MILITIA BILL.

HC Deb 20 May 1852 vol 121 cc806-37

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 17 (General Meetings to apportion deficiencies among subdivisions and parishes).

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he wished to know how the ballot was to be conducted, and whether the Government proposed to adhere to all the provisions of the 42 Geo. III. in that respect? If so, it would be necessary for every householder to make a return of all the men dwelling under his roof, describing the physical infirmities alleged by any of them as a ground of exemption; and then details were required to be publicly exhibited upon the church doors on one Sunday morning. Under the 42 Geo. III. also, a period of only three days was allowed after the publication of the lists, within which persons might appeal against being called upon to serve, and that period ought, in his opinion, to be extended. It was further provided by the same Act that the deputy lieutenants were to decide upon the appeals, and that their decision should be final. For his own part, he did not think that deputy lieutenants were proper officers to decide upon the civil rights and judicial questions which might be submitted to them under the Bill. He considered that the question arose, whether the Committee ought not to adopt rules and regulations for taking the ballot more in accordance with the feeling and spirit of the present day than those in use fifty years ago?

MR. WALPOLE

was understood to say that it was his intention to abide by the regulations of the Act 32 Geo. III., for he was not aware that any inconvenience had arisen under those regulations.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that it was required by the 42 Geo. III. that a list should be made and placed upon the church doors, describing the nature of the bodily infirmities which were alleged to incapacitate any persons from serving in the militia; and this proceeding would, he thought, be most painful to the feelings of many persons. It was provided that the lists to be published under the Act should be posted only upon the church doors, and therefore to that portion of the population who attended dissenting chapels, including one half of the persons affected by the clause, the notices would be of no avail. The lists were to be exhibited on "some one Sunday morning;" but he thought some particular Sunday should be specified for their publication. He affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that if the hon. and learned Attorney General was drawing up a clause of that kind, he would not for one moment submit such a one to the House. The Act of the 42 Geo. III. was not before the Committee; and they were actually wading on in the dark among a mass of regulations of which they knew nothing. He intended, therefore, when they came to Clause 28, to propose that Mr. Bernal, as the Chairman, should take the 42 Geo. III., and should read the whole of the 150 or 160 clauses, in order that the Committee might know what they were enacting in this Bill.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he was sorry he could not congratulate Mr. Bernal upon the prospect of the duty he would by-and-by have to perform. With regard to the objections of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he begged to say in the first place, that the hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing it would be necessary for the parties to publish the particular description of bodily infirmity under which they laboured, and which incapacitated them for service in the militia. By the words of the 42 Geo. III. it would be sufficient to state the name of the party, and that he laboured under a bodily infirmity which exempted him; and the question whether that was such a bodily infirmity as to exempt him, would be the subject of consideration upon appeal to the deputy lieutenants, who would have to decide on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) was of opinion that the deputy lieutenants were not fit persons to determine these questions. Well, what were deputy lieutenants fit for? He (the Attorney General) rather thought he had seen the right hon. Gentleman himself decorated in the uniform of a deputy lieutenant. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had the honour of holding a commission as deputy lieutenant; and he confessed that for his own part he should feel that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly competent to decide such questions, and questions of much greater importance than would be submitted to deputy lieutenants under this Bill. Very generally the deputy lieutenants were magistrates of the county, and in that capacity they had much more important functions to perform than that of ascertaining whether a man was bound to serve in the militia, or ought to be exempted. He did not think, therefore, that there was any great weight in the right hon. Gentleman's objection, that deputy lieutenants were fit for no other duty than that of wearing a red coat, and displaying themselves on those occasions when he had had the pleasure of seeing the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the time for the appeal, it was supposed to be indefinite; but that was not so, for by reference to a former clause of the 42 Geo. III., it would be seen that subdivision meetings were to be appointed at the general meeting on the 10 th of October; that those subdivision meetings were to be advertised, so that they would be perfectly well known; and then came the notice to be fixed on the church doors three days before such subdivision meeting. As to the other objection of the right hon. Gentleman, he agreed that it was only reasonable that the notices should be published on the doors of the chapels, as well as of the parish church; and, supposing his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) was of that opinion, a provision might be introduced to give satisfaction on that point.

MR. WALPOLE

was understood to say there would be no objections to the publications of the notices on chapel doors.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he could not concur in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the meaning of the clause referred to, for there happened to be a Schedule to the Act, in which there were these words: "Infirmities, if any, likely to incapacitate from serving." And again," Infirmities, if known." He would admit that deputy lieutenants were persons of average ability; but even if they were supposed to possess sufficient medical skill to determine whether an infirmity was sufficient to disqualify a man from service, there were a number of legal questions that might also arise. Suppose, for instance, that a man pleaded apprenticeship, the deputy lieutenant would have to decide whether it was a legal or a merely colourable apprenticeship. Or, again, a man might plead that he was a member of the Watermen's Company; or the deputy lieutenant might have to decide the meaning of that most remarkable exemption, whether a person was a poor man. The deputy lieutenant could not be expected to decide upon the points that might arise unless he had professional skill and experience; and he (Mr. M. Gibson) submitted that he ought to have assessors.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of physical infirmity would be settled by the surgeon of the regiment, who would have to examine each person before he entered the corps. The questions of whether a man was an apprentice or a member of the Watermen's Company, were questions of fact, and such as a deputy lieutenant was quite qualified to decide. But with respect to the right hon. Gentleman's last case, whether a man was a poor man, he should like to know what kind of assessors could assist him in determining a point like that? The right hon. Gentleman should remember that it was proposed to give no new authority to the deputy lieutenants.

SIR DAVID DUNDAS

considered that, from the words in the Schedule of the 42 Geo. III., it would be necessary to describe the particular infirmities under which persons claiming exemption laboured.

MR. MOWATT

thought these discussions showed that the House was in a false position, dealing with an Act which it had not before it, and, by incorporating that Act in this Bill, giving powers with respect to the militia of which the country had no conception—powers barely tolerated in a former age under extraordinary circumstances.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the question was, supposing they had drawn up a Bill to amend the law relating to the militia, whereby they would raise men by voluntary enlistment, they would leave the law as it stood in other respects, as had been done on all former occasions. They did nothing by the present Bill to alter the law, except so far as they amended and mitigated it by some of the provisions of the Bill; and when any objection was made to a particular clause, the Government did not show any disinclination to consider any reasonable improvement.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he believed that when men enlisted in the regular Army, and were subjected to surgical examination, they were obliged to strip naked, and to undergo much more examination than any beast shown in Smithfield. Was this course to be pursued with regard to men drawn by ballot for the militia?

