Commons Sitting of 17 May 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.— For Carmarthen County, David Jones, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Poor Law Continuance (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland).
2o Nisi Prius Officers; Burgh Harbours (Scotland) (No. 2); Public Works.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEbegged to ask the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority a portion of the K division of the Metropolitan Police were ordered, on the 5th and 12th of April, to attend Divine service in St. Thomas's Church, Stepney, and in default of so doing were subjected to military drill? In order that the House might clearly understand the question, he would state a few facts. On Wednesday, the 5th of April, as he had been informed, there came down a peremptory order that 130 or 140 men of the division of police to which he had referred should attend service at St. Thomas's Church, Stepney, at half-past twelve o'clock that same day. The promulgation of this order created great amazement among the men. The alternative at the same time proposed was, that if they refused to go to church they should undergo an extra drill. One hundred of the men, after expressing their surprise at this unusual proceeding, consented to go to church. Thirty of them and one sergeant preferred the drill. These were Roman Catholics or Protestant Dissenters. On Wednesday, the 12th inst., the same thing again occurred. The men murmured and expressed their dissatisfaction, but the majority of them consented to go to church. Thirty-eight of them, however, refused, and were sent to drill. These were occurrences of so singular a character in this country of religious freedom, that he could not but think that some explanation was required respecting them. When men entered the police force it was not customary
684
to make any inquiry of them as to the religion they professed; but this was the first occasion he had ever heard of, in which, without regard to the religious feelings of the men, coercive measures were used to compel them to attend the Divine service of the Established Church.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. Member was not quite correct in his facts. No orders had been given for a compulsory attendance at Divine worship, nor had the men been subjected to any additional drill for not attending. The facts were these: many men in the force were precluded, by the nature of their duties, from attending Divine service on Sundays; but it was found practicable to afford an opportunity of voluntarily attending church on Wednesdays to those who were prevented from doing so on Sunday, and several of the men cheerfully availed themselves of that regulation. It was found, however, that those men who did not wish to attend church had nothing to do between the time of being inspected and the time of going to their pay (Wednesday being the pay-day), and it was considered a judicious regulation that those who did not wish to go to church should have their drill in that half-hour. It was not an additional drill, but was substituted for one which, under any circumstances, they would have had to undergo.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEwas still of opinion that the statement he had made of the case was the correct one, and was inclined to believe that an erroneous version of the facts had been communicated to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the men were sent to drill in default of going to church; and he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that he was in a position to show that this was an additional drill, and not in substitution of any other drill to be undergone on any other day. He begged the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these facts.
MR. WALPOLE: The hon. Member gave notice of the question which he intended to ask this evening, and the information which I procured was with reference to that question, and that question only. I do think that, if the hon. Gentleman means to challenge the accuracy of my information, it is but fair that before he does so, I should be allowed an opportunity of obtaining additional information.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Well, be it so; but be it remembered that what I stated' was, that the men were compelled to go to

685
drill in default of going to church, and that statement the right hon. Gentleman has not controverted.

