A circumstance apparently of no great moment of itself, but important as connected with the jealousy of military authority inherent in the British constitution, and now rendered peculiarly vigilant 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 prevented from proceeding. On remonstrating 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 which 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 desire to accustom the people to see soldiers employed in situations where, according to the principles of the constitution, peace officers had hitherto been deemed sufficient.

Lord Castlereagh absolutely disavowed 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 court.

Mr. Tierney expressed his conviction that these frequent military parades were contrived by the ministers for the purpose of making some excuse to the House for the increase in the household troops.

Mr. Wynn affirmed that the present system was totally new. He himself had on that day seen soldiers waving their swords, galloping this way and that, stopping and endangering passengers, without the least constitutional authority for such alarming conduct.

Several other members exclaimed against this intervention of the military, and contended that the practice, as now followed, 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 interference should be settled, made a motion, "That there be laid before this House a copy of the instructions issued to such of the life-guards as were on duty this day in the city of Westminster."

Lord Castlereagh 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 inconvenience complained of.

The House dividing, there appeared, For the motion 31; 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

the outrage received. The earl gave a narrative of the occurrence to the same effect as that of the other noble lord, but somewhat more at large. He said that the soldier told him, that unless he turned back, he would not only cut his horse down, but cut him down too; and that some gentlemen who happened to be near, gave their names, and offered to testify as to the insolent behaviour of the man; but he did not think proper to take any legal steps, conceiving that it would be more for the public benefit to lay the case before their lordships.

The Earl of Liverpool acknowledged the candid manner in which the noble earl had made his statement, and said, that he by no means intended to affirm that a military force ought to be allowed to act, except in aid of the civil power.

But with regard to the present occasions, as far as he could recollect, the military had always been stationed as now described, only with this difference, that formerly, from the frequency of drawing-rooms and levees, it only became necessary to resort to these precautions on the birthdays; whilst their rarity at this time rendered the same precautions necessary at each of them.

Lord Grenville affirmed that the noble earl was certainly mistaken, for the whole practice was of comparatively modern date; and he forcibly dwelt upon the violation of the law and constitution in such an employment of the military as that complained of.

The Marquis of Buckingham wished to know of the secretary of state for the home department (Viscount Sidmouth) whom he

saw in his place, whether he was prepared to give any assurance to the House that in future the practice should be discontinued of employing the military power to perform the duty of peace officers. If he would give such assurances, he should think it unnecessary to go further; if not, he should think it his duty to move an address to the Prince Regent.

Viscount Sidmouth said, that no orders were issued from the Secretary of State's office on such occasions, nor had he any thing to do with it. In consequence, however, of what had been stated in another place, he had thought it his duty to interfere; and he assured the House that upon future occasions of a like nature peaceofficers should be stationed, in order that the military might only act in aid of the civil power.

The Marquis of Buckingham regarded this assurance as perfectly satisfactory; but observed, that the case was aggravated by the circumstance of the military being employed without the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

The same subject was again brought before the notice of the House of Lords, on May 13th, when the Earl of Esser made a complaint of another improper interference of the military, experienced on that day by himself. As his lordship was attempting to enter Pall Mall, he was stopped by the soldiery, who insisted that he should not go along that street; and on his calling for a constable, he was answered by one of the military, "We have nothing to do with constables here." He then inquired for the officer of the guard, and was told

that

that he was at Carlton-house. He had since learned that the occasion of this military parade was, that the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London had been to the Prince Regent with an address; but was this a reason for blocking up the streets and interrupting peaceable citizens? He was extremely surprised at this occurrence after the pledge which had given by the Secretary of State; and he thought it his duty to move for a copy of the order under which the military were authorised to act this day in Pall Mall and its vicinity.

Lord Sidmouth, in opposing the motion, stated that the military were not called out under the order of the secretary of state; but that whenever they were called out for the purpose of individual accommodation or public convenience, he thought it right that an adequate number of peace officers should be in attendance, and that accordingly positive directions had been issued from his office to the magistrates of Westminster to have peace officers attending upon all such occasions. There appeared, however, to be a want of the communication necessary for informing the civil power in these cases; and in the present instance no such had been made.

Earl Fitzwilliam contended that what had been advanced by the noble secretary went directly in favour 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 the more incumbent on the House to

enquire after the authority under which this had been done.

