MILITIA BILL.

HC Deb 07 May 1852 vol 121 cc371-413

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 7.

MR. WALPOLE

moved that the second blank in the clause, for the number of militiamen to be raised in the first year, be filled up with the words "fifty thousand."

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that the proposition of the Government would involve peculiar difficulties, and amongst them the following—that if at the end of four years an emergency arose which rendered it necessary to call out the militia, the country would be put to the heavy expense of training and drilling the men for six months, in order to get six months' service out of them, that being the whole remainder of the term of service which could be demanded of them. Considering, therefore, that the Bill was in the nature of an experiment, he thought it would be better to adopt a smaller limit for the number—say 20,000—to be called out in each year, by which means the country would have an opportunity of judging of the operation of the Bill, and be able to see what was the character of the men, and what degree of reliance might be placed in them in case of danger. He should meet the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman with a negative.

MR. RICH

said, he was of opinion that if as many as 50,000 men were raised in the first year, it would materially interfere with the recruiting of the regular Army: 20,000 or 25,000 men would be fully adequate for the purpose of the Government, and if they attempted to gain more, they would probably defeat their own object, which, as far as he could gather from the debate of last night, was to avoid having recourse to the ballot.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

said, that if it were intended to make the raising of 50,000 men in the first year compulsory, he should vote against the Motion. In his opinion 25,000 would be quite sufficient; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary consented to reserve to the Government a discretion, and the 50,000 were not to be compulsory, he would not object to the insertion of the proposed words in the clause.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said: I had understood that the ballot was to be suspended altogether; but the right hon. Gentleman has since stated that there will be reserved that power to the Crown which is usually reserved, namely, that of having recourse to the ballot, with the advice of the Privy Council.

MR. WALPOLE

was very much obliged to the noble Lord for mentioning that subject. He proposed to alter the 16th Clause, so as to provide that the ballot should not be resorted to unless in case of actual invasion or imminent danger.

MR. SLANEY

was glad that the Government had determined to raise this body of men by bounty, and not by the ballot. The former, he thought, was the only just and right way in which to raise a force. It was not fair to compel the humbler classes to pay as much for providing a substitute as would have to be paid by the rich. He thanked the Government for the alteration which they had made in the Bill, and hoped that they would succeed in raising a sufficient force upon the voluntary principle.

MR. HUME

said, the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Colebrooke), and of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, would lead the public to suppose that this force was requisite. Now he (Mr. Hume), for one, up to that hour had not heard a single reason showing the necessity for raising any force at all. He considered that the money which would be expended under this Bill would be an absolute waste of the national revenue. Instead of thinking that any additional force ought to be raised, he thought on the contrary, that our regular forces should be diminished by some 15,000 men.

SIR GEORGE CLERK

said, as it appeared that the ballot was to be suspended till the end of the year, except in case of imminent danger, he wished to know, whether, supposing the Government could not, by means of the voluntary system, raise the whole of the 50,000, the Government, at the commencement of next year, would have recourse to the ballot to make up the deficiency? Now, if the ballot should be had recourse to under these circumstances, he should certainly vote in favour of a smaller number than 50,000.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had not read the 16th Clause as amended, because it provided that the raising of the deficiency at the beginning of next year should be left to the discretion of the Crown. He had informed the Committee on the previous night that it was the intention of the Government to make the Bill permissive, and not compulsory. As the clause stood, it was not compulsory upon the Government to raise the full number; but it was necessary to reserve the power of raising the 50,000 if it were found that it could be conveniently done under the volunteer system. The machinery of the ballot would not be put in motion, if the number of volunteers did not amount to 50,000, except in case of danger of actual invasion.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the clause stated that there should be raised, and from time to time kept up, 80,000 men; and then it provided that voluntary enlistment should take precedence of the ballot, and then it gave the Crown power to have recourse to the ballot; and he conceived it would be the duty of the Government to advise the Crown to exercise that power. From the whole scope of the Bill, he understood it was the intention of the Government that that number should be kept up.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

wished to know whether there was to be another Militia Bill brought in besides the present one? The ballot for the Militia under 42 Geo. III., cap. 90, was suspended till November, 1852. There was nothing in this Bill to continue that suspension, and he wished to know, therefore, whether it was intended to introduce another Bill to continue the suspension of the ballot under the 42 Geo. III.?

MR. WALPOLE

said, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce another Bill. In the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, such a step would be quite unnecessary.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

expressed his decided opinion that the Bill would certainly postpone the ballot to the 31st of December, according to the rule of law, by which, when two Acts were inconsistent with each other, the latter virtually repealed the former, although no words were actually inserted for that purpose.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the blank be filled up with 'fifty thousand.'"

The Committee divided: —Ayes 135; Noes 61: Majority 74.

on Question, that the next blank be filled up with the words "thirty thousand,"

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he must again object, on the ground of the proposed duration of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that when we voted the Army and Navy Estimates, we only provided for one year; and acting upon the principle that the circumstances of the time and the opinion of the House were to govern the numbers of men and the expenditure, he could see no reason why, in a Militia Bill, they should diverge from this wholesome rule, nor why they should now pledge themselves to the number of militia for future years, excluding all consideration of what the future circumstances might be.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the principle was a very plain and just one. The Committee had decided that a militia force of 80,000 men ought to be raised, and the Govern- ment thought it was more expedient and less inconvenient to the population to spread the construction of that force over two years than to raise it all in one.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

would admit that for those who had already voted for a militia force of 80,000 men, it might be rather awkward to adopt his views.

MR. WALPOLE

said, one of the main principles of the measure was to maintain a permanent army of reserve.