FROME VICARAGE—THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg that, by the favour of the House, I may be permitted to take this opportunity of conveying to them the result of the investigation which Her Majesty's Government undertook to make as to the remedies that exist with respect to an alleged grievance relative to the institution of the vicar of Frome. After the discussion that took place in this House some three weeks ago [see vol. cxx. p. 895], Her Majesty's Government requested the Crown officers to report to them as to the means which Her Majesty might possess to make such an inquiry as was then suggested to be expedient. Sir, the Crown officers have reported to Her Majesty's Government that Her Majesty had no means of making any efficient inquiry with reference to the circumstances in question: that it would not be possible, if a commission were issued, that the Commissioners would be able to summon before them the witnesses they might deem necessary, and to compel the production of that evidence which they might think it expedient should be brought forward; or even to render compulsory the presence of those parties at the investigation who were directly informed upon it. It was even reported to the Government by the Crown officers that if such a commission were issued, and if, in despite of those difficulties, a course of bold investigation was taken, the commission might assume the character of a court of ecclesiastical inquiry, and in that character would be an evident breach of the Bill of Rights. Sir, irrespective of those legal opinions of the Crown officers, Her Majesty's Government have viewed with great suspicion such a course as was suggested for their adoption on the evening in question. Without giving any opinion upon or presuming to prejudge the instance in question, the Government have felt that when a person violates the law, we give him a great advantage if we attempt to vindicate the law in an illegal manner; and therefore not only from the opinion of the Crown officers, but as a question of policy, the Government were of opinion that the course pressed upon their adoption would fail in the object which I believe both sides of the House desire to attain; and might
686
not only fail in the object, but might give an advantage to the person who possibly may have offended. Under these circumstances, and feeling the matter to be one of a gravity that cannot be exaggerated— believing that if it be possible under the existing law for a person in communion with another Church to be instituted with impunity into a living of the Church of England—that that would be a grievance intolerable to, and an act of oppression upon, the people of this country— Her Majesty's Government, if they had seen no means of redress obvious or possible, would notwithstanding the state of the Session, have felt it their duty to bring the question under the consideration of the House of Commons; but, Sir, before they should take a course of that description, they felt it their duty to inquire whether, irrespective of the means suggested in the debate to which I have referred—I mean irrespective of an inquiry to be instituted by Her Majesty—there were no other means of redress open under the circumstances alleged. They submitted, therefore, the whole condition of the question in that aspect to the Crown officers, and they have been advised by the Crown officers that in the law as it at present exists there are sufficient means of redress; that by the Act of the 3rd & 4th of the Queen, chap. 86, called the Church Discipline Act, it is open to any parishioner of Frome who may complain of a grievance such as that described by the hon. Member who brought this subject before the House (Mr. Horsman), to appeal either to the bishop of the diocese in which such offence against the law has been committed— [Laughter.] I hope the House will allow me to explain the case as represented to the Government. I am sure the Members of the House will have many opportunities of bringing forward their opinions; it is my duty to state the opinion which we have received as to the law of the case, and the conclusion that the Government have formed in consequence of that opinion. I repeat that we are advised that under the law, as it at present exists, any parishioner of Frome may appeal to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offences are said to have been committed, or to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offender now holds preferment: he may call on either of those prelates to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances; and if the result of that commission of inquiry is a primâ

687
facie case against the alleged offender, in that case it is also in the power of both these prelates, or either of them, at once to institute a judicial inquiry. That judicial inquiry would then investigate the whole of the facts; and if the alleged offender were thought guilty of the offences charged, would punish him by depriving him of the preferment he enjoyed, or suspending him from the exercise of any of his sacred functions. Now, it does appear to me that, as yet, no parishioner of Frome has sought redress by this mode. It appears that up to the present moment no appeal has been made either to the Bishop of London, in whose diocese these offences against ecclesiastical discipline are said to have taken place, no appeal has been made to him to issue a commission; nor has any appeal been made to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offender now holds preferment. I was somewhat surprised at the expression of feeling which ventured to notice a few moments ago, because Her Majesty's Government cannot share in the feelings which that expression would seem to indicate as being the prevalent opinion of some Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Her Majesty's Government have a confidence in the discretion and sense of duty which animate the conduct of the Prelates of the Church, and they cannot, therefore, for a moment suppose that they would offer any opposition to the course of justice and the cause of truth. But, Sir, the House may see that there is a legal remedy in existence which has not been appealed to by those who complain; and Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that the House of Commons will agree with them that nothing can be more unwise than to have recourse to any violent act, where it can be shown that the means of redress in existence have not only not been exhausted, but not even been appealed to. This is the real state of the case. If the inquiry, such as was proposed by the hon. Member for Cockermouth some time ago, had been adopted by Her Majesty, we could legally have arrived at no other result than that at which we have arrived; and I am sure that the House of Commons would not wish to arrive at any result in an illegal manner. The Government have been advised—and I may say I hope without ostentation, that we have, irrespectively of the advice of the Crown lawyers, given the subject the gravest and most painful consideration—they have been ad-
688
vised that there is a legal remedy in existence, which has not been availed of by those who complain of the grievance. Under these circumstances the Government do not doubt but the House of Commons will agree with them—that it is of the utmost importance that, before any other step is taken, those who complain of the grievance should seek that redress the law has placed at their disposal.
MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the meaning of a part of the explanation he has just given. ["Order!"] I can assure the House it has reference to a point which is involved in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I wish to know if I am right in understanding him to say that Her Majesty's Government have ascertained that the steps which were taken by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, whose conduct was impugned on a former occasion, in the matter of the institution of Mr. Bennett as vicar of Frome—that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, according to the information they have received, was in due course and in all points according to law?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I confess I cannot exactly understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells."
MR. GLADSTONE: I understood that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the institution of Mr. Bennett, was distinctly impugned on a former night, as not being according to law; and it is on that account that in the discussion which then took place, I suggested that the Government should ascertain and state whether that was so or not.
MR. HORSMAN: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have concluded with some formal Motion, because there are some points in his statement which it would be rather convenient to notice. Still, though it is not quite regular, perhaps the House will allow me to make an observation upon one point in that statement which refers partly to a question of law, and partly to the complaint which I made when I brought forward the Motion upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that no parishioner of Frome has appealed either to the Bishop of London, as the prelate in whose diocese the alleged offences were committed, or to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, as the prelate in whose diocese the

689
alleged offender holds preferment. Let me remind the right hon. Gentlemen that the whole of my statement, when I made that Motion, was directed to what took place after Mr. Bennett's nomination to the living of Frome, and to circumstances which occurred, not in the diocese of Bath, but to other circumstances which occurred in the dioceses of Bath and London and on the Continent, and which seemed to me to make an inquiry desirable. In illustration of what I stated to the House the other night, I will read two lines, with the purport of which the Government is perfectly acquainted, for I took the precaution of making them aware of it. I hold in my hand Battersby,s Catholic Directory, in which there is a list of converts to the Roman Catholic religion given monthly, and in the month of July (1851) I find this entry:—"Mr. W. J. E. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, has been received into the Church. Deo gratias." Now, as to the redress of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. The Commission would have to be appointed by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, supposing the offence to have taken place in his diocese, and it would consist of five clergymen, to be nominated by the Bishop, so that the appeal would be made to him, and the judges by whom the inquiry is conducted would be nominated by him. That is the whole amount of redress which the existing law affords; but for an offence committed abroad there is no redress whatever. I brought forward my Motion a month ago, and I now understand that the whole of the"bonâ fide inquiry," which was promised us by the right hon. Gentleman, has resulted in merely taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, I shall move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations which I have already brought before the notice of the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I trust the House will permit me to make an observation as to the point upon which the hon. Gentleman has now touched. In the first place, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I was speaking of the redress which was sought for by the parishioners of Frome; and in anything which took place between them and the Bishop of Bath and Wells, no allusion whatever was made as to what occurred abroad. The hon. Gentleman
690
misconceives—no doubt from my imperfect expression—the spirit and tone of the communication I have made to the House. That which I desired to state to the House, and which Her Majesty's Government considered as of paramount importance, was, that there are means of redress under the existing law. I gave no opinion upon the point whether, according to the views of the hon. Gentleman, or other hon. Gentlemen, those means are perfect or imperfect—efficient or inefficient. But the House will agree with me that the means of redress offered by the law should always be exhausted before we take into consideration what course should he pursued to supply that redress. That is all I felt it necessary to impress upon the House; and I will not, therefore, notice the taunt or sneer of the hon. Gentleman about time having been wasted upon this subject. It was for me to communicate to the House that which it was of great importance it should know; but with regard to the investigation of Directories, or what has occurred on the Continent, the fact is this—that as the law at present exists, no misconduct under such circumstances can be reached, and that, no doubt, is a subject worthy the consideration of the House. I will not make a statement upon any of those alleged facts. I will merely say, generally, that I have seen many letters which were written—not anonymously, but by persons who are no friends of Mr. Bennett—and which give a very different version of these circumstances. Indeed, the Government do not wish to mix themselves up in any way with the circumstances which have taken place abroad. If they found that the Crown could by any means of its own institute an efficient inquiry with a view to eliciting the truth, they would be perfectly ready to recommend it; but it would be trifling with the House to counsel the Queen to institute an inquiry which they know, by the advice of the Crown officers, as well as by their own experience, would end in nothing but disappointment and annoyance: their duty, therefore, is simply to lay before the House that which they believe to be the real state of the law. With regard to the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), I confess that, at this moment, I do not understand the meaning of his inquiry. As far as we are advised, there was nothing illegal in the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; but his conduct, in the institution of Mr. Bennett,

691
Under the circumstances, does not in the least affect the privilege of the parishioners of Frome in appealing to either of the two prelates, and especially to the Bishop of London, for redress of the grievances they complain of. And that is the course which, upon the whole, I think it most expedient they should pursue.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the declaration of the Government only served to fortify his previous opinion. He had made himself acquainted with all the circumstances of the case as connected with the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and when the time came he would he perfectly prepared to show that that right rev. Prelate had acted not only up to the letter hut to the spirit of the law throughout the whole transaction.

