208] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



the enemy. But even in the case 

 of the apprehended insuirection, 

 which was probably the most for- 

 midable of these periods, the House 

 thought it proper to examine at 

 length the grounds of embodying 

 the militia. 



Lord Sidmouth said, that the no- 

 ble lord's facts would serve him 

 for nothing unless he could shew 

 that the militia was disembodied 

 the moment the first cry of invasion 

 or insurrection was over, which 

 did not correspond with the fact. 



Lord Donoughmore was surpris- 

 ed to find that the measure of re- 

 taining some of the militia regi- 

 ments was meant to be permanent, 

 as he conceived from the intended 

 introduction of a bill ; and he 

 thought there might be reasons of 

 patronage connected with the 

 choice. He knew that in Ireland 

 a militia regiment was thought 

 one of the best things that could 

 be given away. 



Lord Liverpool affirmed that 

 there was no idea of turning the 

 present mode of disembodying the 

 militia into a permanent measure ; 

 and said that the bill was merely 

 to relieve townships from partial 

 pressures, such as providing for the 

 families of militiamen and the like. 



The question was then put and 

 carried . 



The subject was afterwards 

 taken up in the House of Com- 

 mons. 



Sir S. Romilly, on Nov. 28th, 

 after, by his desire, the militia acts, 

 of the 48th and 49th of the king 

 had been read, rose and declared, 

 that having used bis best endea- 

 vours to investigate the matter, he 

 was of opinion that in omitting to 

 disembody the militia, the ministers 

 had acted illegally and unconstitu- 



tionally. It was a question that 

 admitted of no doubt, as it depend- 

 ed entirely on the plain words of 

 the statute. He then referred to 

 the four causes for calling out the 

 militia, as stated in a former speech ; 

 and proceeded to say, that if the 

 House would consider the object of 

 the militia laws, it would be con- 

 firmed in the opinion, that without 

 a violation of the constitution, mi- 

 nisters could not, in time of pro- 

 found peace, hold the militia from 

 their houses and families, subject to 

 the privations of military service. 

 The militia was not an army, but 

 a mass of armed citizens, not losing, 

 but only having suspended for a 

 time, the advantage of the equal 

 laws of their country. If, in the 

 present circumstances, the militia 

 might continue embodied, there 

 was no reason why it might not • 

 remain so during the rest of his 

 Majesty's reign. The only de- 

 fence he had heard of this measure 

 was, that we were still at war with 

 America ; but was there a man so 

 timid or credulous as to fear inva- 

 sion from that country ? Should it 

 be said that the restrictions of the 

 act had a reference not to the dis- 

 embodying, but to the calling out, 

 of the militia, would not such an 

 argument render it merely an 

 option in the crown whether the 

 militia should be disbanded at all ? 

 He understood that the conduct of 

 the ministers was sanctioned by 

 the authority of the law-officers of 

 the crown. If the opinion had 

 been given first, and then acted 

 upon, it would have been much 

 better. He did not mean to insi^ 

 jtmate that it would have been dif- 

 ferent under different circumstan^ 

 ces ; but it was impossible not to 

 se^ that the question came before 