MR. WAKLEY

said, a majority of the House having voted that the number of the militia force should consist of 80,000 men, they who opposed it must of course submit; but still he thought it was their duty to oppose the Bill upon every point, at any stage, and by every means in their power; and, indeed, he entertained a very strong opinion that they would not be doing their duty to their constituents if they did not avail themselves of the forms of the House in order to prevent this Bill from passing into a law: and, for his own part, he believed it was the most preposterous measure that ever was proposed, and there was not a sensible person out of the House that was in favour of it. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) now sat upon that side of the House. The noble Lord had fallen—his supporters had fallen—they were, in fact, a fallen host. They had stuck to the noble Lord as long as he was squeezable, and he now appealed to the noble Lord, and asked him what were the particular circumstances of the time which, in his opinion, rendered the raising of this force necessary. He had not heard any statement from the noble Lord, or from any Member of the Government, which satisfied any person out of that House that such a force was either necessary or required; and he had not heard anything said in that House, nor any one express any reasons, founded upon facts, which showed that it was expedient to make such an addition to the permanent forces of this country. He now asked the noble Lord if he would be so kind as to state, as he was now out of office, the precise particular grounds showing the necessity for this force. He believed the cost of this force would amount to 600,000l. or 700,000. Now, considering the expenses of the Kafir war, and that agriculturists and other classes in this country were crying out for relief from taxation, he thought more strong reasons ought to be put forward before this Bill was sanctioned. As to any apprehension being entertained with regard to France, the Government in that country, for the last twenty years had not been more secure. Things had settled down in France. The French people liked their President. There was no accounting for tastes; but the people of England had no right to find fault with the tastes of the people of France in this respect. The French people were, he repeated, in a state of perfect quietude and contentment, and yet we in effect told them, "Though there be apparent peace in your country, we doubt and mistrust you; we must add 80,000 men to our force, because we believe you intend to make a descent upon our shores." He asked what was the foundation for this belief? If the noble Lord was acquainted with any circumstances which would show that this particular force of 80,000 men was required this year more than last year, or any other year for the last quarter of a century, he, for one, would abandon all opposition. But in the absence of any such information, either from the noble Lord or from the present Administration, he felt bound to oppose this as well as every other part of the Bill.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, it had not been his intention to trouble the Committee on this occasion, or to do so, indeed, on any occasion on the Bill going through Committee. He had stated before the House went into Committee that he was ready to vote for the Bill going into Committee; but, entertaining objections to so many portions of the Bill, he could not possibly take part in it in Committee. Accordingly, as he did not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, he had not given a single vote on any of the clauses. But the hon. Member for Finsbury asked him to state the general reasons he had for proposing a Militia Bill. [Mr. WAKLEY: The precise particular grounds showing the necessity for this force.] He thought the demand which the hon. Gentleman and which other hon. Gentlemen had made, was somewhat unreasonable, because if they alleged as a ground, that the Government of France was hostile to this country, that we might expect immediate hostilities, that those hostilities could not be delayed beyond a few weeks, and therefore we must have a great army—that was not a prudent course for the House of Commons or for any Government in this country to pursue. No doubt great armaments might be necessary if there was any danger; but he did not see such immediate prospects of danger at present, although he would say generally, from what had passed during wars between this country and our near and powerful neighbour, that we ought to make such fair and moderate preparations for defence as should enable the Government of this country, in any discussions which might take place, to maintain the honour and dignity of the country. On that subject he had very little more to say than he had in 1848, when he thought some more preparation was desirable. The House of Commons did not think it necessary. But in the present year he certainly still held the opinion he held in 1848, and thought it desirable to make some preparation. He thought it the duty of any Government more especially to call the attention of the House of Commons to a subject of this kind, because the people of this country would naturally say, "If there can be any danger, if there is any prospect of war breaking out hereafter, we will hold you (the Government) responsible if there is not a sufficient force to meet that danger; it is incumbent on you (the Government) to propose that force which you may think necessary, and the people will accept or not what you propose." Then he must again say, he did not put this question with reference to any immediate prospect of hostilities. He saw no such prospect. He saw no reason to believe that the present President of France entertained any hostile intentions. He (Lord John Russell) came then to general danger. This country has been four times involved in hostilities within the century, and it was obvious that there were various subjects of discussion relating to our interest, our honour, or the safety of our allies, which might tend to bring on hostile discussion with Prance. The question of Tahiti, and the question of Greece, had each led to such a state of things, that very nearly involved this country in a war. Suppose such a state of things to arise again, were we in such a condition as that the Government of the country ought to be satisfied? His opinion was that we were not. He could not think the force in this country, of which he had a return, dated the 1st of January, stating all the force of guards, cavalry, and infantry in Great Britain at 28,344 men, and that in Ireland at 26,500 men—he could not think that a force which would be sufficient if hostilities were to break out. He did not think a force would be so immediately supplied as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, or the defence of the country would require. The hon. Member for Finsbury, and those who argued like him, meant that, if there were evident indications of hostility from Prance—if that Power made a demand on us to which we could not accede—then, and not before, we should begin our preparations. He (Lord John Russell) would think that a very dangerous course, and was of opinion that a force should be raised for the defence of the country. The course he proposed to take for that purpose was to raise a force for the local militia, namely, an annual force, partly raised by the ballot and partly by voluntary enlistment, composed of men so young that it was not probable they would be married men, and who should not be obliged to leave their counties except in case of invasion or of imminent danger. It was further to be provided that their services should not be continued beyond six mouths, or, under certain circumstances, beyond a year. With these conditions and limitations, the ballot was to be taken. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton proposed to alter the title of the Bill before it was brought in; and, as he (Lord John Russell) understood, to make the case one of regular militia, which was a force of a different kind to what he had proposed. If the alteration had been a mere alteration of title, the time for making it would have been at the end of the Bill, when Mr. Speaker put the question, "That this be the Title of the Bill;" and it remained to be considered whether the Title agreed with the contents of the Bill. The noble Lord thought a force of local militia liable to great objection, raising the special objection that the militia he (Lord John Russell) proposed was not a militia for Scotland and Ireland as well as for England. It was evident to him that the proposal made by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton would totally alter the character of the force, and he (Lord John Russell) therefore declared that he could not be a party to introducing a Bill for a regular militia, and that if such a Bill were introduced by any other Member he should consider himself at liberty to oppose such a Bill on the second reading. Certainly, if it had been merely a formal change which had been made as to what should be the Title of the Bill, he would not have taken that course. But he thought the alteration a material one, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton must also have thought it material, otherwise he would not have taken the course of proposing a change in the Title of the Bill before it was introduced. The case would be the same as if he (Lord John Russell) had brought forward a Bill to extend the Suffrage in respect of Voting for Members of Parliament, and it had been proposed to introduce into the title words making the Bill one for Universal Suffrage. He could not have assented to such a change, and must have rejected the Bill. A Bill was afterwards brought in by the present Government containing provisions for establishing a regular militia, which had been considered by the former Government, and deliberately rejected by them. It appeared to him that a plan for a regular militia must have these objections to it, that, even founding it on the ballot, the obligation on men to enlist as soldiers in the service for five years would be so great a hardship that the plan would break down before it could be carried into operation. The alternative was to obtain men by voluntary enlistment; and these were not likely to be obtained except by a bounty. Raising a large number of men by means of a bounty, it appeared to the late Government that the men raised would not be the most likely to make good regular soldiers unless they were kept in bodies, or as regular soldiers of the line were kept. The present plan was liable to these objections, and he was still waiting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite how he expected this force to operate. He (Lord John Russell) thought the raising of a force for the defence of our own shores necessary; and he could no more think the Government of France could take offence at that than he could think that we had any right to take offence at their having upwards of 300,000 men embodied as soldiers in their territory. Whether they ought to keep up so large a force he would not discuss; but, while unfortunately all the great Powers of Europe kept immense regular armies on foot, it could not be a matter for surprise that we should organise a force for our own defence. He was not surprised, therefore, that any Government should propose, in addition to 50,000 regular troops, to obtain the assistance of 80,000 militiamen, only called out for exercise for twenty-one days. There could not, therefore, be a reason for any Government taking offence at such a natural precaution upon our part. But with respect to the Bill—supposing they did not use the ballot, and supposing they got a sufficient number of men by bounty, it did seem to him most essential that they should obtain by bounty the regularly settled in- habitants of the parish or district to which the men belonged, and that they should not be exposed to the chance of having a body of unsettled and vagabond persons enrolled merely for the sake of getting the 6l. —a very considerable sum in their eyes, —but who would not be forthcoming when required. When he on a previous occasion took this objection, he was told that the Secretary at War would have to see that the Act was properly carried out; but that he considered to be a very unsatisfactory answer. In all Militia Acts Parliament had taken especial care to introduce provisions by which its objects should be carried into effect. If they had 80,000 men with arms in their hands, and trained for a certain time, it was necessary they should be trustworthy men. If it were said, as he understood the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that it was desirable a portion of the population should be trained to the use of arms, then it was not only desirable, but it was essential, that those men should have the good of the country at heart, and that they should be men of respectable character, upon whom reliance might be placed, not merely when the enemy was at the gates, but under all circumstances, as men of loyalty and good conduct. That was an essential object which the House ought to secure, and if it were an essential object, then he thought the manner in which it was proposed to raise this body of men was most unsatisfactory. To say, also, that the necessary regulations were to be made by the Secretary at War, and that they were not to be inserted in the Bill, did appear most extraordinary. But then he was told that if the House expressed any distrust upon this point, they would be expressing distrust of the people of England. Now, for his part, he could conceive no answer more absurd, with regard to a question of this kind, than that of saying that, because it was supposed possible that persons would enlist for the sake of the 6l., and then not be forthcoming, that therefore those who might so think actually mistrusted the whole of the people of England. Why, the people of England were certainly divided into many different classes, and he could not conscientiously say that the whole population of this great country were fit to be trusted on every occasion. It might as well be said that, if one did not leave his own door unlocked at night, he therefore was distrustful of the people of this metropolis. Now, he trusted the people in general, but at the same time he knew there were characters among them whom he could not trust at all. If they were to go to Epsom Downs on the 26th of this month, they would, no doubt, find many of the gentry, and yeomanry, and tradesmen of the country there, all of whom would be perfectly fitted to be trusted, and whom they would like to see embodied in the militia of this country with arms in their hands; but no one could say that Epsom Downs would be entirely filled with persons of that description. There would, no doubt, be many whom they would be sorry to see either in the police or in the militia, employed to maintain the peace of this country. He thought, therefore, it was essential that instead of leaving this matter to the discretion of the Secretary at War, some clause should be inserted in the Bill which would be a guarantee against improper characters being enrolled. It had been said that some additional clauses were intended to be added to the Bill. If so, it was desirable that the Committee should know what they were. If they were about to raise a militia force of 80,000 men, at an expense of 350,000l., it was not too much for the House of Commons to require that that force should be composed of persons of good character, on whom the House could rely, and concerning whom the presumption was favourable, that they were persons who might be trusted with arms in their hands.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought that the expectations of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) were rather unreasonable. The hon. Member stated that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had deserted him; hut, at the same time, he said that he had stuck to the noble Lord as long as he was squeezable. If the hon. Gentleman had stuck to the noble Lord as long as he was squeezable, it was clear he would not have deserted the noble Lord on the present occasion, unless he had been fully saturated. If the hon. Gentleman had chosen to act the part of a leech, Non missura cutem, nisi plena cruoris hirudo, he must have expected to he treated like a leech; and if the noble Lord had sprinkled a little salt on the back of the hon. Gentleman, no doubt he would have quietly fallen off, gorged with blood. The noble Lord had, however, gone considerably aside from the question before the Committee, for the purpose of explaining the conduct he had pursued with regard to this Bill, and with a view of showing that there was nothing inconsistent in the course which he had adopted. He (the Attorney General) thought it was essentially necessary that the course taken both by the noble Lord and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) should be distinctly understood; and that the difference between a local and a general militia should be clearly explained. A local militia could only be called out in case of actual invasion, or an enemy appearing on our coast, or of a rebellion, or of an insurrection arising at the time of such invasion, and they could only be kept on foot for six weeks after the enemy had left our coast, or had been repulsed. In the local militia, no substitutes were allowed. Now, the noble Lord brought forward a Bill for establishing a local militia. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: No, a Bill to amend the Local Militia Act.] No one ever heard of an Act to amend one totally different. What did the noble Lord propose to do? Did he propose that his militia should only be called out in a time of invasion? No; the noble Lord proposed that while an invasion was only apprehended, the militia should be called out, which was a very different thing from an actual invasion. Did the noble Lord propose that his militia should remain on foot for only six weeks after the enemy had disappeared? Not a bit of it. He proposed that his militia should be kept on foot for six months. Did he propose that there should be no substitutes? No. The noble Lord proposed that there should be substitutes. The noble Lord's militia, then, was not a local militia; and what said the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? He said, "Don't give us a false title to your Bill; you call this a Bill to amend the local militia; it is anything but a local militia; it is a regular militia; let me amend your title by getting rid of that little word 'local,'" and make the title agree with the provisions. "No," said the noble Lord, "I will not suffer you to lay your little finger on my Bill." The whole thing was a mere question of Ministerial etiquette. It was not, in point of fact, proposing any change in the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill, but a mere verbal alteration in the title. But rather than submit to this change, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), somewhat precipitately, threw up the Government and abandoned the Bill. The noble Lord had again and again stated that he believed the defences of the country required to be strengthened, and yet they found that the noble Lord, instead of assisting, was opposing every effort that Her Majesty's Government was making to pass a measure having for its object the strengthening of those defences. Having thus followed the example set by the noble Lord in straying from the subject, he would remind the Committee that the question before it was the insertion of 30,000 men in the blank.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he felt justified in complaining of the conduct of the hon. and learned Attorney General on this occasion. He (Lord John Russell) considered the distinction between a local and a regular militia sufficient to induce him not to proceed with his Bill; he had been confirmed in his view in that respect, because one great fault found with his measure was that he did not extend it to Scotland and Ireland. His answer to that objection was, that he did not know what might be required; but if he had contemplated a general militia, he certainly should have thought it necessary to frame a Bill for Scotland and Ireland. Besides that, every general Militia Bill contained a clause declaring that any person who enlisted must serve as a soldier embodied in time of war. Considering these differences between a local and a general Militia Bill to be so great, he said that he could not bring in a Bill of the latter description, and that he should oppose any such Bill if brought in by any other person. Such a Bill, however, was brought in by the present Government, and he opposed it, as he had said he should do if he thought proper. But, having been defeated on the second reading, he had taken no part in opposing any of the clauses of the Bill in Committee; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had accused him (Lord John Russell) of attempting to do that indirectly which he would not do directly. It might have been more prudent, perhaps, if he (Lord John Russell) had waited and opposed the clauses of the Bill in detail, but, having failed on the second reading, and then having refrained from opposing any of the clauses, he thought it was, at least, a course of which the Government had no reason to complain. He was still of opinion that these clauses were not sufficient to provide a good defence for the country, and he could not vote for them, but he should oppose no obstacle to their being passed.