MILITIA BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Clause 14 (Volunteers to be sworn and enrolled).
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he objected to the clause in its present shape, because the militia might be compelled to serve in Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom in which they bad not been raised.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that under the 42nd Geo. III., the oath of a militiaman was to serve in Great Britain, but by the 51st Geo. III., militia in England and in Ireland respectively might be interchanged. As the militia law was still in force in Ireland, and the Irish militia might be brought here, the militiamen in England ought to be liable, interchangeably, to be transferred there. Of course, the power would not be put in force except in case of necessity, but it was right to retain it.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the. object of the Interchanging Act was connected with a particular department of the duties of the militia—namely, the suppression of insurrection and rebellion within the Kingdom. But that duty not being required of them under the present Bill, he did not see there could be the same necessity for sending the English militia to Ireland. A law of this nature ought not to be confined to one portion of the United Kingdom only, though he would not move that it should be extended to either Scotland or Ireland. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman said there was not the slightest possibility that the power would be used, he (Mr. Bright) suggested that in this case the Bath in the 42 Geo. III., which confined
692
the operations of the militia to England and Wales, should be substituted for the one referred to in the clause.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope that the Government will not accede to any such proposal as that which has emanated from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. The militia of each island was originally limited in service to the island where it was raised; but the object of a militia force not being to suppress rebellion or insurrection, but rather to defend the country from foreign invasion, it was found inconvenient to confine the English militia to Great Britain, and the Irish militia to Ireland, and the Legislature therefore altered that restriction of service, and declared that all militiamen should be liable to serve in any portion of the United Kingdom to which they might be sent. So far from seeing a reason for the ancient restriction in the fact that it is proposed by Government to raise the militia only in Great Britain, it appears to me that that is an additional argument why we should preserve the arrangement of the Act of 1812. The reason why any militia is required is, that you may possibly need additional force, beside the troops of the line, to repel a foreign invasion; but in case of war, I cannot see that Ireland may not be just as likely to be invaded as England. Nor can I think that the fact that the Government does not think fit to raise a militia at present in Ireland, should be received as a reason why the English militia should not be sent to that country. The argument to be deduced from that fact appears to me to take a totally different direction, and to be conclusive as to the expediency of reserving to ourselves the power of sending the English militia to Ireland, in case the prospect of a foreign invasion should render it desirable to do so.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLhoped that there would be a militia neither in England nor Ireland. The Government was certainly a little inconsistent, for in another place they had granted a Committee to investigate Captain Warner's invention, which was to render it unnecessary to have a militia at all. He (Sir G. Pechell) thought there was a great deal of humbug about Captain Warner's invention, but he was willing to let it continue if they could by any means get rid of this Bill. It had been said that the only way to get rid of protection was to place it upon the Treasury benches; and he supposed that the only way to get rid of Captain Warner was

693
to allow him the Committee moved for by the noble Lord in the other House.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, by the haste with which he had risen, seemed desirous to prevent the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary from speaking, lest he should commit himself. The noble Lord seemed to be the big brother of the Government. The noble Lord exclaimed the other night —"What, would you treat the people of Ireland as if they were traitors?" Why then would the noble Lord exclude that part of the United Kingdom from the operation of the Bill? It was a special ground of complaint against the Bill, that, enforcing it in one portion of the Kingdom only, they took balloted men from that portion, and insisted upon their serving in parts of the United Kingdom to which the Bill did not apply. That was not just dealing with the people of England and Wales. The