GENERAL HISTORY. 



[43 



A circumstance apparently of 

 no great moment of itself, but 

 important as connected with the 

 jealousy of military authority in- 

 herent in the British constitution, 

 and now rendered peculiarly vigi- 

 lant by the rank assumed by this 

 country among military powers, 

 was brought before both houses 

 of parliament in the early part 

 of the session. 



On April 4th Lord Milton rose 

 in the House of Commons, and 

 stated that he was passing through 

 the streets on that day with a 

 noble friend in an open carriage, 

 when, at the corner of a street, 

 in the neighbourhood of St. 

 James's, he was stopped by one 

 of the horse-guards, and pre- 

 vented from proceeding. On re- 

 monstrating with the man on his 

 conduct, and requiring his name 

 and authority, he refused to give 

 them, struck the horses with his 

 naked sword, and said to his 

 friend, " I will strike you too, if 

 you attempt to go on." This 

 was in Pall Mall, at Avhich time 

 there were not above ten carriages 

 in the street. His lordship thought 

 that the introduction of such 

 means of preserving the peace of 

 the metropolis was well worthy 

 of the attention of the House : 

 he could view the practice in no 

 other light than a desiie to ac- 

 custom the people to see soldiers 

 employed in situations where, ac- 

 cording to the principles of the 

 constitution, peace otlicers had 

 hitherto been deemed sufticient. 



Lord CasUcrengh absolutely dis- 

 avowed such an intention, and 

 said it was by no means unusual 

 on court days to employ the 

 horse-guards to clear the avenues 

 to the corn't. 



Mr. Tierney expressed his con- 

 viction that these frequent mili- 

 tary parades were contrived by 

 the ministers for the purpose of 

 making some excuse to the House 

 for the increase in the household 

 troops. 



Mr. IVynn affirmed that the 

 present system was totally new. 

 He himself had on that day seen 

 soldiers waving their swords, 

 galloping this way and that, stop- 

 ping and endangering passengers, 

 without the least constitutional 

 authority for such alarming con- 

 duct. 



Several other memliers ex- 

 claimed against this intervention 

 of the military, and contended 

 that the practice, as now follow- 

 ed, was an innovation, and not 

 justified by any necessity, but a 

 mere imitation of the continental 

 courts. 



Lord Nugent, remarking that 

 it was important both for the 

 soldier and the public, that the 

 question concerning their inter- 

 ference should be settled, made a 

 motion, "That there be laid be- 

 fore this House a copy of the in- 

 structions issued to such of the 

 life-guards as were on duty this 

 day in tlie city of Westminster." 



Lord Castlcreagh opposed the 

 motion, on the ground that 

 enough had been done to cause 

 an inquiry to be made into the 

 circumstance of the case, and to 

 prevent a recurrence of the incon- 

 venience complained of. 



The Flouse dividing, there ap- 

 peared , For the motion 3 1 ; Against 

 it 48. 



On April 5th the subject was 

 introduced in the House of Lords 

 by the Earl of Essex, who had 

 been Lord Milton's companion in 



the 



