HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
the bill, were proved by such a 
multitude of individual facts, brought 
forward by county members, un- 
connected with party, that no rea- 
sonable or candid man, could doubt 
for an instant of the justice and 
propriety of its repeal. Lord Cas- 
tlereagh having boasted that Leices- 
tershire had raised its quota of 200 
men, at the rate of five guineas a 
head, Mr. Babington, one of the 
members for Leicester, rose and 
stated, that these 200 men had been 
furnished to the county by recruit- 
ing officers, and consisted of persons 
who, being under-sized, were ad- 
missible into no other corps. 
_. A debate arose in the committee, 
(May 8th) ona clause of the repeal 
Dill, remitting, in favour of the pa- 
rishes, the penalties which they had 
incurred, forthe non-execution of 
the act, and refunding the fines 
which had’ been already paid. 
It was argued, that by this pro- 
ceeding the parishes which had 
raised their quotas were placed 
on a worse footing than those which 
had neglected to comply with the 
law. It was answered, that it 
was not from any reluctance or ill- 
will that the parishes had not found 
their quotas, but because it had been 
‘impossible for them to get men, 
without violating the provisions of 
the act, and that it would be unfair 
_tofine them for not doing that which 
_ it was impossible for them to do. 
_ After some debate the clause passed 
_ without a division. 
_ Thoroughly as the merits of the 
bill had been already canvassed, and 
inced as was every impartial 
person, that whatever might be the 
value of the new system that was 
Proposed to be adopted, the addi- 
tional force bill had failed in its 
Operation, and ought to be repealed, 
57 
as in itself a positive evil, opposi. 
tion, with -unexampled  perseve- 
rance, renewed the debate on the 
third reading of the repeal bill, and 
brought again into the fieldall theold 
topics of discussion. Mr, Percival hay- 
ing on this occasion suggested some 
amendments in the bill, which were 
adopted by the ministers, the third 
reading was postponed till next day, 
(May 14th) when the bill at length 
passed the commons, after having 
encountered a most active opposi- 
tion, in every stage of its progress 
through the house. 
In the house of lords it met with 
comparatively little opposition. As 
the new military plans had not been 
submitted to that house, it was im- 
possible for their lordships, in dis- 
cussing the merits of the additional 
force bill, to introduce the same 
topics, which had given rise to so 
much debate in the commons. On 
the second reading of the repeal 
bill (May 20th) a division took 
place on an amendment proposed 
by earl Camden, similar to that 
moved by Mr. Canning in the house 
of commons, Ou the question, 
whether the bill should now be 
read, contents were7i, proxies 26 ; 
total 97.—Non-contents 30, prox- 
ies 10; total 40—majority 57. 
The spirit of determined hostility 
to the new military system, which 
had marked the conduct of the op- 
position, in their defence of the ad- 
ditional force bill, continued to 
animate them throughout the subse- 
quent debates, when the different 
parts of that system came in detail 
beforethe house. The Mutiny Bill, 
the Chelsea Hospital Bill, the 
Training Bill, and the Militia O%- 
cers’ Bill, gave occasion to very 
long debates, which, from the con- 
tinual recurrence ef the same topics, 
became 