MR. WALPOLE

should conceive not. All that was wanted was a sufficient ex- animation by a surgeon to ascertain that the man was not incompetent.

MR. HARDCASTLE

said, he now begged to bring forward the Proviso of which he had given notice. He did not wish to vary the discipline of the embodied militia in respect to flogging from that of the regular Army, for he thought there was great force in the objections of the right hon. Home Secretary made on a previous occasion, namely, that where the regular Army and the militia happened to be quartered together, it would be hard, and also impolitic, to subject the soldier to a more severe and degrading punishment than the militiaman; but his (Mr. Hard-castle's) opinion was, it would be cruel and unjust to inflict corporal punishment on militiamen, more especially those raised by ballot, during the period of training. He thought if Government adopted the Proviso, they would act wisely, and render their measure much more acceptable and popular.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 17, at the end of the Clause to add the following words: Provided always, that whereas by the said first-recited Act it is declared that the provisions of any existing Act of Parliament for the punishment of Mutiny and Desertion are to he in force with respect to the Militia during such time as they are assembled for the purpose of being trained and exercised, but so that no punishment shall extend to life or limb, and that whereas such provisions render Militia Men liable to corporal punishment, no such provisions shall he held to extend to any Militia Men not embodied so far as to render them liable to corporal punishment by the sentence of a Court Martial.'

MR. BERESFORD

considered that this question had been settled by the previous discussions; and that it was quite impossible to have two Mutiny Bills. Moreover, by the custom of the Army, corporal punishment was never inflicted except for disgraceful conduct, and therefore the object of the hon. Gentleman's Proviso was already met. He regretted that hon. Gentlemen had spoken of corporal punishment as degrading to those who received and to those who inflicted it. The degradation was not in the punishment, but in the crime for which it was administered. He was likewise very sorry to hear an hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Salwey) on a former debate, state that he had known instances in the Guards where a Court Martial had proved no safeguard to the soldier, because the commanding officer had interfered to bias the opinion of the Court. He (Mr. Beresford) could only say that during the period he was in the Army, he had never heard of such a thing; and he had since communicated with several officers of the Guards, who also declared that not an instance of such conduct had ever come to their knowledge.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, that the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Salwey), was worth a great deal more than that of all the colonels on the Treasury benches, for they had declared that they could not carry on their business, without the power of inflicting the lash. He (Sir G. Pechell) regretted to hear the manner in which the services of the hon. and gallant Member for Westmenter had been spoken of; nor could he forget that at the Westminster election fellows had been exhibited with their arms tied up to represent the flogging which it was insinuated had been inflicted by order of the hon. and gallant Member. He looked upon that as a most disgraceful proceeding to the parties who were responsible for it. With respect to the question before them, he thought that flogging in the Army ought to be abolished; but he doubted whether it could be dispensed with in the Navy, where there were not the means of ordering confinement. But he was happy to say that hardly a ship returned from foreign service now but what the list, as to flogging, was a clean sheet of paper. He should support the clause.

COLONEL ESTCOURT

said, that he had served for a period of twenty years, and he had never known a case where the commanding officer had attempted to bias a Court Martial. He was convinced that such an idea would never enter into any officer's head.

MR. MOWATT

said, he knew it was hopeless to appeal to the right hon. Secretary at War, who had broadly stated and reiterated his opinion, that the lash was not a degrading punishment, either to suffer or to inflict; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had shown every disposition to modify the more violent portions of the Bill, would adopt the Proviso.

MR. GOULBURN

thought that a Proviso should have some relevancy to the clause to which it was appended. Now as Clause 17 referred to meetings to be held by the lord lieutenants and the deputy lieutenants of counties, it would be supposed that the object of the Proviso was to exempt them from corporal punishment.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, there were occasions when flogging was absolutely necessary. A mutiny might take place, and how was it to be suppressed? In scarcely any case was there a disposition on the part of the officers to inflict that punishment.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he could not see the difficulty of inserting the Proviso somewhere, after the statement of the right hon. Secretary at War that it was next to impossible flogging should be inflicted when the militia were under training. The supporters of the Proviso were only asking the Committee to carry a distinction already drawn a little further. He would have proposed this Proviso himself to make the measure less difficult to work, and less hateful to those whom it might affect.

MR. WALTER

said, he had voted with the minority when the question of flogging was raised on the 7th Clause, and was strongly of opinion that the Government might have conceded that point. If you made all liable to corporal punishment, whether they were volunteers or men balloted for, you, in effect, put a premium to the ballot, and prevented volunteering; for who would volunteer if they were as liable to flogging as they would be if they were men balloted for?

MR. TUFNELL

wished to know whether the volunteers as well as the balloted men would be subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the volunteers equally as well as the men enrolled by ballot would be liable to the Mutiny Act.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

said, he would beg to refer to an Act of 44 Geo. III., for regulating the punishment of offences in the yeomanry corps, which clearly enacted that volunteer bodies, as well as the yeomanry corps, were to be subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act.