MR. WAKLEY

could assure the noble Lord that whatever dissatisfaction he might have produced in the country with reference to his shortcomings on Parliamentary Reform, yet no one was guilty of the meanness of imputing to him treachery in the conduct of public affairs. The feeling was universal that he had always acted as a straightforward and honourable public man; and however reformers might deplore that he did not put himself in an attitude which would entitle him to their warm and generous and zealous support as the leader of the reform party—however much they might think that he had not come out as he ought to have done—still they felt that he had not been guilty of having broken any pledges. What the noble Lord had promised to do, that he had faithfully done; and he (Mr. Wakley) could assure the noble Lord that from one end of England to the other, he bore and sustained the character of an honourable and an upright man. He regretted that the noble Lord had not taken the lead in the reform movement when the ball was at his feet; but still it must not be forgotten that the noble Lord was a reformer when some men in that House were Tories. He was old enough to recollect what the noble Lord did in former times. He, in fact, broke the ice. He recollected what the noble Lord did with reference to Acts of Parliament which he would not now offend some hon. Gentlemen present by mentioning. He was old enough to recollect the spirit of Toryism—that dreadful spirit which sought to persecute every man holding liberal opinions, and which was constantly on the look-out for victims. The noble Lord stood up against that spirit— he was then a reformer; and he had established himself in the heart of every reformer as a man who was prepared to dare and to endure everything in the public cause. He only deplored now that the noble Lord had not gone on with the spirit of the times, and thus established a character which would have redounded to his credit through all the civilised world. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) had commenced his observations by a simile which might have suited the Old Bailey or the Sessions House at Clerkenwell, hut which was hardly fit for the atmosphere of the House of Commons. The profession of an advocate—though lawyers were always extolling its merits—was not, perhaps, calculated to bring the mind to an exalted position. It must be borne in mind that they lent themselves out for hire, and that they were constantly engaged in trying to make the worse appear the better reason. The hon. and learned Gentleman bad alluded in a most improper and unjustifiable manner to what his (Mr. Wakley's) conduct might have been if he had received a little salt from the noble Lord. Now the noble Lord could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had never solicited a single favour at his hands. He was sure the noble Lord would say that in a single moment. He believed there was no man in the House of Commons who had pursued a more independent course than he had. It had been his pride and his pleasure to do so, and it had been a comfort and a satisfaction during the time he had been a Member of the House of Commons in being able to act at all times as he thought right, and altogether free from party obligations. As the hon. and learned Gentleman had thus referred to salt, perhaps be would excuse him if he referred, for a single moment, to such a thing as meal. A rat was very fond of meal. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not have likened him to a leech, if he did not wish that he (Mr. Wakley) should liken him to that animal, the rat. The imputation of selfish motives to him was entirely unfounded. He had not been a law officer under a Freetrade Administration, and now found himself a law officer under a Protectionist Administration; but he must say he found it was always the case that persons who were influenced by improper motives themselves, embraced every opportunity of bringing the motives of others down to their own low level.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the hon. Gentleman was perhaps the only person in the House who could have believed that he meant to attribute improper motives to him. He certainly never had the slightest intention to do so, and he did not think that the expressions he used could possibly bear that construction.

MR. WAKLEY

said, if that was the case, he heartily begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, and was very sorry for what he had said; but he certainly thought at the time that no other construction could be put upon the hon. and learned Gentleman's words than that he had done.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury asserted that no sensible person out of the House was in favour of the Bill. Now, he could state that he had that very day met many persons who were generally reputed respectable—men who had a considerable stake in the country — and who, so far from thinking this Bill unnecessary, were expressing their astonishment that any portion of the House should thwart its progress. Then with respect to the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) he could tell him that though his constituents did not dispute his high-mindedness, yet they were astonished at the course he had taken with reference to this Bill; and if there was one action which had damaged the noble Lord's reputation as a great political leader more than another, it was the opinions he had expressed and the votes he had given with reference to this measure. For himself, he could say that he supported the Militia Bill as a friend of peace, because he was satisfied that their preparations of defence would enable them the more effectually to keep the peace. Every one knew that peace could only be preserved by being prepared for war. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of the cost of the measure; but what was that compared with the loss which would result from 10,000 or 20,000 men landing in England? He believed there was no danger of such a thing; he was no alarmist. He was also confident that, if any hostile force landed here, they would never be allowed to return. He had no fear of this country being invaded, but he believed the enrolment of the militia would have a great effect in deterring other countries from making the attempt. He believed that the intelligence of the country was in favour of this measure.

MR. S. CARTER

said, it was his opinion that preparations for defence sometimes led to frightful catastrophes. He had certainly been somewhat enlightened to-night by the noble Lord the Member for London, as to the best mode of expressing disapprobation of a Bill. The noble Lord expressed his disapprobation by absenting himself from the division. He thought it would be much better if the noble Lord would be oftener seen in the lobby dividing with the liberal party. With regard to a recommendation made by the hon. and learned Attorney General in the earlier part of the evening, that this Bill repealed another one by implication, he would advise the Committee not to accept that advice, but to repeal the former Act by express words, and leave nothing to implication.