noble Lord's inconsistencies were interminable. The noble Lord said that Ireland was as likely to be invaded as England; but supposing that 60,000 French soldiers were to land some foggy night at Kinsale, or Bantry Bay, or wherever else the noble Lord had fixed upon in the south of Ireland for that purpose, did the noble Lord think that the 80,000 militiamen, who were snugly in their beds, or pursuing their habits of industry in England, could be collected and taken over in time to arrest the progress of the invaders? The noble Lord seemed to be able to force the Government to do anything; but he (Mr. Bright) did not wish him to force the Government to extend the militia to Scotland and Ireland. He did, however, hope the noble Lord would support him in his proposition, that the oath should not be so constructed as to force men balloted in England to serve in Ireland and Scotland.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the clause necessary. If it were intended to employ the militia to suppress insurrection or rebellion, the Bill might be objectionable if it proposed to send them to Ireland for that purpose. But it was only intended to send them for the defence of the country, and to enable the Government to bring over the troops of the line from Ireland to England, in case this country should be invaded. Unless the necessity arose, this power would not be put in force, but if that necessity did arise, the power ought to be put in force, consequently the power ought to exist in the Bill.
COLONEL CHATTERTONwould advise the Government to take the advice of military men upon military matters, and not to suffer themselves to be misled by the vague assertions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He trusted there would be no alteration in the clause.
MR. HUMEsaid, this was not a military question at all, but whether a man drafted into the militia against his will, would be obliged to take an oath. The objections to the Bill were twofold: first, there was no necessity for the force; and, secondly, that it was inconsistent and improper for a moribund Parliament to take upon itself to establish an army of reserve. His main objection was to the 16th Clause, and if the Government would consent to forego the compulsory power of conscription which that clause gave, his opposition to the measure would be much mitigated. He believed the Government would not have proceeded with a Militia Bill, if the late Government had not introduced one.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Manchester propose any Amendment?
MR. BRIGHT: Yes; and my Amendment is based on the simple ground, that Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are excluded from the operation of the clause now under consideration. [Mr. WALPOLE: No; not Wales.] Well, then, Ireland and Scotland. 80,000 men were to be raised by the 1st of January next. If there were not enough of volunteers, compulsion, in the shape of the ballot, was to be resorted to. Now, the proposal of the Government was, that those men so balloted for should be sworn to serve for five years, and they might be called upon to serve, not only in England, where they were raised, but also in Scotland or Ireland, to which they did not belong, at the disposition of the Home Secretary. If the whole of the United Kingdom were placed under the provisions of the measure, an argument might be used on the score of equality of transfer; and if militia were sent from England to Scotland or Ireland, so militia might be sent from Scotland and Ireland to England. But here there was no such reciprocity; and he complained that so little regard was paid to the liberty of the subject, and to the wishes and feelings of the English people. He proposed that the oath which was in the Militia Act 42 Geo. III., which did not allow the militia to go out of Great Britain, should be substituted for the 51 Geo. III., which

695
did. He could not see upon what principle of justice or fairness the Government could ask Englishmen who were forced into the militia to go to Scotland or Ireland.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) promised that, if they would only confine their Bill to volunteers, he would vote with them. That hon. Member objected to the clause they were upon, because he said parties were to be forced by it to take the oath in question. He would find, however, that it referred in express terms, not to the persons balloted for, and forced to take the oath, but to the volunteer. Perhaps, under these circumstances, the hon. Member would vote with the Government. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), again, considered that the proper way would be to adopt the oath of the 42 Geo. III., instead of that of the 51 Geo. III. But even this, the 42 Geo. III., applied to service throughout Great Britain, to Scotland as well as England and Wales. This, he repeated, was a question as to what oath volunteers were to take; not as to what oath balloted men were to take—a question whether they would adopt the oath by which volunteers might be sent wherever, in the kingdom, they were required, or whether they would substitute for it that by which they might be sent to all parts of England and Scotland, but not into Ireland.