SIR DAVID DUNDAS

said, he was anxious to say a few words on the present question, having had the honour for some time of helping in the administration of military law, as Her Majesty's Judge Advocate. He had, from time to time, heard a great many objections made to corporal punishment. He wished, however, to call attention to the fact, that within a few weeks the Mutiny Act had been passed without one word being then said with respect to corporal punishment. In passing the Mutiny Act they had not prohibited the infliction of corporal punishment in the Army, as they might have done if they had been minded so to do. But it being the law under the Mutiny Act that corporal punishment should be inflicted in the Army, he was of opinion that it ought to apply to the militia also; and that, too, not merely when the enemy was in the field, but when the force was in garrison. It would be impossible, in the case of garrisons composed of militia and the regular forces, to have two different kinds of punishment existing. Not only would the regular troops resent any such difference, but it would soon be found impossible to maintain discipline among the men. That was the opinion of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. But he (Sir D. Dundas) was not so sure on the question of training and exercising the militia. He held, in common with every military man with whom he had had the honour of conversing on the subject, that corporal punishment could not be dispensed with for the embodied militia, if it were retained for soldiers of the line. But in the 5th Section of the Mutiny Act, provision was made that nothing in that Act contained should in any way be taken to extend to militia, or yeomanry, or volunteer corps, except in cases where by the Act or Acts for regulating such corps the provisions of the Mutiny Act for the punishment of mutiny and desertion should be "specifically" extended. He considered, and had always done so, and had taken leave to mention to a right hon. Friend of his, that the word "specifically" rather drew attention to the provisions of the Mutiny Act with reference to the question how far they should be extended to the militia (as we understood); and therefore, when Parliament came to legislate on that subject, he thought it an open question, and one which was well worthy of attention at a crisis like this, whether they were bound to continue the same punishment upon men who were called out by the ballot against their will, and upon men who were volunteers when the militia was enrolled for the mere purpose of training. He humbly thought it by no means a clear question whether you might not dispense with the punishment at the time of training. He wished to add a word on the question of punishment and corporal punishment. A great many things had been said on the subject unadvisedly, without knowledge, and against the real construction of the merits of the case. He thought it right that he should say so, who had had thousands of proceedings by Courts Martial passing through his hands. What did he find in the administration of the law with respect to corporal punishment? Corporal punishment was to be administered only in cases to which that law restricted it, but these very grave. It had been said that there were but two cases to which corporal punishment applied. That was true, but one of them was neglect of duty; the other was misconduct. Who should decide the width and breadth of these two words by themselves? If this were their punishment for such offences, it was proper to apply them; and they ought to continue to apply them so long as they continued to have such punishment. But he was not quite sure whether he had not heard hon. Gentlemen speak unadvisedly and without knowledge with respect to the mode of the administration of punishment by military law. He took leave to say that he did believe there was no punishment among all the punishments in the Army which was laid on with more discrimination — he would say with more kindness, in consistency with duty—than corporal punishment. He did not know that there was a single officer with whom he had had the honour of communicating during the period of his tenure of office, that had not assured him, not merely by word, but by acts, that if there were a mode of escaping the infliction of that punishment, recourse was invariably had to that mode. There was another observation which he thought it his duty to make, that, under the Mutiny Act, there was a power in the confirming officer to consider whether the punishment might not be done away with. In the case of Her Majesty's confirming officer, in the case of the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army, in the case of the various officers who had to administer military law, there was an anxious and earnest desire to administer that law in mercy, and, if possible, to save the soldier from disgrace. In bringing it to pass that so much as might be what was necessary punishment should be inflicted, but no more, he should say there was at the Horse Guards a gallant officer at the right hand of the illustrious Commander-in-Chief, to whom any hon. Member might refer any case bearing on the subject, and he would find a gentleman capable of attending to him, taking the deepest interest in the private as in the officers, and seeing that no extreme punishment should be inflicted under military law, if equity, justice, and good sense could come in and stop the infliction. Though, perhaps, he (Sir D. Dundas) had gone a little more at large into the subject than it was usual to do on such occasions, he came back to the point where he started, that he doubted whether discipline might not be exercised in training the militia without the enforcement of this hard passage in the law. The punishment being applied to the line, could not be dispensed with for the embodied militia. Therefore it was he thought his friends not well founded the other night in their argument; and, having expressed his opinion this evening, he should call on Her Majesty's Servants to give the subject their grave and serious consideration, and when the proper time came, he hoped that at the end of the 28th Clause, whereby was incorporated the 42nd Geo. III., c. 90, with the present measure, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be prepared to do an act of mercy; he (Sir D. Dundas) was not sure hut it was one of justice.

The EARL of MARCH

said, he could not help thinking that the remark which had just been made by the right hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was one to which he could not subscribe. As the drilling of the militia was only to last three weeks, it would he absolutely necessary to have some severe punishment to keep the bad characters in order. It would be an encouragement to had characters to commit an offence, such as striking a superior officer, in order to obtain an imprisonment of ten days, thereby escaping the rest of the drill.

MR. O. STANLEY

said, he believed that corporal punishment could be done away with entirely, except when troops were in the presence of the enemy. He had hoped that the Government would not subject militiamen, when called out for training, to corporal punishment. When hon. Gentlemen said that militiamen could not be exempted from corporal punishment if they were in garrison with troops of the line who were liable to such punishment, they must forget that in India corporal punishment had been abolished as far as the native army was concerned.

MR. HARDINGE

stated that he wished, with the permission of the Committee, to set the hon. Member who had just spoken right on the statement he made respecting corporal punishment in the native army. Corporal punishment, at present, existed in the native army; it was abolished by Lord W. Bentinck, and restored by the Governor General in the year 1844.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was a fallacious assumption on the part of the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Sutherlandshire (Sir D. Dundas) to suppose that Her Majesty's Government had not taken the question into consideration. Of course they should not have recommended the clause to the Committee unless they had given it the gravest consideration. They had given it such consideration, and they had consulted all those who were competent to form an opinion on the subject. The subject was by no means of that simple nature which the right hon. Gentleman supposed, and its settlement would be much more difficult than was generally imagined. Until the whole question of corporal punishment in the Army was dealt with, it would be impossible to make exceptional cases. Her Majesty's Government, looking at the question in that light, had arrived at the conclusion that it was their duty to propose this clause. It was, consequently, their duty to oppose the Proviso. Under these circumstances, he was bound to take the sense of the Committee by a division.

Question put, "That those words he there added."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 87; Noes 132: Majority 45.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18 (Men not liable to the Ballot after thirty-five).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'thirty-five.'"

MR. HEADLAM

moved that the limit of age after which men should not be liable to the ballot, should be twenty-five, instead of thirty-five years.

Amendment proposed, to fill the blank with "twenty-five."

MR. WALPOLE

said, if the Amendment were adopted, instead of diminishing the hardship of the ballot, the Committee would he increasing it. The assumption was, that everybody who was able to serve would be liable to serve; and, as the area was increased out of which the men were to be obtained, so would the hardship of the ballot be diminished. Again, if they were to draw men entirely from those who were within the younger period, namely, twenty-five years of age, there would be a much greater interference with the recruiting for the regular Army; for these reasons he objected to the Amendment.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he wished to diminish the burden of the ballot for men who were beyond twenty-five years of age, and he should therefore support the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentle- man the Home Secretary could show that men who had been balloted once would be released from all future liability, then he might not object to the clause as it stood; but as the Bill was now framed, a man was liable to be drawn more than once.