ADMIRAL STEWART

said, it was his intention to oppose the Bill in every one of its stages; at the same time he did not mean to say that the country was at present in a perfectly safe state. The condition of the country in 1803 had been referred to; and it was to be home in mind that at that time they did not feel themselves safe against an invasion, though they had then 100 sail of the line, besides smaller vessels; and it had been remarked that from the year 1782, when Rodney broke the lines of the enemy's fleet, down to the close of the war, our maritime superiority had been successfully subjected to the severest tests in general and particular actions; but the country at that time had not felt satisfied with resting its defence solely on the Navy, and volunteers sprang up on every side, while even the Judges of the land buckled on their armour. But now it was denied that steam had thrown a bridge across the Channel; but if steam was not a standing bridge across the Channel, he maintained it was a drawbridge, and that the man who had the power of raising it, or throwing it over, was the invader who could choose his own time and opportunity for coming. It had been said by an hon. and gallant Member opposite that he would stake his head on the defence of our shores. He (Admiral Stewart) believed there was not an admiral in England who would not lay down his head to prevent a French array landing in England; but, give the best and most active officer the whole fleet England possessed, speaking as a seamen, and from his feelings and experience, he declared he would not undertake to say that officer could prevent the French from landing; nor ought the House or the country to believe any one who said the thing was impossible. He did not fear a general invasion, such as was contemplated under Bonaparte, who, when he was distributing the crosses and ribands of the Legion of Honour to his assembled legions at Boulogne, saw daily Sir Edward Owen dashing in with the Immortalité and taking off his prams under his very eyes; but he (Admiral Stewart) feared the landing of a comparatively small body. At the same time the task of blockading an enemy's port was one of fearful responsibility and anxiety, and, after all, it might not be constantly, invariably, successful. He ob- jected to the Bill because it was expensive, would be inefficient, and would not (as Government said they expected it would) train any portion of the nation to arms. The money might be much better spent in carrying out some of the suggestions of Sir Howard Douglas in his last work on naval gunnery, coupled with those, or something similar to those, put forth on a previous evening, by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor, who proposed to augment the rank and file of the Army, by forestalling two or three years of the recruiting, by which 14,000 men could be added at once, and easily reduced at any time, by again stopping the recruiting. They must prepare against dashing exploits and predatory incursions. He would not say that the metropolis—so tempting an object—might not be reached if they were perfectly unprepared. [Cheers.] Yes, hut the Bill did not give the country any security against that. What they wanted was a force of 12,000 or 15,000 men raised, perhaps, on the plan of the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor, divided into one or two fortified encampments within reach of railways, and commanding the metropolis and the river, so as to defend both. Or the second flying force might be stationed somewhere between Exeter and the sea— and to be in readiness to go to any part of the country that was threatened. He (Admiral Stewart) had voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Biding (Mr. Cobden), because he thought it utterly needless; and if he, who was a much younger Member of Parliament, but an older man, might give the hon. Gentleman advice, he would recommend him not to take on himself to arrange the stations of Her Majesty's fleet. The hon. Member, as conqueror of the Corn Laws, had achieved a glory which would ever lift him in his (Admiral Stewart's) eye over all his compeers. A late witty member of society said that the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), would not hesitate, if called upon, to take the command of the Channel fleet. But the hon. Member for the West Riding was, it seemed, prepared to do more. He out-Heroded the noble Lord, for he would, he believed, not only take the command of the fleet, but he would take upon himself the distribution of the whole fleet, and leave the Admiralty nothing whatever to do. When objections were made to the stations on which our fleet were placed, it mast be remembered what duties our ships were called on to perform: and as a proof that our force on distant stations was not unreasonably large, he might mention that the force of the Netherlands amounted at present to twenty-six vessels of war (three of them frigates), and mounting in all about 240 guns, employed chiefly at Batavia, Molucca, and Soura Baga—whilst we had only nineteen vessels to protect our subjects and their rights in the East Indies, China, and Australia. If pirates committed murder—if some unfortunate enthusiastic missionaries perished. or mariners were cast away on a scarcely known island—our ships were sent off at once in search of them. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor), and the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell), stating that the merchants of this country did not require the aid of Her Majesty's ships in the Pacific. Why, there were at that moment three revolutions along the coast of the Pacific, and they had only just received information that the Consul at Valparaiso had complimented the British commander there for taking 250 ruffians, who had seized on an American and on an English vessel, murdering the captain and owner, and several of the crew, in the most cold-blooded and barbarous manner. By the last advices, America, France, Denmark, and Sweden had each of them frigates lying at Valparaiso; and he believed that English merchants would not be safe in their lives and property if we had not vessels of war in the Pacific. The hon. Member for the West Riding, was by no means aware of the amount of service required of our ships on foreign stations; but if even he (Admiral Stewart), should hoist his flag and be sent to any one of them, he should be most happy to have the hon. Member as his guest: he would then see that a great deal more was expected from the admiral on the station than he could possibly perform. In con-elusion, he begged to say he had given no factious vote against the Bill. He was not much in favour of that introduced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and, with Mercutio, he was inclined to say, "A plague on both your Bills!"

MR. MILNER GIBSON

did not deny that ships of war had rendered service to merchants occasionally, but he did not think that that service merited the unqualified praise bestowed on it by the gallant Admiral who had just sat down. It had been his (Mr. M. Gibson's) duty to call at the Foreign Office, and to ask for payment of property which had been destroyed in consequence of the interference of Her Majesty's ships. Take one instance: There was an insurrection in Para, in South America. The English merchants residing in the place remained neutral between the Government and the insurgents, and their property was respected by both parties; but the Greyhound sloop of war having come into the harbour, took part with the Brazilian Government. The other party seeing this, attacked and destroyed the property of the English residents; and it became his duty to ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), who was then Foreign Secretary, for 30,000l., as compensation for the damage which had been done in consequence of the interference of this unfortunate Greyhound. This occurred a long time since, but he believed the facts as he had stated them were substantially correct. Again, more recently, they had to apologise because the commander of the Prometheus had fired into a steam ship belonging to the United States, on the Mosquito coast, in consequence of some misunderstanding about tolls and duties. With regard to the particular question before the Committee, he had no objection to record his vote against pledging themselves to do anything in 1853. He was quite content to leave 1853 to take care of itself.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

wished to say one word as to the conduct of the officer in the command of the Prometheus. He had not fired into any steam packet whatever. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Well, then, into a ship.] No, nor into a ship. He quite admitted the officer had not acted very discreetly, but he had done nothing whatever which could endanger life.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he wished also to say one word with respect to the case at Para, to which the right hon. Member (Mr. M. Gibson) had alluded. He very properly stated the affair had happened so long ago that he might not be quite correct as to the details of the transaction. But in a transaction of that sort the details were frequently an essential part of the case, and there was one link in the course of that affair which, if his memory served him right, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten and omitted, but it was a link which was most important. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that on the first ocea- sion there was no interference with the property of our merchants, and that, as they were perfectly neutral, the insurgents respected it; but, if his memory did not very much mislead him with respect to a transaction into which he had not looked for some time past, subsequently our merchants repaired to the commander of the British cruiser and begged him to interfere in favour of the Government authorities. [A cry of "No!"'] He was pretty certain that was the case, that our merchants applied to the commander of the British cruiser and begged him to interfere. He did so, and that interference had been made the foundation for outrages on the part of the insurgents against the property of the merchants. All the details of the case were repeatedly submitted to the Advocate General, in connexion with the Foreign Office; and the grounds upon which he, as well as the Earl of Aberdeen, felt it his duty to decline enforcing the demand for compensation, were grounds considered by the Queen's Advocate as reasons which ought to guide the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. He would only say, generally, in confirmation of what had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich (Admiral Stewart), that there was not a naval station out of Europe in which our merchants were engaged in transacting their commercial affairs, from which constant applications were not made to the Government for protection. These demands were infinitely greater than it was possible for the Admiralty to comply with; and they were seldom made without some good and sufficient reason, especially upon the American stations. [An Hon. MEMBER: The North American?] No, not upon the North American; there justice was well administered as between natives and foreigners; he was speaking now of the Spanish American and Brazilian stations. There was hardly a port there at which the merchants were established, in which from time to time, either by the abuse of authority on the part of the Government, or by the abuse of power on the part of insurgents in rebellion against those Governments, exactions were not made, and injustice and spoliations committed upon our merchants which required the presence of a British ship of war, either for the purpose of protection, or for the purpose of procuring redress afterwards.

SIR GEORGE PECHELL

said, there could be no doubt that protection, if that word was not excluded from the vocabulary of the House, was required for our commerce abroad, and it could not be denied that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), while in office, had used his best exertions to afford it. At the same time, he must say, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the gallant Admiral (Admiral Stewart), he thought that gallant Admiral had shown that we had force enough to protect our trade on foreign stations, and also at home. We had a sufficient naval force in this country at present for any purpose that might be required. He wished to know what was required, and what the necessities for additional force. If we were to have this militia, he hoped the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) would explain to the people what they were to expect under the Bill. Were the militiamen to be flogged? The public could not gather what they were to expect from the Bill, because other Bills were to be brought to bear on this Bill. He considered Government were going the way to create dissatisfaction in a neighbouring country, and it was impossible to predict the result. He wished to do all in his power to prevent the people from being saddled with the expense and the nuisance of this militia measure.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, if any stranger entering the House had listened to the discussion which had taken place within the last hour, he would have thought the question was, whether the blank in this clause should be filled up with a certain number of sail of the line instead of so many militiamen. It was the opinion of the country at large that there was no necessity for this militia force. We had been unmolested now for a period of at least forty years, and repeated Governments had not thought it necessary to take any measures of defence until the late Ministry had come forward, and were followed in the same course by their successors in office. As to this particular clause, he was quite ready to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) into the lobby against the number 30,000 with which it was proposed to fill up the blank; and he did not see why it should not be competent to the House to vote for 15,000 for the year 1853, leaving 15,000 to be raised in the following year, by which time he hoped the country would come to its senses, or rather would force the House to come to to its senses. He believed this militia would be ineffectual for the defence of the country when raised, while, at the same time, it would put us to much expense and annoyance.

