IN

N the house of lords, on the eighteenth day of March, the earl of Carlisle, called their lordships' attention, to a motion he should have made had he seen ministers in their places; the motion which he had intended to make, respected the artificers in the dock yards; and at which he particularly wished the noble earl at the head of the admiralty to be present. He came down as an independent peer of parliament, unconnected with parties, and perfectly unbiassed; he was happily,

"Unplac'd, unpension'd, no man's heir or slave ;"

He was unsolicitous whom his public language or his conduct might offend: he declared his intention to bring forward his proposed motion early in the next week, if he should then see ministers in their places.

The lord chancellor said, that as to the motion of the noble carl, he could say nothing, because he knew nothing of its object; but as to his other observations, he must say, that although he was convinced that the parliamentary conduct of

the noble earl, would always be guided by fair and honorable motives; yet he should recollect that others had feelings as well as himself, and felt wounded at unfavourable imputations thrown out against them. He was convinced, that those with whom he acted, had the confidence of the country, as expressed by its constitutional organ, the parliament.

After some mutual explanations between the earl of Carlisle and the chancellor, the conversation dropped.

On the same day there was a debate in the house of commons, upon the second reading of the militia officers' completion bill.

Lord Folkstone, considered this bill would be the death blow of the militia. The constitutional principle of the militia, rested almost entirely on its being officered by men of property; and therefore highly disapproved of giving commissions in the militia to unqualified persons. He thought the halfpay officers, ought to get commissions in the line.

The

The secretary at war, expressed his astonishment, at his lordship's apprehensions; as the present bill was copied, almost verbatim, from the act of the last session.

Mr. Sheridan strongly supported the bill. He had been always a friend to the militia system, and was a little surprised at the singular discovery lately made, that it was not constitutional. He lamented any innovations made on the system; he was sorry to see excellent militia regiments, broken up, for the purpose of reinforcing the troops of the line; and the militia colonels converted merely into drill serjeants. The noble lord had said, that if persons unqualified, should receive commissions, those who were qualified, should resign theirs. This was a most extraordinary sentiment, and delivered at an extraordinary time! This bill, only gave the lord lieutenant the power, of filling up the vacancies in the militia, from officers of another description, in case that a sufficient number of qualified persons were not to be found. What else could be done? If the country gentlemen of England, should ever prefer their horses and their hounds; their country sports and their horse-racing, to the defence of their country; was the militia on that account, to be laid aside, or remain unofficered? He concluded, by expressing his wish, to see the militia system restored to its original principle; but conceived the present was rather a time for prompt decision, and vigorous action, than for speculative discussion, and cavilling deliberation.

The bill was then read a second time; on the question of its committal,

Lord Folkstone thought, that when Mr. Sheridan had spoken of the backwardness of the young nobility and gentry of the country, hø had alluded to him. He assured him, that he had already applied for a commission in the militia, but had not, hitherto, been fortunate enough to obtain it.

Mr. Sheridan declared, that when he spoke of the gentry of England at large, he by no means intended to allude particularly to his lord ship; but he was very glad to hear from his lordship, that he had ap plied for a commission; as in that case, his example might do more good, than his speech could do mischief.

After a few more explanations, the bill was ordered to be committed.

The earl of Carlisle made his promised motion, on the 21st. After several previous observations, on the character of the present administration, which he conceived to be weak, fluctuating, and irreso lute; and which had given orders to arm and disarm, without alleging any reasons for its conduct; concluded by moving, that "the proper officers should lay before the house, a monthly return of the number of artificers employed in his majesty's dock-yards, from the 1st of May 1802, down to the present time."

Lord Hobart thought, the house ought not to agree to such a motion, without having adequate grounds assigned for its adoption. As to the character of the present administration, they rested it upon their public conduct, and thought the approbation and support they met from parliament,was a sufficient

answer

hower to the opinion delivered by his lordship.

After an explanation from earl Carlisle, the chancellor proceeded to put the question.

Lord Grenville then rose, and although he approved of the principle of the motion, requested that his noble friend would withdraw it, as the present was not a time to throw any embarrassment in the way of Government. He did not think the conduct of the present Government, was such as to inspire any confidence; to appearance, at least, their measures denoted weakness and irresolution: perhaps, however, at a future time, they might be able to explain all those apparent inconsistencies; at present, as they had given no manner of information, the house was not in a situation to judge; but, as they had been suffered to go on so far in their own way, he thought this would not be a proper time to stop them.

Lord Pelham, defended the conduet of administration, which, he thought, fully possessed the confidence of parliament, and the country.

The earl of Carlisle, in consequence of the suggestion of lord Grenville, proposed to withdraw his motion.

Lord Grenville denied, that ministers could fairly say, they had the confidence of parliament, unless they laid such information before parliament, as would enable it to form a correct judgment.

The lord chancellor concluded the conversation, by a defence of the conduct of ministers; who, he said, were only silent on points, that their duty to their king and

country, required that they should be silent upon.

The motion of the earl of Carlisle was then withdrawn.

On the same day, in the house of commons, after lord Castlereagh's resolutions, respecting the revenue of India, had been agreed to,

Mr. Francis rose, for information; he disclaimed having intended to apply falsehood or fabricaton personally to any of the directors: but, he must still consider the accounts presented to the house, false in their balances and results. The most important point on which he wished to be informed, was, whe ther the public had at all guaranteed the capital of the company, as they had the imperial loan?