MR. MOWATT

said, he was willing to admit that by enlarging the area from which men might be drawn, the chances would be reduced in favour of the younger men; but there were great varieties in the physical and social positions of men, and while in one case the liability to be drawn might be perfectly right, in another it might be most inequitable. The very fact of drawing a line at the ago of thirty-five showed that there was a necessity to fix a limit somewhere beyond which men should not be liable to be drawn; and the question was, whether the Government had drawn that limit at the proper place by putting it at the age of thirty-five. Except in a case of emergency, when 500,000 men might be required to be raised, he was of opinion that the area within twenty-five years of ago would be ample for all the purposes of this measure.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that by the 43rd Clause of the 42 Geo. III. it was provided that no person who had served in the militia, either personally or by substitute, should be obliged to serve again until by further rotation it should come to his turn. [Sir H. VERNEY: We all know that. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt) was aware of it.

MR. MOWATT

would beg to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain what was meant by rotation.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, his notion was this, that everybody who was liable to serve in his parish, having once served, was not to be called upon to serve again. [Murmurs of dissent.] Such, at the moment, was his interpretation of the word.

MR. HEADLAM

said, that by limiting the area between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, there was no doubt a greater chance that a larger number of persons from that range would be called on to serve; but what he contended for was this, that if they got 50,000 men from that range, the hardship would be less upon them individually than it would be on those from twenty-five to thirty-five years of age. With regard to the interference with enlistment for the Army, he had to observe that one of the arguments which had been urged in favour of a militia was, that it would train men for the Army. But if they took men at thirty-five, they would lose that advantage. So far, therefore, from this being an interference with the enlistment of the Army, he contended that his Amendment would have the effect of getting a better class of men for the regular Army.

MR. OSWALD

said, he could throw out a crumb of comfort for hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House, namely, that if this clause should pass, it would be one of the compulsory clauses, which, he felt quite convinced, would never be carried into operation. If hon. Gentlemen wanted a topic for the hustings just now, they could make the compulsory clauses that topic; and if they did, they might rely upon it they would hear no more of those clauses.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

wished to know the reason for reducing the age to thirty-five?

MR. WALPOLE

said, the Government had first to consider the area, and then the capability of service. If they had taken men at forty-five years of age, they would have compelled them to serve up to fifty. By taking them at thirty-five, forty years was the utmost limit of age at which service would be required. The Government, therefore, had thought it best not to exceed that age for compulsory service.

Question put, "That the blank be filled with 'thirty-five.'"

The Committee divided: —Ayes 89; Noes 52: Majority 37.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 (Registrar General may be directed to furnish information to lieutenants of counties for their guidance in making appointments).

MR. OSWALD

wished to point out a very curious anomaly which would exist if the Government inserted an exemption as they proposed to do in this clause. In England, where there would be something to do, the qualification of deputy lieutenants would not be required; but in Scotland, where there would be nothing to do, except to appear at Her Majesty's levees and State balls, a qualification of 300l. a year in land would be required.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, he was in favour of retaining the land qualification.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

trusted the Government would not lower the qualification for deputy lieutenants. He was sure the great principle ought to be retained, that they should have an interest in the land of the country.

MR. WALPOLE

would remind the Committee that it was not proposed to lower the qualification, but only to modify it, so as to meet the altered circumstances of the present day, when so much more property was held for long terms of years, and so much less upon freehold. There was no fear of the lord lieutenants appointing any officers unless they were satisfied that they were persons living in the county, and all appointments would be subject to the approbation of the Crown.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Providing that Her Majesty may direct into what regiments, &c, militia shall be formed, and with what officers and staff).

COLONEL SIBTHORP

complained that the lords lieutenant were to be deprived of their usual power of appointing the officers to the militia. He considered that such power could not be placed in more efficient hands; and he hoped Government would fall into his views, and allow them to retain the powers conferred on them by the Act of George III.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

hoped lords lieutenant would appoint the surgeons and other inferior officers, as they must be best acquainted with the qualifications of the candidates.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (The Act of the forty-third year of King George the Third (chapter nineteen)— To authorise the training and exercising the Militia of Great Britain for twenty-eight days,' as amended by section five of the Act of the fifty-fifth year of his said Majesty (chapter sixty-five), 'to amend the Laws relating to the Militia of Great Britain," so far as the same relate to the Militia in England, shall be repealed, and the period of training and exercise shall, save as hereinafter provided, be twenty-one days in every year; and Her Majesty may, if She see fit, direct all or any part of the Militia of any county, riding, or place to be palled out for training and exercise more than once in every or any year, and at such time or times as Her Majesty may think fit, so as the whole period of training and exercise of any Militia Man do not exceed twenty-one days in any year, save as hereinafter provided.'

COLONEL ESTCOURT

said, he thought the period proposed for training would render the force very inefficient. He did not believe that a training of twenty-one days a year for five years would make a soldier. The period of training ought to be in the first year, and never afterwards, the force being only mustered in after years. Instead of twenty-one days a year, he would say ninety for the first year, and six days as a mere muster for the remaining years. No doubt, if the ballot were to be continued, it would be a hardship to call out men for ninety days at a time; but, as he understood that the force was to be a volunteer force, this would not be felt as a grievance.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he feared that the period mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member would be productive of serious inconvenience to those who were called out, whereas he believed the force might be made effective without any such inconvenience to those who composed it. He would press upon the attention of Government the advantage of taking those periods of the year when the agricultural labourers had some difficulty in obtaining work—the month of November, and part of the month of December, and the month of May. Those were periods in which the men could serve without inconvenience, and they might be drilled in companies in the shorter days of November and December, and in battalions in the month of May.