MR. HUME

thought it would he attended with great inconvenience if they were to raise 50,000 militiamen in the next year. It appeared from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that they were now not to have either a regular or a local militia, but an army of reserve. That was a very important matter for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Lord at the head of the Government read from a paper— where he got it it would be difficult to say —that the Army in this country was but 28,344 men. All he (Mr. Hume) knew was, that the House of Commons voted 102,000 infantry alone, and 161,000, including cavalry and artillery. These men must be somewhere. So long ago as the 25th of April, 1822, the noble Lord reproached the then House of Commons with maintaining a system of representation which led to an increase of the Army. He would suggest to his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) that he should take the sense of the Committee on the whole clause.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

having assented, blank filled up with "thirty thousand."

MR. BRIGHT

said, he thought it was better to move the proviso of which he had given notice relative to corporal punishment in the militia to the clause then under discussion, than to introduce it in a separate clause at another stage of the Bill, in order that it might be seen what was the opinion of the Committee on the subject before coming to the compulsory clauses. He would, with the permission of the Committee, state how the Mutiny Act affected persons enrolled under the Militia Act. By the 5th Clause of the Mutiny Act, persons serving in the militia were exempted from the operation of that Act, except in cases where such exemption was removed by any special clause in the Militia Act. The 25th Clause of the Mutiny Act extended that Act to persons serving in the militia, in case they were not specially exempted, except as regarded punishments affecting life or limb. In the 42nd Geo. III. there was a clause—the 89th, he believed—which did apply to persons training in the militia; and the 11lth Clause of the Act subjected persons called out and embodied in the militia force to all the penalties of the Mutiny Act. This, then, was the operation of the law, provided this Bill passed in its present shape. As soon as any person should be put in training for twenty one or any smaller number of days, he would under this Bill be liable to the punishment of the Mutiny Act, except as regarded life and limb; he would be subject to trial by Court-martial, and to punishment by the lash for such offences as were comprised in the terms immorality, disobedience, or neglect of duty. Having explained what was the state of the law, and how it would apply to the present Militia Bill, he asked the Committee to allow him to introduce this proviso, which would exempt all persons enrolled or embodied under the Militia Act from the operation of the Mutiny Act, as far as regarded the infliction of punishment by the lash. He felt humiliated, he confessed, that it should fall to his lot in the year 1852 to have to make such a proposition to the House of Commons, which he thought legislation ought long ago to have rendered unnecessary. If there had been one question which, more than another, had received a solution by the experiments of recent years, it appeared to him to be this—that it was not necessary for the purposes of discipline, and especially when soldiers were not on a march, but in a country where all other means of punishment were at hand, to have recourse to the cruel and degrading punishment of the lash. He would not shock the Committee by detailing the barbarous cruelties which had been perpetrated in past times by means of the lash, but he would merely say that these atrocities were defended by many distinguished men, both military and naval. A case had been known where a sentence of 2,000 lashes had been awarded, and sentences of 999 lashes, which used to stand upon the Judge Advocate's books, were not unfrequently said to be necessary to maintain the discipline of the Army. The Committee well remembered the celebrated case in 1846, in which a private of the 7th Hussars, named F. J. White, was flogged in Hounslow barracks. The punishment now was restricted to one-third the number of lashes which that cruelly-used and murdered individual received. It would no doubt be argued that death could not ensue if not more that fifty lashes were inflcted. But Dr. Erasmus Wilson, on the inquest upon the death of White, said that death from flogging was no uncommon occurrence, and that the irritation of the skin which it caused gave rise to serious internal irritation, which produced internal disease, that might result in death. The jury in White's case returned a verdict that he had died from the effects of a severe and cruel flogging, and they recorded their "horror and disgust at any law which permitted the revolting punishment of flogging upon British subjects." Universal indignation was expressed at the atrocity of this punishment—a compromise was submitted to, and an order was issued by the Commander-in-Chief that in no case should more than fifty lashes be inflicted. He should be told of the opinion of military men, that the power of giving fifty lashes could not be dispensed with. He protested against its being supposed that no one but a military man was qualified to judge whether flogging could be safely discontinued or not. He considered himself as competent as any military man to form an opinion on the subject, and he did not believe the lash was necessary. If it were necessary, it arose from the incompetency of the commander, rather than the depravity of the men. Flogging was said to be necessary when soldiers were on a march; but these soldiers would not be upon the march in the sense in which that word was generally used when soldiers were in a foreign country, and placed under circumstances where they were accustomed to the license and committed the atrocities which were recorded against the English Army in the Peninsula. The militia would be rather a police force than a military force. It was intended that they should be men of a higher character than the soldiers of the line, and that they should be taken from different classes of the community. It might be supposed that punishments which were thought necessary in 1802 were not necessary to be enforced in 1852, and that both commanders of regiments and the men doing duty under them might now be of a character which rendered such punishments undesirable in the present day. Almost any man might be brought under the infliction of this sanguinary and dreadful punishment. In the year 1830 a private in the Scotch Greys of the name of Somerville, then at Birmingham, who had since highly distinguished himself as a writer, was flogged because he had been guilty of writing letters to the press upon Parliamentary Reform. He was punished for "misbehaviour," which might mean anything that a bad or foolish commanding officer might choose it should mean. The most degraded man became more degraded and more brutalised after this punishment, and he believed that if any case should arise of the flogging of any of the militia embodied under this Bill, a feeling of indignation and disgust would be caused through-out the country that the Government should draw men from their homes by ballot and by compulsion to defend their country, and that they should then punish them in a mode against which public feeling revolted. He proposed this provision with the intention of asking the Committee that the militia force they intended to raise should under no circumstances be liable to the punishment of the lash. The Duke of Wellington, when he proposed that fifty lashes should be the highest number inflicted, expressed the hope that he would live to see the punishment of flogging entirely abolished. He (Mr. Bright) hoped he would live to see that day, and he believed that one of the most effectual steps towards the accomplishment of that object would be the adoption of the course he now recommended. The Bill before the Committee he regarded as wholly unnecessary, and, if he had wanted to add to its popularity, he should not have moved this proviso. But he was not taking the present course to render the Bill more obnoxious to the public. He brought forward the proposition because the present was a case where the question came properly before them. He had a conviction that the punishment was as unmanly as unnecessary, and this being a case where it could be done away without affecting the regular service, he thought he was fully at liberty to ask that the Committee should relieve those 80,000 men whom they intended to raise as a militia from the ignominy and degradation inseparable from corporal punishment.

COLONEL THOMPSON

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Clause the following Proviso:— Provided also, That notwithstanding the said first recited Act, or any other Act, no punishment of any Officer, Non-commissioned Officer, Drummer, or Private Man of the Militia, shall extend to flogging or other corporal punishment.

MR. BERESFORD

said, he completely coincided with the hon. Member for Manchester in one observation. He hoped and trusted that he himself might live to see the day when corporal punishment would be entirely done away in the British Army. He did not say this in consequence of what the hon. Member had now advanced, for when he addressed the House last Tuesday on the Bill, he stated that during the time that he was in the Army there never was a duty so painful to his feelings as that connected with corporal punishment. He also stated that he thought there was a greater likelihood of raising recruits for the militia, because flogging in the Army had almost entirely ceased. But still he was not prepared to say that the time had arrived when they could attempt to have a body of men with arms in their hands, without any coercive power to govern them. With respect to flogging in the British Army, he found by an official return which he had that day obtained, that during the last year the total number of punishments of the kind, for the whole British Army at home and abroad, had been but 197. The British Army consisted of 148 regiments and battalions, so that the number of punishments was in the proportion of four to every three regiments and battalions, or about four individuals to every 3,000 men. The small amount of corporal punishment inflicted, arose, he believed, from the circumstance of the governing power of the Army being more paternal in its character, as well as of the superior class of men now in the British Army. If they applied the same rules and numerical proportions to the 80,000 militia, who were to be called out for twenty-one days, it would be found that the number who probably might undergo punishment could not amount to more than four or five men; so, that after all this noise and agitation about applying the lash to Englishmen, it appeared that not more than four or five out of 80,000 militia would be subjected to it, judging by what had taken place in the regular Army. Those who said the lash should not be inflicted on the militia, told them, at the same time, that that force would be composed of the scum of society; and yet they would leave an armed force, whom they denominated vagabonds, without any effective law, such as that by which the British Army was controlled. If they proclaimed that the militia were not to be placed under the mutiny law, the whole regular Army would feel itself insulted; and he maintained that it was neither common sense nor good legislation to enact one law for one description of military force, and a different law for another. It was preposterous to have the Mutiny Bill for the Army, and not have it in the case of a force which they raised for the protection of their homes.

