GENERAL HISTORY. 



[45 



that he was at Curlton-housc. 

 lie had since learned tliat tlie oc- 

 casion of this military parade was, 

 that the Lord Mayor and Corpo- 

 ration of London had been to the 

 Piince Regent with an address ; 

 but was tills a reason for blocking 

 up the streets and interrupting 

 peaceable citizens ? He was c>:- 

 tremely surjjrised at this occur- 

 rence after the pledge which had 

 given by the Secretary of State ; 

 and he thought it his duty lo 

 move for a copy of the order un- 

 der v.'hich the military were au- 

 thorised to act this day in Pail 

 Mall and its vicinity. 

 I Lord Sidmoulh, in opposing the 



j motion, stated that the militaiT 

 were not called out under the 

 I order of the secretary of state ; 

 1 but that whene\ er they were called 

 j; out for the purpose of indi'sidual 

 [ accoiimiodati(jn or public conve- 

 [ nience, he thought it right that 

 an adcfpiate number of peace 

 officers should be in attendance, 

 and that accordingly j)ositive di- 

 rections had been issued from his 

 office to the magistrates of West- 

 minster to have iJeace officers at- 

 tending upon all such occasions. 

 There appeared, however, to be 

 a want of the commvmicatiun ne- 

 cessary for informing the civil 

 power in these cases ; and in the 

 present instance no sucli had been 

 made. 



Earl FitzwUlian contended that 

 what had been adianced by the 

 noble secretary went directly in 

 favoui' of the motion ; since from 

 his own statement it was clear 

 that he had known nothing of the 

 military being called out on this 

 day, and it therefore was (lie 

 more incumbent on the House to 



enquire after the authority under 

 which this had been done. 



In the course of the debate. Lord 

 Sidniouth having held, that when 

 it was necessaiy to call out the mi- 

 litary for the preservation of the 

 public peace, it ought to bs done 

 only in subordination to the civil 

 power; but that in cases where 

 they were merely called out for 

 purposes of state, or public con- 

 venience, this obligation did not 

 apply : some of the lords in op- 

 position regarded this doctrine as 

 a serious matter, tending to a 

 viulation of the constitution, and 

 ])artaking of a military despotism. 

 After the debate had i)roceeded to 

 some length, a di\ ision took place, 

 in whicii theie appeared. For the 

 motion IG ; Against it .'53. 



The ]\Iarquis of Buckingham 

 then g:ne notice, tliat lie would 

 Oil an ensuing day move an ad- 

 dress to the Prince Regent on the 

 subject. 



On the same day Lord Milton 

 rose in the House of Commons ; 

 and after stating the circumstance 

 which had occurred to his friend 

 the Earl of Essex, and dwelt upon 

 the reciurence of such a subject 

 of complaint, he moved, "That 

 tliere be laid before tlie House a 

 copy of the orders issued to such 

 of his Majesty's life-guards as 

 were on duty this day i^ithin the 

 city and liberties of \^"estniinster." 



As the arguments in the debate 

 on this cccicnon ncc.?::-sarily took 

 the same turn with those employ- 

 ed in the other House, it would be 

 useless to adveit to particulars. 

 Lord Cusilcreaiih , who, it may be 

 remarked, chiefly aimed at repre- 

 senting the question as trifling 

 and iVivoloiis^ moved upon it the 



previotxa 