MR. BERESFORD

said, with regard to the time of drilling, he admitted that they could not make a good and perfectly trained soldier in twenty-one days; but there were powers in the next clause to increase this period, if necessary. He thought, however, that if men were drilled completely, and then left to rust without exercise in subsequent years of service, they would not remain in that efficient condition which the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Colonel Estcourt) would like to see them in.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that by the statute 42 Geo. III., c. 90, s. 100, if parties did not come to the training and exercise on the days appointed, the Government would be authorised to proceed after a certain time to ballot for persons to take their places. Now, if a good many of the volunteers, after having got the money, did not come to the training and drilling, the Government would be obliged, by this clause, to have recourse immediately to the ballot, for persons to fill their places; and this was to go on every year, ad infinitum, he supposed. The ballot had been suspended until 1853, and this clause ought, therefore, to have a provision introduced into it, by which the Committee would have an assurance that the postponement of the ballot to 1853 was really to be carried out.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, that when the right hon. Member talked of persons getting the money and not coming, it must be understood that he was talking only of Manchester; but in this case the old adage, "A bird that can sing and won't sing, must be made to sing," must be put in force; if the people of Manchester did not come forward, there was such a thing as bringing them forward. He had a better opinion of the people of England generally. He thought their fidelity to their Sovereign, their attachment to their country, and their desire to preserve the property of others from a foreign enemy, would induce them to come forward without regard to the paltry sum of 61. As to the period of drilling, twenty-one days a year was a mere flash in the pan. If an efficient body of men were wanted, let them be properly drilled, and to do this, not less than six weeks, or even a further period, would be necessary.

MR. J. EVANS

said, his suspicion that we were about to establish an ineffective force, was very much strengthened by the opinion just expressed by high military authorities as to the period of drilling. Unless the compulsory clauses were struck out, he was afraid this Bill would turn out to be in its first part ineffective, and in its last oppressive.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he must repeat what he had said before with respect to the supplementary ballot, and he again begged for some explanation on the part of the Government.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that in the year 1831 there were 770 persons drawn for the militia in the city of Westminster. Of these 770 only 36 declined to serve in person, and they obtained substitutes for 3l. a piece. The next year every man of them appeared. There were also raised at the same time in the county of Middlesex 1,024 militiamen, of whom 1,018 appeared. The apprehension, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman, that men would not be obtained, was perfectly chimerical.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he had already stated that it was not intended to have recourse to the ballot during the present year; and if there was any doubt upon that point, he was prepared to insert words in the 15th Clause which would make the intentions of the Government clear. The volunteers for the militia would be called out in the course of the autumn; and under the section to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had referred, three months must elapse before the supplementary ballot could be taken, and consequently it could not come into operation during the present year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always argued as though the volunteers were to receive their bounty down; but that was not the intention of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War would take good care to pay it in such a manner as to afford a security for their reappearance.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

said, that a man who took the bounty swore to perform a service, and if he did not appear when called upon, he was a deserter, and might be proceeded against as such.

Blank filled up with the words "twenty-one days."

COLONEL ESTCOURT

said, he should now move his Proviso, which was to the effect that Her Majesty should be empowered to direct that the drill and training of the militia in any one of the five years for which they were enrolled, should extend over a period of ninety successive days, but in that case the drill and training in the other four years should not exceed six days in each year.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

would suggest that the Proviso would be more advantageously attached to the next Clause.

MR. BERESFORD

thought the power conferred upon the Government to call out the militia for fifty-six days in one year, if desirable, and for twenty-one days in the succeeding year, would be found quite sufficient to give a thorough drill.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, Her Majesty, by the Act as it stood, had the power, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to extend the period of exercise from twenty-one days to fifty-six days. The Government, in fixing the latter period, had consulted the highest military authorities, and he considered it undesirable and unnecessary to prolong the period beyond fifty-six days; he must, therefore, oppose the Proviso.

COLONEL ESTCOURT

said, he would not divide the Committee, and the Proviso was withdrawn.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that in moving the Proviso he held in his hand he was not going to say a word about morals, because he knew that in these matters these considerations were generally put aside, though he had heard it said that it was unwise to place young men in beerhouses during the whole of the time when they were not occupied in training. If the training was to go on for fifty-six days, he doubted whether the country would think this arrangement likely to improve the morals of these young men. But he would not dwell on morals, as he knew they were not taken into military consideration; and he would merely point out the injustice of the regulation to the class who would be most affected by it. If a militia was considered necessary by the country, he must say that the country ought to be at the expense of finding a proper place for them. If the Government wanted to make these young men soldiers, why not encamp them under tents on some dry common? To be obliged to provide accommodation for them, was regarded as a great grievance by the publicans generally. It might be said that they had a monopoly, but they had no monopoly but that given them by their licence, for which they paid a high price. At all events there was no monopoly as far as the beerhouses were concerned, and he hoped the Government would take the matter into their favourable consideration.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Clause, to add the following words:—' Provided that notwithstanding any thing contained in the said first-recited Act, or any other Act, no Officer, Non-commissioned Officer, Drummer, or Private Man, serving in the Militia, when called out for the purpose of training and exercise, shall be quartered or billeted in any inn, livery stable, alehouse, victualling house, or in any house of any person selling brandy, strong waters, spirits, beer, cyder, wine or metheglin, by retail, without the consent of the respective occupiers thereof.

MR. BERESFORD

said, the custom had ever been that licensed victuallers, who possessed a decided advantage and a monopoly in the exercise of their trade, should have troops billeted upon them. It was a mistake to suppose that soldiers were never billeted upon publicans except when on a march. They were often billeted upon them for weeks and months together; but the publicans took it in turn, and the billeting was made as little burdensome as possible. All that was asked by this clause was, that the same regulations should be in force for billeting militiamen as for the regular Army.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he supported the Proviso. There were barracks which had cost the country enormous sums of money that were now entirely unoccu- pied, and that would form admirable places for the accommodation of the militia. Where there were no such barracks, he thought the men might encamp in tents, or might throw up huts, as the labourers did in constructing railways. This, he thought, would greatly promote the morality of the men, and he could not see any possible disadvantage in having recourse to such a practice.

MR. BRIGHT

said, his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) had had been applied to by the licensed victuallers to represent their feelings on this subject. It was absurd to say that any privilege conferred by a licence upon a public-house keeper was any equivalent for forcing militiamen upon them. He apprehended that the State had no more right to throw this burden upon the publicans than upon the grocers or the country gentlemen. He should like to know what the process was by which these billeted parties were apportioned on the publicans. He presumed the matter was in the hands of the billet-master. It was monstrous to suppose that publicans derived any benefit from the system of compulsorily billeting men upon them, because, in the majority of instances, the publican paid the penalty to get rid of the soldiers. He objected to the system because it was a departure from the contract principle upon which Government had always proceeded in providing for the military. He should therefore support the Proviso.