MR. BRIGHT

explained, that his proviso only referred to the subject of flogging, and did not propose to remove the militia from the operation of the Mutiny Act.

MR. BERESFORD

considered that if the punishments enjoined in the Mutiny Act were taken out, it would no longer remain the Mutiny Act, but would become perfectly useless. The hon. Gentleman said, cases of immorality and neglect of duty might be punished by the lash; but of late years the lash had been inflicted only for mutiny and serious and disgraceful offences. He also spoke of the lash being inflicted by officers merely because they had irascible tempers. But the hon. Member who knew so much about military affairs and the Army appeared not to be aware of the fact, that no man could receive a single lash except under the sentence of a Court-martial composed of officers acting upon their oaths. The temper or conduct of the commanding officer had nothing whatever to do with the punishment. All that he could do was to bring the man before a Court-martial for trial and punishment. With respect to the case of White, who the hon. Member stated had been murdered, the facts were, that it was not till after his partial recovery that he died; and the opinions of two medical officers, specially sent down by the Horse Guards previous to his death, was most distinct to the effect that the man did not die from corporal punishment but from a disease inherent in him. The hon. Member also stated that whenever cases of corporal punishment occurred, they arose from the incompetence or bad conduct of the officers. From this opinion of the hon. Member he (Mr. Beresford) appealed to the experience of one of the friends of the hon. Member, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), several cases of flogging having occurred in the army under his command in Spain; and he felt certain that that hon. and gallant Member was far too humane and too honourable a man to sanction the infliction of any such punishment if he had not considered it absolutely necessary to have done so. He did not consider that the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) had made a sufficiently strong case for putting the militia upon a different or more favoured footing than that of the regular Army, and should, therefore, oppose his Motion. In conclusion, he would say, that if this militia force was embodied, he believed the punishment of the lash would be inflicted as seldom as it was in the British Army, and he had shown how rarely that punishment had been resorted to of late.

MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH

said, in Ireland there was a force which had been frequently alluded to in those discussions as a model of good training and discipline. The Irish constabulary force mustered about 12,000 men, and the significant fact that that force, which was not subject to corporal punishment, had never been found wanting in discipline or bravery, ought to weigh with the Committee in its decision on this question. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, in a speech which he delivered a few evenings ago, spoke of the number of threatened invasions of the Irish coast, and enumerated three occasions in particular on which the coast was menaced by a French squadron; but he forgot to mention that on the only occasion when the French effected a landing, the militia force which was sent against them turned tail and ran away. What would be the use of having corporal punishments when the militia was not to be embodied, but merely to be called out for training?

MR. LENNARD

said, he regretted that the right hon. Secretary at War had offered any defence to a mode of punishment which was universally looked upon by all classes with feelings of disgust and terror. It should be recollected that the punishment inflicted on the unfortunate man White was three times greater than the maximum punishment allowed by the present law under any circumstances. He was glad to hear the right hon. Member confirm what had often been foretold—that the character of military men had been greatly improved since the mitigation of corporal punishment; and he would go the length of saying that a respectable class of men would never be obtained by voluntary enlistment while this degrading infliction was continued. It would no doubt be inconsistent to abolish the lash in the militia while it was maintained in the regular Army; but he met the difficulty by suggesting the removal of the punishment altogether. No person with a proper feeling of self-respect would enter a body where so detestable and degrading a punishment was in force. The effect would be to drive the Government to a ballot, and then they would have a militia composed principally of persons of a superior class in life, who were indisposed to enter the service, and unwilling to abide by its regulations. The infliction of flogging would therefore be inapplicable, and defeat its own purpose. He hoped he would not shock the high spirit and chivalry of military gentlemen, in saying that it was unfair to exempt officers from a punishment which was applicable to the ranks. In no other instance, in his recollection, were the upper classes relieved from penalties to which people in a lower rank of life were subjected. Corporal punishment was not only barbarous but impolitic, because the fear of it would not repress soldiers from being guilty of misconduct, while it would tend to undermine their confidence and respect in those under whose authority they were placed.

CAPTAIN BOLDERO

said, no man formerly took a more active part against corporal punishment than himself. His feelings were thoroughly enlisted, and though brought up in the army, he boldly stood up against the system. The hon. Member for Manchester had stated that there was a large number of offences which still subjected the soldier to this punishment. He enumerated several; but, in point of fact, he was in great error; there were only two offences for which a soldier could be flogged.

MR. BRIGHT

said, the hon. and gallant Member had misunderstood him. He read the exact words of the Act, from which it appeared that immorality, misbehaviour, and neglect of duty, were the offences for which flogging was to be applied; but, with regard to other portions of the Mutiny Act, he thought there were some scores, if not a hundred, offences for which the soldier might be punished. He had the highest authority for saying that, but he could not give the name.

CAPTAIN BOLDERO

said, the hon. Gentleman stated that there were a hundred offences for which a soldier could be punished; but he (Captain Boldero) repeated, that there were only two for which he could be flogged. This would always happen when hon. Gentlemen made speeches on subjects of which they knew little or nothing. An hon. Member (Mr. T. M'Cullagh) had drawn a comparison between the proposed militia and the Irish constabulary. If they could afford to place the soldier exactly on the same footing as the Irish constabulary, flogging might easily be abolished; but a soldier receiving a shilling a day was not the same kind of man, in moral character, in education, or in disposition, as the police- man who received 18s. a week. Give the soldier three shillings a day, and he had no doubt whatever hut that flogging might be abolished in the Army. There was nothing in his life which he reflected upon with greater satisfaction than the fact that for five successive Sessions he either proposed, or seconded, Motions for the abolition or mitigation of corporal punishment in the Army. After all his efforts he found the minority, of which he was one, was not making much headway; but, suddenly and unexpectedly, that great man, the Commander-in-Chief, issued a mandate which deprived Courts martial of the powers which they then possessed. That was, he supposed, what the hon. Member called the compromise between the House of Commons and the Horse Guards. He (Captain Boldero) had accepted that compromise, and so had the House of Commons, and since then both the press and the public had been silent on the subject. It was probable that regulars and militia might be in garrison together; and would hon. Members think it fair that one branch of the public force should be liable to a punishment from which the other was exempt? The yeomanry also, which were strictly a volunteer corps, were subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he was rather astonished at the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. [Captain BOLDERO: I don't care if you are.] The boldness of that declaration does not remove my astonishment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been for years advocating the abolition of flogging in the Army. [Captain BOLDERO: I said abolition or mitigation.] Mitigation! What does that mean? It means that the thing is to be retained, and the infliction of the punishment made as unfrequent as possible. Flogging, then, was to be retained, and to be inflicted on the militia, who were to be invited voluntarily to enlist! The hon. and gallant Gentleman had been labouring to exempt the regular troops from the punishment, and not having succeeded, sought to subject the militia to it. He (Mr. Roebuck) contended that the militia were not a force which required such a punishment at all. Were honest and respectable men wanted in the force? If so, ought they to be liable to the degradation of flogging? Could any but the rabble and refuse be expected—if they were to be liable to the punishment? The voluntary enlistment would not succeed on such a system, and the ballot would never be endured. The people would not bear such a punishment: and any attempt to maintain the militia by such means of brute force would fail. The punishment of the stripes—that infernal punishment—[A laugh] —I am surprised that in an assembly of English Gentlemen a laugh and a sneer should he elicited by an allusion to the punishment of stripes, and that the right hon. Secretary of War should set the example. [Mr. BERESFORD: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon.] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I believe it was the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, who sits next him. [Col. DUNNE: I beg to say I laughed, but not at the punishment of stripes.] Only at the mention of it, I suppose. I can only say that I am surprised that in an assembly of Gentlemen this should be matter for laughter. If hon. Gentlemen wished to raise a useful body of men for the defence of the country, let them appeal to their patriotism and not to their fear. He did not wish for the enrolment of a militia; but if there was to be such a body, he intreated hon. Gentlemen to create such a body as would command the respect and affection of the whole people.