Sir Theophilus Metcalfe defended the accounts, and the characters of the East india directors, who had presented them. He said, the guarantee, as it was called, was not a government guarantee, but a guarantee, regulated by the act of the 31st of the king.

Mr. Johnstone, also found fault with the accounts, both for the present and the former years.

Mr. W. Dundas and Mr. Wallace defended them.

The following day, in the house of commons, there was some farther conversation, about the militia officers' bill.

Mr. Bastard, Mr. Lascelles, and colonel Mitford, seemed to disapprove of the clause, allowing the lord lieutenant to give commissions to certain officers, without qualifications.

Sir W. Geary said, that parliament had proceeded, step by step, to destroy the nature of this constitutional body; he thought the present was the last step.

Mr.

Mr. Bastard thought the last parliament had disgraced the character of the militia, by their innovations, on the original principles of the establishment: he conceived that it was this conduct, which had produced the many resignations, of which ministers complained.

The chancellor of the exchequer contended, that the militia had not been ill treated by the former ministers; nor had they been insulted, or degraded by the last parliament. Who was it that conquered in Egypt? The militia.--Who was it that fought jacobinism and treason in Ireland? The militia.-He felt so proud of the conduct of the militia, last war, that he could not bear to hear it said, that the militia had been degraded.

Lord Folkstone insisted, that they had been degraded, and their officers much disgusted, by having their men taken from them.

General Tarleton thought, that the officers from the line, which the present bill alluded to, might well associate with any description of men in the country; he did not know whether the noble lord meant, that they were unfit company for the landed interest, or the landed interest for them?

The resolutions were then agreed to, in the committee; but, upon the report being brought up, the next day,

Mr. Windham said, he should certainly rather see the militia officered, by officers from the line, than not officered at all; and, on that consideration only, he should vote for a measure, which appeared to him subversive of the fundamental principles of the militia system. Indeed he thought it ludicrous, to give

the term Militia, to a force like this, composed of officers without qualification, and men without ballot. For his part, instead, of wishing to assimilate the militia to the army, he would much rather assimilate the army to the militia. He wished, that drafting from the militia, should be entirely abolished; and that soldiers should be raised for the regular army, only for a term of years. He thought, the effect of the present bill, would be this: that it would rob the rcgular army of officers, by introducing them into the militia; and as for soldiers, it was pretty well robbed already. If he then voted for the present bill, it was merely for want of a better.

The secretary at war said, that in order, as much as possible, to reconcile the measure to the feelings of the gentlemen, who opposed it, he should introduce a clause, by which it should be declared, that the power of the lord lieute-. nant, might not go farther, than to introduce, unqualified officers, as high as the rank of captain.

Lord Stanley, suggested the propriety of admiting Roman Catho lics, who should be qualified as of

ficers of the militia.

The amendments were then agreed to, and, a few days after, the bill was read a third time, without any farther opposition.

On the 24th of March, the chancellor of the exchequer, brought down a message from his majesty, which, in consequence of the eminent services, performed on various occasions, by Sir James Saumarez, and particularly by his spirited and successful attack, upon a superior fleet of French and Spanish ships,

in the straits of Gibraltar, on the 12th of July, 1801; recommended the grant of an annuity of 1200!. to Sir James Saumarez, for the term of his natural life.

When this message was taken into consideration, the next day,

The chancellor of the exchequer, recounted his former services under lords Rodney, St. Vincent, and Nelson; but particularly dwelt on the last gallant action, when he had acted as commander in chief. After a complimentary speech, he concluded, by moving a resolution, agreeably to the recommendation of his majesty, which was unanimously agreed to.

On the 28th, lord Ellenborough brought forward, in the house of lords, the bill, now known by the name of Lord Ellenborough's Act, for making the maiming, wounding, and disfiguring, any of his majesty's subjects, a capital felony. In consequence of the Irish Chalking Bill, which was soon to come again before their lordships' consideration, he had turned his attention to the subject, and, in this instance, would wish to assimilate the English criminal law, to that of Ireland. By the Coventry Act, "a lying in wait" must be proved; and, at present, an assault, with intent to murder, was, by the law, only a misdemeanor, although an assault, with an intent to rob, was a felony! He then stated, some of the provisions of his bill, respecting child-murder; and the administering medicines to procure abortion. He should also propose, to make it á capital of fence, for a man to burn his own house, for the purpose of defrauding the underwriters.

Lord Auckland highly approved

of the bill, which was then read a first time.

On the same day, in the house of commons, a very long debate took place, on the punishment which ought to be inflicted, on James Trotter, who had been committed, for not attending a committee of the house of commons, to give his evidence respecting the Dumterline election.

James Trotter, having surrendered himself, and presented the usual petition, expressing his sorrow for having offended against the privileges of the house, was brought to the bar; and being asked, had he any thing to say in his defence? said, "that he was absent from home, for ten days, after the first summons was sent him; and that his family did not send the second after him." He then expressed contrition, and asked pardon.

Lord Euston moved, that he should be reprimanded, and then discharged.

Mr. Tierney, considered this punishment, as altogether insufficient: he considered that the crime of staying away, from giving his evidence when required, was full as bad as prevarication, if he had attended; he could by no means believe, that the prisoner could have remained so long ignorant of a summons, from such high authority, as the speaker of the house of commons, which was a thing that must have been spoken of, as a circumstance rather unusual in the neighbourhood. It was much more likely, that he was absent from his house on purpose, to avoid being obliged to answer some questions he might be asked, about bribing a vote, at Queen's Ferry. He thought,

that