CAPTAIN BOLDERO

denied that there was any surplus of barrack accommodation in the country. Within the last five-and-twenty years, the barracks at Colchester, Cheltenham, Yarmouth, and other places, had been converted to other purposes; and, in some instances, as in the case of Yarmouth, 140,000l. had been saved to the country by converting the fine barracks there into a lunatic asylum. But even if there were, it was to be recollected that every county was called upon to furnish its own quota of militia, so that the barracks might be in places where they were altogether useless. Then, with regard to encamping the men, the Committee must remember that they would be called out either before the hay harvest or in the fall of the year, and at both these seasons it was not particularly desirable that men should be placed under canvas. The billeting would be no great severity upon the public-house keeper, for the militiaman, after providing his food, would have 6d. or 7d. a day to spend, and in all probability it would be spent in the public-house.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was not correct to say that the keeper of a public-house had no monopoly: he had the valuable monopoly of being alone entitled to sell spirits by retail in less quantities than two gallons. The argument of hon. Gentlemen would go to doing away with billeting altogether; for if they were to have billeting at all, it was clear they must adhere to the ordinary course of billeting the men on public-houses, and he felt inclined the rather to recommend this, as the Committee had already expressed its opinion that it was not advisable to make distinctions between the militiamen and regular soldiers. The right hon. Mover of the Proviso had not suggested any feasible mode of lodging the militiamen in preference to that proposed by the Bill.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, it was not for him to make the suggestion, because he wished to get rid of the Bill altogether. The Government, however, ought not to shrink from proposing the expenditure necessary for the proper accommodation of the men they were about to raise. Besides, his Proviso only related to the period when the militia were called out for training and exercise, and not to the period when they might be embodied along with the regular troops. He again asked why country towns should be subject to the intolerable nuisance of having these raw young men—vagabonds of ever)' description— ["Oh, oh!"] — quartered upon them? Yes, he held they would be mere vagabonds, for it had already been admitted that nobody would enter who had anything better to do.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the Committee would not forget that only a few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman attempted to force the use of the ballot upon the Government, and now he was trying to put the country to a great additional expense in lodging these men, so that the right hon. Gentleman, in his eagerness to oppose the Bill, had been betrayed into two great inconsistencies. With regard to the clause itself, he would remind the Committee that there were but three ways of providing for these men: either they must be accommodated in barracks, or they must be encamped, or they must be billeted in public-houses. Now it was shown that there was no surplus of barrack accommodation for the regular Army, and there was nothing in the Act to prevent them from being encamped where it was advisable; but where it was not, there was no remedy but they must be billeted on public-houses.

MR. BRIGHT

denied that there was any wish on their part to increase the expenditure; but what they said was, that the Government ought to deal with publicans, with regard to billeting, just as they did with the people from whom they bought arms. The greatest amount of ignorance respecting this Bill Was shown by the Members of the Government who introduced it. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary talked of the billeting not being in all cases imperative; but in the 94th Section of the42 Geo. III., it was made imperative to billet, and monopoly had been pleaded for public-houses; but the hon. and learned Attorney General, with the ingenuity peculiar to his profession, had not said a word about beershops, which were equally liable, though nobody could say they had a monopoly.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the hon. Member for Manchester, who talked so much of the ignorance of the Members of Government, was, doubtless, himself well informed. Now, would he show the Committee where beershops were referred to under the Act of 42 Geo. III.?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

They are included under the class of houses that sell beer by retail.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

No; I beg your pardon. [Mr. M. GIBSON: I beg yours.] The term used is alehouses— a term well known in law. In point of fact, beershops had no existence at the time of the passing of this Act; so that hon. Gentlemen who charge the Government with ignorance, would do well themselves to understand the subject they speak of.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

could only say this, that he would rather have in his parish a dozen militiamen than one member of the Anti-Corn-Law League.

MR. JOHN EVANS

must admit that beershops were not included in this Bill. Still he could not understand why licensed victuallers, livery-stable keepers, and others were made liable. Suppose it were enacted that all the lawyers in a parish should find lodgings for the militia, or all the parsons and dissenting ministers, or all the bakers and grocers, everybody would see the monstrous nature of the proposition. He should vote in favour of the Proviso.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

was also in favour of the Proviso, as he had long been of opinion that there never was such an oppressed class as the licensed victuallers of this country.

MR. WAKLEY

said, all parties seemed to agree that these pet soldiers ought to be well accommodated. They, no doubt, required commodious dwellings and great conveniences, and he thought there could be no places so proper for them as the houses of the nobility. As Peers were exempted from the ballot, let them have the benefit of the billet. Many of the mansions of the nobility were very scantily occupied, and as they would have a militia, let them lodge the men in their houses. He thought it most unfair to fasten the militia on the publicans, whose burdens were sufficiently heavy already, and who, between the magistrates and the brewers, had a pretty hard time of it. It was highly improper that one particular class should be selected to bear a burden of this kind.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

wished to know whether there was any objection to the insertion of words to render it quite clear that beerhouse keepers would not be liable to be billeted upon? If it was intended to render them liable, let words be inserted to that effect. If not, let the matter be set at rest.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

replied, that if not liable under the old Act, they would not he under the present; and if, on the contrary, they were, they would be left in that position. This Act would not interfere with them.

Question put, "That those words be then added."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 54; Noes 105: Majority 51.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 (Provides for the number of days on which men would be liable to be subjected to drilling).

MR. BRIGHT

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, alluded to his aversion to interrupt the course of regular industry throughout the country, and he led the House to believe that the number of days on which men would be required to serve under the Bill, would not, on the average, exceed twenty-one days in the year; but it would seem that the Government wished to fill up the blank with a larger number.

MR. WALPOLE

said, it was the intention of the Government to make the ordinary time of training twenty-one days; but it was proposed to insert a much larger figure in order to be prepared for any emergency.

SIR HARRY VBRNEY

Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that men could be made efficient soldiers by twenty-one days' drilling in a twelvemonth?

MR. WALPOLE

did not say anything of the kind. In fact, he believed that men to be trained as efficient soldiers would require about nine weeks' drilling in the year.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 (Providing that Lord Lieutenants of counties, with the approbation of the Secretary at War, might provide places for exercise).