VISCOUNT JOCELYN

said, he did not rise to defend or to discuss the punishment of flogging. He had long deemed it one which ought only to be inflicted for degrading offences, and he believed it was only now applied to such offences by officers in the Army. He was persuaded that no more painful duty could be performed by any officer than that of sitting on a Court-martial which might might find it its duty to sentence a soldier to this punishment. This was not, however, the fitting time or occasion to discuss that question. When that time and occasion arrived, he should be ready to unite his voice with those who held flogging not a punishment to be inflicted in time of peace. But he begged to point out the imprudence and injustice of exempting the militia from all liability to the punishment to which the regular troops were in some cases subject. Now, let it be recollected, that the regulars and the militia might be cantoned in the same quarters; and would it be just that a soldier committing a certain offence should be sentenced to the punishment of flogging, and a militiaman who committed the same offence be exempted from it? Surely such a course would excite the greatest jealousy between the two forces, and prove destructive to the efficiency of both. It was true that the Irish constabulary were not liable to the punishment; but their pay was so far superior to that 6f the Army, that fear of dismissal was in itself sufficient to deter from crime. If this were so in the Army, corporal punishment could be dispensed with; of course, as it was, it must be retained—at least in time of war, or for degrading offences.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, it was impossible to subject a militia which was only enrolled for the space of twenty-one days to the same discipline which was exercised over regular troops. If they attempted this they would have that occurring which occurred during the last embodiment of this force, when a regiment of militia, quartered in the Isle of Ely, turned out and refused to allow punishments to be inflicted among them; and it was only by the aid of the sabres of a body of German cavalry that the officers were able to carry them out. He thought that this provision was one of all others most calculated to render this force unpopular in the country, and he should therefore vote for the proviso of the hon. Member for Manchester.

MR. CLAY

said, that there were two answers to the question which had been put several times in the course of the debate—whether Parliament was prepared to make a distinction between the militiaman and the regular soldier in this particular? One was to subject both to, and the other to except both equally from, this degrading punishment. As he was in favour of the latter proposition, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, he was glad once more to have the opportunity of lifting his voice against the humiliating, degrading, and inhuman punishment of flogging in the Army. He had for many years taken the deepest interest in the questions of enlistment and punishment in the Army, and considered there was nothing so degrading in the profession to which he had the honour to belong as the degrading punishment to which soldiers were subjected. He could not help feeling the utmost surprise at the course taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Boldero). For many years it had been his pride and satisfaction to follow and support the hon. and gallant Member in his exertions for the abolition of this punishment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman afterwards became Clerk to the Ordnance under Sir Robert Peel's Government. Was it to be supposed that that circumstance induced him to relinquish the course he had formerly pursued? The other night the hon. and gallant Member thought fit to lecture the Gentlemen of the Manchester School. He trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman would now come to his senses, and give his vote in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment. He regretted that it had been the practice in the regiment with which he was connected for the commanding officer to express an opinion to the Courts-martial as to the punishment which should be inflicted. He would not now distress the Committee by entering into any details of the disgusting exhibitions which sometimes took place, but would merely say that he had seen both officers and men carried out in a fainting state from the square where such punishments had been inflicted.

COLONEL PENNANT,

having been for many years in the same brigade as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken, and having acted as adjutant of a regiment, begged to say that he never remembered an instance of a commanding officer who expressed a wish to the members of a Court-martial on the subject of the punishment to be inflicted. The community and the civilian profited most by the strict discipline preserved in the Army. He did not agree that corporal punishment had a humiliating effect on soldiers. He did not believe there was any humiliating feeling in their minds on the subject; and for this reason, that the good and well-conducted soldier had no fear of it, and the bad one knew it was only inflicted as the last resort.

COLONEL KNOX

could add his testimony to that of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Pennant), with regard to the independence of members of Courts-martial; and he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Salwey) should make such an accusation against the service. He had served in the same brigade as those hon. and gallant Members, and he never knew a commanding officer attempt to bias the sentence of a Court-martial. He confidently denied the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow. He disapproved of the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn) that there should be one rule with regard to punishment in time of war, and another in time of peace. If discipline was to be kept up, there must be one rule which was always to prevail. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Colonel Pennant) in his belief that the Army did not view corporal punishment with abhorrence, because, as he justly said, the good soldier did not fear it, and it was the only thing which could bring the bad one into a state of discipline and order; and, as the Gentlemen of the Manchester school told them that there would be only vagabonds and rogues in the militia, it would not be possible to do away with the Mutiny Act as applied to the militia. If it was done away with, it would be a disorganised force, which would be a disgrace and a curse to the country.

COLONEL SALWEY

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) might not have heard of such cases, but he (Colonel Salwey) had. He knew, however, that such cases had occurred, and they had produced a most painful impression on his mind.

COLONEL CHATTERTON

Sir, I beg to assure the Committee no person present, either civil or military, views with feelings of greater disgust and abhorrence the cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment of corporal punishment than I do, and happily, I say, almost fallen into disuse in the Army. In the regiment I have had so many years the honour to command, it was never resorted to except in such extreme cases where every other means and every exertion had been tried to reclaim the delinquent, and not even then practised but for crime that in every other military service in Europe would be punished with leath. But, Sir, notwithstanding the detestation in which I hold it, I am convinced it is essentially necessary, for the preservation of discipline, to hold it in terrorem over the soldier, and therefore I should much regret if the power of inflicting it was removed from our military code; and I really cannot see any reason, nor have I beard any argument to convince me, why the militia should not be under the same provisions of the Mutiny Act as the regular Army, and the embodied yeomanry. It is quite an error to imagine the good, well-conducted soldier fears this punishment; such apprehensions are only confined to the delinquents and evil-minded men. Having heard nothing to convince me that my opinions are erroneous, I shall decidedly oppose any alteration being made in the clause now under discussion.

MR. WAKLEY

said, that both the hon. and gallant Members for Carnarvonshire and Marlow had stated that corporal punishment was not humiliating and not degrading—

COLONEL PENNANT

What I said was, that I did not believe it was considered a humiliating punishment, because the good soldier had no fear of being subject to the lash.

MR. WAKLEY

Then the observation applied only to the bad soldier, and to him the hon. and gallant Member thought it would not be humiliating and degrading, and that it was well adapted to promote discipline. He (Mr. Waldey) wanted to know why the same punishment was not applied to bad officers. If the lash was-the readiest means of preventing bad conduct in a man, why not include bad officers in precisely the same discipline? ["Oh, oh!"] They felt the lash now. It appeared to him extraordinary that there could be two opinions on the subject. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, not with standing what he heard in that debate, preserved so peculiar and ominous a silence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was now disapproving of the thing he had proposed, and had yielded to the pressure that had been put upon him. It was not necessary to use arguments to prove the degrading character of corporal punishment. The history of the Army furnished indisputable proofs of the propriety of the conduct of those who were opposed to it. Facts were more eloquent than anything that the tongue could utter on this subject. They had it from the best authority that the character of the Army had improved since that odious practice had almost fallen into desuetude. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had spoken with great candour on the subject, and it was evident his convictions were with those who were opposed to it, although he expressed a wish to retain the practice. He (Mr. Wakley) did not know what had come over the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Capt. Boldero), for he used to speak on this subject with a sincerity and a feeling that could not be doubted. But it was when he was on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Confound the atmosphere of that (the Ministerial) side! Dr. Reid's attention ought to be called to it, for there must be something wrong in its ventilation. It was asserted that flogging was only applicable to two offences. He would read the 25th section of the Mutiny Act. It was there stated that— A Court-martial shall have power to inflict corporal punishment for disgraceful conduct and neglect of duty, provided the number of fifty lashes is not exceeded. What was that disgraceful conduct? It consisted in— His wilfully maiming or injuring himself, or any other soldier, at the instance of such soldier, with the intent to render himself, or such soldier, unfit for service. In tampering with his eyes. In malingering, feigning disease, absenting himself from hospital whilst under medical care, or other gross violation of the rules of any hospital, thereby wilfully producing or aggravating disease or infirmity, or wilfully delaying his cure. So that if a man went into the air contrary to orders, he was liable to this punishment. Again— In purloining or selling Government stores: in stealing any money or goods, the property of a comrade, of a military officer, or of any military or regimental mess: in producing false or fraudulent accounts or returns: in embezzling or fraudulently misapplying public money entrusted to him: or in committing any petty offence of a felonious or fraudulent nature, to the injury of or with intent to injure any person, civil or military: or for any other disgraceful conduct, being of a cruel, indecent, or unnatural kind. He (Mr. Wakley) should say that, under those words, there were 500 offences which would subject a soldier to the punishment of flogging. Let it be remembered that the question was whether flogging was necessary for the discipline of the Army. When the proposition was first made in that House to abolish that punishment, it was not admitted that the number of lashes could be reduced without danger, and it was contended that unless Courts-martial had the power of flogging to any extent, discipline could not be maintained. Now, look at the changes that had been made. There had been instances of 1,500 lashes being inflicted, and there had been one instance in which 2,000 had been given, not at one time certainly, but under one sentence. Leaving out of the question the danger to human life by such a mutilation of the body, he asked what would hon. Members think of the effect on the mind of a man subjected to such a punishment? He must become a brokenhearted man, and could never again hold up his head in society, or ever hope to remain in his former position. However good his former conduct might have been, the stigma must go with him to his grave. The effects of the diminution of the punishment of flogging in the Army had so far been admirable; and he thought the Government would act wisely and gracefully if they availed themselves of this opportunity to abolish that vile and infamous system altogether. If they withheld the lash from the militia, it would be impossible to continue it much longer in the Army. He knew that there was no intention to endanger human life by this punishment, but he would state unequivocally and broadly as a medical man, that it was not possible to mutilate the skin even by fifty lashes without endangering life. Several cases had occurred of death arising from the slight puncture caused by vaccination; but that was a very different case from the laceration inflicted by nine torturing thongs with eight or nine knots on each of them. It was said that the militia men raised under this Act would generally be respectable men. If that were so, let the Committee take care what it was about to do. The Army had their minds and feelings familiar with this description of punishment; but consider the case of a man who came from a rural village, and went back to it from the militia as a flogged man. Why, the prospects of that man would be ruined for life. It appeared to him (Mr. Wakley) that a great opportunity was afforded to them on that occasion of getting rid of the practice of flogging altogether. He hoped that the Government would take advantage of it; but if they should not, as certainly as they forced that measure through the House, so certainly would they prepare for themselves a lash which would inflict upon them continual torture.