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: The Attorney General surely could not intend to have one oath for balloted men, and another for volunteers. The oath must surely be the same for both. This was a good reason why they should postpone the consideration of some of the clauses until the Committee had decided whether the ballot would be adopted. He thought it was most unjust to impose the provisions of this clause upon England, and not upon Scotland or Ireland, which were to derive the benefit of the force to be raised in England exclusively. An Irish Member had observed to him that Ireland was peculiarly a soldier-growing country, and if the Government wanted to raise an extra force, he thought it was better for them to employ Irishmen, who were now unemployed, or with bad wages, than to have recourse to the people of England, who were generally fully employed, and with much better wages.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he understood the effect of this clause was, that
696
the militia might be exercised and trained anywhere in England or Wales. There was no intention on the part of the Government, and he believed they would have no power, to take the militia, whilst being trained, out of England and Wales. But when the militia were, embodied there would be great disadvantage if, in case of necessity, the Government would not be able to remove the militia to any part of the United Kingdom. If a necessity arose for it, the militia would probably be embodied in Ireland as well as in England. If the militia were to be raised in the way volunteers were formerly raised—by beat of drum, and not by ballot—having an embodied militia in England and in Ireland, and in that case, if a portion of the English militia were drafted to Ireland, there was no reason why a portion of the Irish force should not be drafted to England. As to the observation of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he begged to say this was not his (Lord J. Russell's) Bill. It had been changed by the succeeding Administration, and he was in no manner responsible for it. He would not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester.
MR. MOWATTwould remind the Committee that if the militia were raised in England alone, the proportion would be 5,000 out of every 1,000,000, whereas if the 80,000 men were extended over the whole United Kingdom, the rate would be only 3,000 in the 1,000,000.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbelieved that no Act was necessary to raise a militia by voluntary enlistment in Ireland. He knew that during the war the Irish militia was raised by volunteering; and he should rather apprehend that the Act being still in force, no change in the law was necessary there as in England. By the existing laws relating to England, balloted men would be liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, and thus there would likewise be no necessity for legislation respecting them. The object of the clause was merely to make volunteers liable to the same extent of service as the balloted men.
MR. BRIGHT: I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, though I believe upon the constitutional part of the question I had the best of the argument.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 15.
Clause 16 (Where men cannot be raised

697
by voluntary enlistment, Her Majesty in Council may order a Ballot).
MR. CHARTERISsaid, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, by urging general arguments against the Bill. As the Government had consented not to enforce the compulsory clauses till after the new Parliament had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon, they had done well; but he thought it would have been still better to omit these clauses altogether. Their retention destroyed the popularity of the Bill, and might endanger its passing. But for those clauses it was probable the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would not have opposed the measure. The ballot ought only to be had recourse to in cases of extreme necessity; these were not likely to arise, according to the admission of the Government themselves, who, in introducing the measure, recommended it as one of voluntary enlistment; it would therefore be better to make a trial of the voluntary portion first. Circumstances might arise to make a resort to the ballot necessary; such an emergency was contemplated by the 26th Clause, which authorised the force to be raised to 120,000 men in the event of an invasion, or imminent danger thereof. In that event a ballot might be necessary; and if the 16th Clause were struck out, the 26th would have to be considerably altered; but this would involve no legal difficulty. It was out of no factious spirit that he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, but solely from a desire to give greater efficiency to the measure.