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, the present mode of balloting was very expensive, and he believed it might be reduced considerably. Some of the expenses were charged in a manner different from the modern mode of charging. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to look into all these variations at present, but he wished to obtain some information on one point, and that was the nature of the expenses which would fall on the county rate. This was a matter in which country gentlemen were interested, and he was somewhat surprised that they did not display some degree of interest on the subject. Had a simple project come from the late Government, no doubt they would have been overwhelmed with questions on the subject.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the Militia Act was an annual Act, and the whole of the payments were provided for in that Act. The payments for the men were charged on the country; but he believed the payment of clerks, parish constables, overseers, &c, in respect to the militia, devolved upon the counties. There was a schedule affixed to the Act, which he would hand over to the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the evening.

SIR JOHN TYRELL

said, that the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to be facetious on the drowsiness of country Gentlemen; hut the behaviour of country Gentleman, so unpleasant to hon. Members opposite, might he explained by the circumstance that there was now in existence a Government from which the country I Gentlemen did not expect harsh measures, while the late Government had declared that they would do nothing which would have an alleviating effect in respect to those calamities of which the country Gentlemen complained.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, it might be very consolatory to the hon. Baronet to think that the occupants of the Ministerial bench were men in whom he could confide; but he (Sir F. Baring) was afraid that his constituents — the payers of the county rates—would not feel much consolation in having the charges to be occasioned by this Bill imposed upon them. The late Government proposed to take care, in the Bill which they intended to bring in on the subject, not to let the expense of the militia fall upon the county rate. Now, he thought that it would have been more consolatory to the county ratepayers to have been benefited by such an enactment, than to reflect with the hon. Baronet that they had a Government for the country party, and to pay the heavy expenses that would be occasioned by this Act.

SIR JOHN TYRELL

said, it perhaps might be unsatisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman that he had not had an opportunity of stating what that great boon which they intended offering to the country would have been. Whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to speak omne ignotum pro magnifico, he (Sir J. Tyrrell) did not know.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite, the supporters of the Earl of Derby's Government, were so drowsy, foreign Governments were awake to what was going on in that House; and if hon. Gentlemen had looked into the newspapers that day, they must have seen in the intelligence from France a strong confirmation of the arguments used against the Militia Bill—namely, that if an increase was made in the forces of this country, other countries would make that an excuse for keeping up, and even increasing, their armies. A proposition had been made for increasing the French army by precisely the ominous number of 80,000 men; and one of the reasons assigned by the rapporteur of the Bill for keeping up the French army, was, that the British House of Commons had voted money for the organisation of a numerous militia. In the course of a short time it was probable the country would be called upon to increase the standing Army, in order to be in a condition to meet that enormous French army. The course now pursued was calculated to raise up danger which the country would afterwards have to provide against. Such a fact as he had stated ought to excite some reflection in the mind of even the sleepiest Member on the Ministerial benches.

MR. NEWDEGATE

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Baring) that if the late Government had passed a Militia Bill, the greater part of the expense would have been cast on the Consolidated Fund.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he had not stated anything of the kind. The charge would have fallen on the general revenue.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, in that case, if the expense was likely to fall heavily on the county rates, country Gentlemen had a right to expect that the Members of the late Government would support them, if necessary, in transferring a portion of that expense to the general taxation of the country.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, he objected to charges of this kind being thrown on the Consolidated Fund, because the opportunity of an annual revision of such charges was not afforded. If ball practice was required, it could not be carried out without considerable expense, and he should like to know whether it was to be charged on the county.

MR. WALPOLE

was understood to say that on looking into the annual Act he had considerable doubt whether such a charge would be thrown on the county or not, but a clause might be introduced into the annual Bill to settle the matter.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 24.

Clause 25 (So much of the said first-recited Act as authorises Her Majesty to order and direct the Militia, or any part thereof, to be drawn out and embodied in cases of rebellion and insurrection, shall be repealed).

SIR HARRY VERNEY

wished to know what good reason existed for the proposed repeal. It appeared to him that every loyal subject would be quite as ready to assist in suppressing rebellion as in repelling foreign invasion; and in all probability, if invasion were ever attempted, it would be combined with an attempt at insurrection.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

could not understand why Her Majesty's right to call out the militia should be limited when disaffection and rebellion took place in the country. He recollected that when there was an insurrection in Ireland it was very much controlled by the appearance and activity of the natives of Dublin turning out in the shape of yeomanry. Insurrection was the very time when such a force as the militia was required, and he therefore hoped the Committee would take the question into serious consideration before they adopted this clause.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, no doubt the principle upon which the clause was framed was, that the princple of the Bill was confined to institute strictly a defensive force against foreign aggression; but as the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) and other hon. Gentlemen disapproved of it, he would leave it for future consideration.

MR. BRIGHT

said, the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose because he (Mr. Bright) and his Friends had not risen to address the Committee, that they did not object to the withdrawal of this clause. With regard to Great Britain, there could be no kind of expectation that anything like disaffection was likely to prevail again. And, with regard to Ireland, he believed that that House might legislate in such a manner that there would be no more reason to apprehend insurrection in that country than in Great Britain. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman last night express his disapproval of the arguments and policy of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and that at the same time he made an explanation of the speech of the right hon Gentleman the Home Secretary which gave a very different colour to it from that which it had had before. [Cries of "Question, question!"] They were upon the question of insurrection, and he was saying they might so legislate for Ireland as to prevent its recurrence there. Insurrections here had generally been in times of scarcity; and seeing that a scarcity of food had been provided against as much as it was in the power of the Legislature to do, he believed that those periods of discontent and incipient insurrection would not come on this country for the next fifty years from any such cause as had constantly led to them during the last forty years. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had done wisely in introducing this clause into the Bill, and if it were with- drawn, the Government would be departing from the ground and principle upon which the Bill was framed, and would not only make it more obnoxions than it was now, but would lay the Government open to the imputation that it was introduced on false pretences, passed through that House on grounds concealed, and palmed on the country, while the true reasons for its introduction were never fairly explained.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

thought the clause should be omitted. He had no idea of legislating on suspicions. They ought to legislate on what they considered to be the benefit of the country.

MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY

considered the clause one of the good clauses in the Bill. If the clause were not adopted, the Government would be armed with an excuse for keeping up the militia long after the necessity for that force should have passed away.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was singularly unfortunate in his allusion to him (Mr. Newdegate), for he would remind j the hon. Gentleman that the only two per sons who had ventured publicly to recommend insurrection in case of invasion by way of inducing the Irish people to assist the invaders, was the Rev. Mr. Cahill and the Rev. Mr. Murray, two of the priests educated at Maynooth. He rejoiced to J hear that the Government intended to re- I consider this clause, for it was an exception to every Militia Bill this country had ever known.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

said, he had no objection to postpone his proposition for omitting the clause, on condition that he should not be prevented from opposing the clause ultimately. The principal argument of Earl Grey in favour of his Militia Bill in 1831 was in case of disaffection showing itself in the country.

MR. J. EVANS

said, there was a general feeling throughout the country that it was the intention of the Earl of Derby's Government to impose a duty on corn, and if it went forth that there was to be a force of 80,000 men officered by landed gentlemen, who were favourable to a change that was unfavourable to the body of the people, it would create very great alarm. He thought that this clause was perfectly consistent with the design of the Bill, and he therefore should support it.

COLONEL GILPIN

said, that the yeomanry were liable to be called out in the case of disturbance, and he thought there ought to be no distinction between the militia and the yeomanry in this respect. The old militia had rendered good service during former riots, and he did not think it would be right to cast a slur, by a clause like this, upon a force which they wished to make popular.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

had no doubt the Government had given, as they stated, great attention to this clause, as well as all the other clauses of the Bill; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consent to withdraw a clause which would alter the whole tenor of the Bill.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that although the Government had certainly given this subject the best consideration that they thought it demanded, at the same time they were bound to listen to the opinions given on questions of detail by the Members of that House. It was not to be supposed, however matured the measure had originally been, that in matters of detail it was not capable of improvement; and in fact the object of going into Committee was to receive the benefit of the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen on both sides. He would express the determination of the Government not to press this clause on the present occasion, but to withdraw it for further consideration, in the hope that there would not now be any more discussion upon it, and that they would at once proceed to the other clauses.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman, if he adhered to his first proposition, should have his support. There could be no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman stood by his own clause, the Committee would not allow it to be rejected. Before he talked of deferring to the sense of the Committee by agreeing to the postponement of the clause, let the right hon. Gentleman first take the sense of the Committee whether it actually wished the clause to be postponed or not. The right hon. Home Secretary obtained the assent of the House to the principle of the Bill, by representing that it was to be looked at as strictly and exclusively a defensive measure, and in no way intended for internal purposes. The Government had put forward this Bill with sham pretexts; and now they were about to withdraw this restriction in the same way as they had withdrawn the proposal for enfranchising the militia, which had been intended to soften the unpopularity of the Bill.

SIR JOHN TYRELL

said, the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) had stated that an addition of 80,000 had been made to the French army in consequence of the measure that was now before the English Parliament. That, he thought, was the best compliment that had yet been paid to the militia, He was surprised to hear the statement of the President of the Reform Association (Sir J. Walmsley), that nothing would cause him so much regret and so much lamentation as anything that would have the effect of depreciating or deteriorating the value of this measure. With regard to calling out the militia to suppress riots, it was well known that the manufacturers of Manchester were always most anxious for the presence of troops during any disturbance.

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

said, he must protest against the hon. Member for North Essex putting words into his mouth that he had not used.

SIR JOHN TYRELL

rose to order. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps be kind enough to state what words he had "put into his mouth."

SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEY

The hon. Baronet says I spoke of the merits of the Bill. I think it has many demerits, but I never allowed that it had any merits at all.

SIR JOHN TYRELL

The hon. Gentleman said he would lament anything that would depreciate the measure, and that this Amendment would have that effect. The hon. Member has plenty of prompters.

MR. HEYWORTH

said, that the use of the armies on the Continent was to put down the liberties of the people; and there would be a natural impression that the proposed force would be employed for a similar purpose in England.

MR. G. THOMPSON

would put it to Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be a breach of faith, and a departure from what had been said at the introduction of the Bill, if the Government did not firmly resist the withdrawal of the clause? All through the discussion, attention had been rather directed to circumstances external to this country, than to the formation of an army of reserve. If the Government wished to be consistent, they would resist the postponement of this clause, or any alteration in it. They would consult their own integrity and good faith, and their credit with the country by doing so.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, he should vote for the postponement of the clause, in the hope that the result of the Government's consideration would he to withdraw it. He saw no reason in the world why, if there was any domestic convulsion, the militia should not be called out, because nothing was more likely to produce the danger of invasion than some domestic convulsion. The old Militia Law gave the Crown the power, by Order in Council, to call out the militia in the event of internal disturbances; and if this clause was not struck out, the position of the country would be weakened, instead of strengthened, by the present Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be postponed."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 200; Noes 61: Majority 139.

Clause postponed. Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.

Clause 28.

MR. BRIGHT

said, this clause involved very important considerations, and would require much discussion. It would be better for the Committee not to proceed further till they heard the conclusion of the Government as to the clause that had been postponed, which, if omitted, would entirely alter the character of the Bill. This Clause 28 involved all the clauses of the 42 Geo. III., nearly 150 in number, and many of which were inconsistent with the clauses in this Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Home Secretary whether there had been any attempt on that side unfairly to delay the progress of the Bill. Most of the suggestions had come from friends and not from opponents of the measure.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not think the hon. Member had made out a case for reporting progress. The Government did not wish to keep the House in suspense as to the postponed clause, and he hoped to communicate their opinion on it to-morrow. As the night was still young—and the House fresh, he hoped they should be allowed to proceed, so as to finish the Bill in good time to-morrow.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he must press for the postponement of the 28th Clause, but he would offer no opposition to the remaining four clauses. In making this proposal, it could not be considered that he was acting unfairly.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would accede to the hon. Member's request, on condition that the Government might propose amendments in the clause to-night.

MR. WALPOLE

said, as so many doubts had been started as to whether the clause would not act cumulatively in reference to the 42 Geo. III., he should introduce an Amendment to meet that difficulty, as well as a Proviso that the Bill should not come into operation before the time already agreed on. He now begged to lay them on the table.

Clause postponed. Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive, were agreed to.

House resumed:—Committee report progress.