MR. EWART

said, that it had been proved by experience that the diminution of punishment in the Army had been accompanied by a diminution of crime, and it might therefore be hoped that a still further diminution of the former would be followed by a continued diminution of the latter. Some hon. Members had argued that corporal punishment was necessary, by way of example. Why, the same argument had been used for the retention of the pillory, and various other punishments. The House had been told by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn) that the degrading punishment of flogging was only inflicted for degrading offences. But he (Mr. Ewart) had before him the evidence which was given before a jury in the case of White, at Kensington, in 1846, which showed that for the offence of insolence to his sergeant in answering "Heigho!" when the latter called him, a young man named Matthewson, belonging to the same regiment with White (the 7th Hussars), was sentenced to receive 100 lashes. It was said that the good soldier need not fear the lash, but the same might be said of any punishment. He was quite sure that the country would give its verdict on this question, and that that verdict would not be in favour of the continuance of so degrading a punishment.

VISCOUNT JOCELYN

wished to make but a single remark as to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart). The evidence quoted by the hon. Gentleman was given by the party principally interested—the person himself whose conduct had given rise to the proceedings in question. It would be evidently unfair for the Committee to form any opinion on the question from a partial statement, and without having the statements on the other side before them.

MR. EWART

said, he had only read the man's statement as what it professed to be, and it was of course to be taken for what it was worth; but he was not aware, from his recollection of the case, that it had been contradicted on any material point.

COLONEL PEEL

said, if the hon. Member had read the whole of the evidence, he must know as well as possible that that was not the crime for which the man was published, and the hon. Member knew it as well as he did. It was quite untrue as a representation of the facts.

SIR WILLIAM VERNER

said, that having seen considerable service, he was satisfied that if they deprived commanding officers of the power of inflicting corporal punishment, they would never be able to maintain discipline in the Army.

MR. EWART

had understood the gallant Officer (Col. Peel) to say that the statement he had read was untrue. [Cries of "No, no!"] He certainly understood the hon. and gallant Member to say so. He understood the hon. and gallant Member—and it was not his own conviction alone—to say that what he had read was untrue, and that he (Mr. Ewart) knew it as well as the hon. and gallant Member. He was sure that if the hon. and gallant Member said so, he would at once retract his statement. Otherwise he (Mr. Ewart) would be obliged to tell him the truth upon the subject.

The CHAIRMAN

I am sure the Committee will join with me in thinking that the discussion is assuming a tone which ought not to be continued.

COLONEL PEEL

said, the statement the hon. Member for Dumfries had read was perfectly true as to the evidence given, not before the Court-martial, but at a Coroner's inquest. [Mr. EWART: I know that.] The whole subject was fully discussed at the time in that House, and the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the offence he had mentioned was not that for which the man was punished. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not say that he had never read the debate which took place upon the subject; and he must be perfectly well aware it was distinctly proved that the man was not flogged for the crime he had

MR. MILNER GIBSON

thought the hon. and gallant Member (Col. Peel) was labouring under some misapprehension, and that there was a confusion between two cases. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose that his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) was speaking of White's case. [Col. PEEL: Not a bit.] Then be (Mr. Gibson) did not understand the matter. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had told them that a person had stated on oath before a jury that, for certain conduct, he had undergone the infliction of 100 lashes; and if the hon. and gallant Member, or any other hon. Member could show that that statement was not true, of course, they were at liberty to do so.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

was satisfied that there was no more honourable court than a Court-martial; and he would therefore feel it his duty, whether the course he took might be unpopular or not, to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He only hoped that if the hon. Member for Manchester should ever find himself in the militia, he might be summoned before a Court-martial of which he (Col. Sibthorp) should be president.

COLONEL THOMPSON

said, ever since he had a seat in that House, he had omitted no opportunity of stating his conviction that the practice of corporal punishment was in reality a great bane and injury to the discipline of the Army; and the ground on which his opinion rested, was, that the discipline built on this foundation failed when the Army came before an enemy. He appealed to officers who had been in a situation to judge, whether that was not the fact. The universal cry in the Army then was, "You cannot be flogging men before the enemy." A system of discipline which {ailed when it was most needed, he thought was evidently bad. Was it not also a lamentable fact, that they should have a Mutiny Act which was not applicable to the cases to which they wanted to apply it? There was no man, be his station what it might, that was certain that, under certain possible circumstances, his sons might not be subjected to military law. He did not at all mean to deny, that under certain imaginable circumstances, all or any classes of the community might be called to turn out and serve, and must in Consequence be subjected to military law; but that was a reason why the military law should be a good one, and not why it should be bad. He must, therefore, give his support to anything which went to improve the military law. There was another light in which he could not help viewing this subject. He wished to impress upon the Government, and especially upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had acted so conciliatory a part on this question, that three fourths of the popular objection to this Bill was grounded on the apprehension that men compulsorily taken by the ballot would be subjected to corporal punishment. He had, perhaps, more opportunities than the right hon. Gentleman of communicating with the working classes, and he could assure him that this was what in popular parlance was the "hitch," on which the opposition of the public was grounded. If the right hon. Gentleman would frankly consent to leave the ballot to be decided on by the new Parliament, he would see whether it had not the effect of quashing three-fourths of the opposition to his Bill.

MR. HUME

would appeal to some Member of the Cabinet to state his opinion, and that of the Government, on a question of so much importance as that under discussion.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that he could assure the Committee that he had not refrained from expressing his opinion upon the question under discussion from any disinclination to do so, but because he thought that this particular point was one which lay not so much in his province as in that of bis right hon. Friend the Secretary at War. If, however, his opinion was asked, he was quite ready to state it. He thought it was clear that during this debate hon. Members bad been arguing the general question of the policy of corporal punishment being inflicted upon those engaged in military service. On the question whether it was or was not advisable, as a general rule, to do away with corporal punishment, he should refrain from expressing his opinion, partly from partial ignorance upon the subject; but also because that House having passed the Mutiny Act, which rendered soldiers in the Army liable to corporal punishment, the only question for them to decide was whether those who were to be enlisted in the militia should be placed on a different and better footing than the regular Army. Now, the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite had put that in so strong a light that he did not think (what-ever the House might do) that the Committee would assent to the proviso of the hon. Member for Manchester. For, suppose some of the militia force were placed in garrison with troops of the regular Army—the latter would feel it a degradation that they should he subjected to corporal punishment, if that was not also inflicted upon the militia. If the Committee wished to determine this question with reference to the militia, they must determine it with reference to all the forces, whatever they might be; and supposing that hereafter 'they should enter upon the general question, and decide that corporal punishment should not be inflicted in the Army, then he should agree that it should not be extended to the militia. But so long as it was retained in the Army, and thought necessary for the discipline of that part of our forces, he thought they were bound to apply it to the militia.

MR. HUME

was quite willing to allow those who enlisted in the militia voluntarily to remain liable to corporal punishment so long as that was applied to the Army generally; but he thought that this punishment should not be inflicted upon those who were compelled by the ballot to serve in the militia.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department should bear in mind that the Mutiny Act contained a clause which expressly stated that its provisions were not in any case to be applied to the militia, unless the Act raising that force should specially place it under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. The principle was therefore admitted that there was a difference between the forces for which the Mutiny Act was passed, and those which were to be raised under that Bill. And, further than that, the right hon. Gentleman would find that the clause in the present Bill which referred to the Act 42 Geo. III., carried this distinction to a certain length, Inasmuch as it only placed the militia under the Mutiny Act, with an exception as regarded life and limb. All he proposed was, that to these they should add the further exception of flogging. The principle of the distinction between the forces being already admitted by these two Acts, he asked the Committee to extend it to corporal punishment on behalf of 80,000 men, many, and it might be most, of whom would be called compulsorily from their homes and occupations. If they refused to admit the proviso that he had offered to them under these circumstances, they would not be acting in accordance with the principle which was involved in the distinction he had drawn; nor would they be acting fairly with regard to those whom they compelled to come into their service; and he believed they would outrage most seriously, and almost universally, the sentiments of the population of the United Kingdom.

Question put, "That this proviso he there added."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 92; Noes 199: Majority 107.

House resumed; Committee report progress.