Amendment proposed in p. 6, 1. 25, to leave out the words "by Ballot."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the reasons which had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman were very strong reasons for retaining the words in the clause, for the hon. Gentleman admitted that in certain cases it might be necessary to have recourse to the ballot. The Committee would remember that the two objects of this Bill were, first to raise 80,000 men to co-operate in the defence of the country, ready to take the field, or to go into garrison; and, second, to raise the men, if possible, by voluntary enlistment, according to the preamble of the Bill, "with as little disturbance as may be to the ordinary occupations of the country." The basis of the Bill was volunteer enlistment, although, if volunteer enlistment failed, recourse must be had to the ballot, or else
698
they would not have that body of men which by the Votes of that House they had declared to be necessary for the defence of the country. His hon. Friend (Mr. Charteris) said the Government had made a material alteration in this clause. They had made no alteration which affected the principle of the Bill, but they said they would take a permissive power to raise men by ballot when voluntary enlistment failed, but not before. It would be impossible to ascertain how far voluntary enlistment would answer their anticipations until six months had elapsed, during which time they would be making the experiment; and the insertion, therefore, of the words "after the 31st of December" was only giving in writing what the Committee had already heard by word of mouth from the Government—that they would do their best to raise volunteers before they put the ballot in force. Assuming that he was right in saying that the Committee had already provided a number of men as a permanent force, to be partially trained and drilled, and ready for service, and assuming that the Government must obtain them by some other way than by voluntary enlistment, as the Bill was now framed they were possessed of two inducements: first, by offering a bounty; and, secondly, by operating on the parishes to get volunteers, through fear of having the ballot put in force in those parishes which did not contribute their quota of men. Under these circumstances, he thought it important that the compulsory clauses should be retained. If they could obtain a sufficient number of men by voluntary enlistment, the Bill was so drawn that there would be no necessity to have recourse to the compulsory clauses; but if they could not, he thought, according to all argument,' that the Government ought to have compulsory powers to raise 80,000 men, which they considered, and the Committee by its Votes considered, was the number necessary for the efficient defence of the country.
MR. PETOsaid, he believed that he had been more extensively engaged with the industrious classes of this country than any Member in that House, and he thought that the better course would be for the Government to postpone this question of the ballot, in order that they might have an opportunity of testing the opinion of the country on the subject, and of ascertaining whether or not the proposed system of voluntary enlistment would work well.

699
If it failed, then the Government might come to the new Parliament and ask for the ballot. But even in that case he should prefer an addition to the regular Army, rather than a mere conscription under the name of the ballot. He could assure the Committee that the working men regarded the ballot with great jealousy and dislike. They were firmly attached to their Queen and to the institutions of the country; and he might mention that on a memorable occasion—the celebrated 10th of April—7,000 workmen in his own employ came to him and offered their services, which he was authorised to place at the disposal of the Government, to be used in any way thought desirable in the defence of the country against anarchy and confusion.
MR. EWARTwould also advise the Government to take powers to raise volunteers only. If they required a greater force, let them add to the regular Army, and particularly to the artillery, which, in modern warfare, would be found the most important branch of the service.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he could join his testimony to that of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Peto) as to the strong feeling of the working classes against the compulsory clauses, to which he attributed the odium expressed to the measure, and the great obstructions offered to its passing through the House. In conceding those clauses, the Government would yield no point, because they intended to rely upon the voluntary system until the end of the year. In the intervening period they had an experiment to try; and if that experiment should fail, and if the new Parliament should be convinced of the necessity of such a measure, no doubt powers and functions would then be readily granted by the Legislature. He contended, further, that by insisting now upon the compulsory clauses, which were to be inoperative until the end of the year, they would most materially impede and damage the trial they were about to make of the voluntary system; they would keep alive the feelings of opposition which had been excited in the country; they would sustain all the antipathy felt by the working classes; and they would extend that antipathy to those who, without the dread of the ballot, might be disposed to assist as volunteers.
MR. HUDSONsaid, that he had supported the Bill of the Government up to the present time, because he believed that
700
the proposed volunteer force could be raised. But he did not think it was necessary to arm the Government with the compulsory clauses which were in the Bill. He must say that there was one universal feeling amongst his constituents against the introduction of the ballot. He had voted for the Bill, not because he admitted the urgency of such a measure, but because he relied on some information which appeared to be in the possession not only of the late but also of the present Governments. He should think it better to increase the standing Army; but, on the whole, he must express his hope that the Government would be induced to abandon this part of the measure. Under these circumstances, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charteris).
