireatly increased, within the 

 last year, in troops the best calcu- 

 lated and prepared for active 

 foreign service, — and in such art 

 improved state of numbers and dis- 

 cipline, tiiat it would be dangerous 

 and iiiiprudent to change or de- 

 range its .system by any new ex- 

 periments. In respect to the black 

 li 2 corpfj 



