HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
in the quality and description of 
the persons who would be induced 
to become soldiers, and he trusted, 
that in consequence of this improve- 
ment, the necessity for severity of 
discipline in the army would be 
diminished. It might be worth 
consideration at some future period, 
whether the elective franchise ought 
not to be extended, in the English 
counties at least, to soldiers who 
had retired from the army, after 
completing their full term of ser- 
vice. 
The speeches of the opposition 
side of the house, besides containing 
_a repetition and amplitication of all 
‘their former objections to limited 
Service, and calculations ef the vast 
expence which it would entail upon 
the country, were distinguished 
upon this occasion by the introduc- 
tion of a new topic, from which the 
most important consequences were 
expected to arise. They alleged, 
that, as the new mode of enlistment 
could be carried into effect by his 
majesty’s prerogative, without the 
interposition of parliament, it was 
disrespectful to his majesty to insert 
such a clause as this in the mutiny 
bill; that it seemed to imply what 
it was highly improper to insinuate, 
that the same faith was not to be 
placed in a pledge from the crown 
as in a pledge from parliament ; 
that, as his majesty could at present 
enlist men either for limited or for 
unlimited service, the new clause, 
by prohibiting the latter entirely, 
was a direct invasion of the royal 
prerogative, and by its insertion in 
the mutiny bill, neither the king 
mor the house of lords could ex- 
press their disapprobation of it, 
without refusing to pass the mutiny 
bill, and thereby disbanding the 
5g 
army. It was acknowledged, that 
in general when a measure of this 
importance was brought forward by 
his majesty’s government, it was 
fair to suppose that his majesty’s 
approbation had been previously 
obtained ; but very broad hints were 
given, that, on the present occasion, 
his majesty’s sentiments were far 
from being in unison with those of 
his ministers. A distinction was at. 
tempted to be drawn between the 
regular army of the crown, raised 
by voluntary enlistment, and the 
other descriptions of force, such as 
the militia, army of reserve, and 
additional force, which were raised 
by means more or less compulsory, 
and which, it was said, might fairly 
be called the parliamentary army, 
and were, therefore, regulated in 
their term of service by act of par- 
liament. 
The ministers in reply, ridiculed 
the distinction of a royal and par- 
liamentary army, as one which no 
writer, no speaker, no man at all 
acquainted with the constitution, 
had ever taken notice of. A par. 
liamentary army had never been 
heard of before, except im 1641. 
Every army in this country was 
royal, and every army was also par- 
liamentary. If the present mea- 
sure had« been introduced in the 
mutiny bill, it was because such was 
the constant usage of parliament, 
They who declaimed against the in- 
terference of popular assemblies or 
parliaments, with the army, forgot 
that they were making this objection 
ina house, where the mutiny bill 
was annually passed, for the 
avowed purpose of subjecting the 
‘army to parliamentary control, 
When a bill was annually passed, 
declaring it lawful for his majesty 
, to 