In the course of the debate, Lord Sidmouth having held, that when it was necessary to call out the military for the preservation of the public peace, it ought to be done only in subordination to the civil power; but that in cases where they were merely called out for purposes of state, or public convenience, this obligation did not apply: some of the lords in opposition regarded this doctrine as a serious matter, tending to a violation of the constitution, and partaking of a military despotism. After the debate had proceeded to some length, a division took place, in which there appeared, For the motion 16; Against it 33.

The Marquis of Buckingham then gave notice, that he would on an ensuing day move an address 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 recurrence of such a subject of complaint, he moved, “That there be laid before the House a copy of the orders issued to such of his Majesty's life-guards as were on duty this day within the city and liberties of Westminster."

As the arguments in the debate on this occasion necessarily took the same turn with those employed in the other House, it would be useless to advert to particulars. Lord Castlereagh, who, it may be remarked, chiefly aimed at representing the question as trifling and frivolous, moved upon it the

previous

previous question, which was carried against the motion by 112 votes against 58.

On the 17th the Marquis of Buckingham rose in the House of Lords to submit his proposition respecting military obstructions in the streets; and after stating the case in question, declared his intended motion to be, "That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he would inform the House by whose orders the military had been called out on the 13th of this month, and what was the nature of the orders under which they acted." The marquis then said, he thought it right to state that he had watched the conduct of the military yesterday, and was happy to say that it was highly exemplary, and that the police officers had been in attendance. If, therefore, the noble viscount (Sidmouth) would assure the House that the power and control over the military on these occasions would be placed in the hands of ministers and the civil power, he should be ready to withdraw the motion.

Lord Sidmouth, in reply, entered into a statement of his conduct on this and the former occurrence of a similar kind. He said, he took no blame to himself for not having sooner made the proper arrangement in this matter.

He had examined the journ

als of parliament and the records of his office, and had found no instance of communication on these occasions. Such had been the practice; whether legal or not he had not stated. He acknowledged, however, that the paramount authority was the civil, and that the military ought only to be used in cases of necessity, or as auxiliary to the civil power in these matters of police. He admitted that there ought to be a public responsible person, and that the Secretary of State ought to be consulted, though it had never been so. Now when the subject had been brought before their lordships, he did say that some effectual arrangement ought to be made. The Marquis would use his discretion whether or not to withdraw his motion.

The Marquis of Buckingham was extremely happy to hear the declaration of the Viscount, and thought himself not only justified in withdrawing his motion, but called upon to do so.

Lord Sidmouth being asked by the Earl of Essex as to the manner in which the duty of the sole management and control upon these occasions was assigned to the home department, answered, that he had received the Prince Regent's commands to take this duty upon himself as secretary of state for the home department.

The motion was withdrawn.

CHAPTER

N the 26th of April Sir J. of Commons to submit a motion concerning the state of Ireland. He commenced his preliminary speech with a historical view of those errors of government which had brought it to its present condition, and began with the period of James I. in which the luminous work of Sir John Davis affords an excellent guide. From this work he quoted the following passage, which may be considered as the basis of the right hon. baronet's idea of meliorating the state of the country. "There is no nation under the sun that doth love equal and impartial justice better than the Irish, or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves, so as they may have the protection and benefit of the law, when upon just cause they do desire it."

He then passed through all the systems and principal measures of Irish government from that age down to the present time, with a rapidity which precludes abridgment and after touching upon the existing evils of the country, he said, "We are now arrived at a season of profound tranquillity; and if the House shall decide that no attempt shall

be made to trace to their source

and endanger the empire, it will be my duty to bow to their decision, but I shall then deeply deplore the day which connected Ireland to this country by legislative union." The right hon. member concluded with a motion which we copy at length.

"That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, humbly to represent, that the necessity of providing an army of 25,000 men in time of profound peace, to secure the internal tranquillity of Ireland, obliges us to consider the state of that great, valuabic, and interesting portion of the united kingdom, as most distressing and afflicting to the legislature, and dangerous in an extreme degree to the well-being of the empire: That we feel ourselves imperiously called upon by a sense of public duty to direct to the consideration of this important subject our earnest and undivided attention: That we therefore pray his Royal Highness may be pleased to order, that there be laid before us, with convenient speed, such documents as may put us fully in possession of the extent and nature of the evils which demand the temporary