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he thought the arguments so clear, that if the Committee would just consider them for a moment, they would not hesitate to come to a conclusion in favour of this clause. The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Charteris) was not against raising a militia; he had voted with the Government upon all the divisions; and had acceded, as the House by large majorities had acceded, to the proposition that a force not exceeding 80,000 men should be raised. It was expected that force would be raised by voluntary enlistment. The reserving to the Government the power to raise the force by ballot, supposing it could not be raised by voluntary enlistment, was only a precautionary measure. He felt, as strongly as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the extreme probability that the force would be raised by voluntary enlistment; but he put it to the Committee, having admitted the necessity of giving Government power to raise that force, and assuming the possibility of its not being raised by voluntary enlistment, why not give the Government power to complete the force by ballot? The hon. Member for Haddingtonshire asked them to expunge these compulsory clauses, and defer them to the consideration of a new Parliament; and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) said, if the Government did not succeed in raising the force by voluntary enlistment, they would have no difficulty whatever in obtaining these powers from a succeeding Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had over and over again said nothing was so odious, so

701
detestable to the country, as this ballot, which the Government proposed to resort to only in the event of their not succeeding in raising the force by voluntary enlistment. The Government could not, therefore, come to another Parliament to ask for the ballot, without having entirely failed with voluntary enlistment; they would come, proposing this odious detestable measure, with, if he might use the expression, all its naked deformity, having nothing to substitute for it; and the hon. Member was sanguine enough to suppose that if the Government were unable to raise by voluntary enlistment the number of men which the House had conceded they ought to have the power to raise, in another Parliament they would obtain the power of raising men by ballot. He submitted, the proposition was perfectly clear, that when that House had conceded to the Government the power to raise these men, and by that concession admitted they were necessary for the defence of the country, the measure would be left incomplete and imperfect, unless they provided for that contingency which not probably, but possibly, might arise, namely, that the Government might be unable to raise men by voluntary enlistment.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Charteris) asked the Government to postpone a power which they professed they did not intend to exercise, to the consideration of another Parliament; and the answer of the Attorney General was in substance—"Do not tell me to come before a new Parliament for the ballot, because then I must put the ballot before them in its naked deformity; but let me take the ballot now, behind the defence of a professed voluntary enlistment, and then, with that defence before me, I can induce the present Parliament to give practically the coercive power of the ballot, though in time of profound peace I dare not ask any Parliament to give it, unless disguised by some other propositions." He submitted that was a perfectly candid manner of stating the argument of the Attorney General; and the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised— he would not say in its naked deformity— had raised in its true light the practical proposition which they were now called upon to concede, namely, that in time of profound peace they were to submit the Queen's subjects to compulsory conscription, through means of the ballot. Practically for twenty years there had been a
702
power to raise the militia by ballot; but that power had been suspended, with a power reserved in the suspending Act for the Queen to call it into operation by an Order in Council. In case of danger from foreign invasion, that power would be exercised; in time of no danger that power would not be exercised. If they passed this clause as it stood, they would enact this proposition: not that in time of actual danger, or when danger was imminent, but in time of profound peace, as a subsidiary means of levying 80,000 men, the Queen's advisers might have recourse to the ballot. He would ask the Committee to consider what that ballot was. They were going virtually to levy a tax for the maintenance of the safety of the country, not as other taxes, upon the whole of the Queen's subjects impartially, but they were going to say to rich and poor, their names should all be thrown into the urn, and it should depend entirely upon chance which should be called to render this service to the State. He would put a case A man struggling for existence, who complained already of the incidence of some taxes because they could not be levied fairly, might be drawn, and if substitutes Were as expensive as they used to be, might be compelled to pay 20 l. or 30 l. There were many men to whom 30 l. was no trifle. At any rate, they had no right to levy the tax in so partial a manner. The man might be a professional man, and he must either raise the 30 l. or leave his profession, the leaving which would be losing the means of existence. That was the proposition which the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire resisted; and the Government could not say it was a vexatious or dilatory objection, because they admitted themselves they should not call the ballot into operation until after the 31st of December, and although they had asked for 80,000 men, they had since stated that if they obtained 40,000 by voluntary enlistment, they would not resort to it. At any rate, another Parliament must consolidate the law upon this subject, and they (the Opposition) said, "We have given you, by the Votes of the House, all that you ought to require—we have enabled you to make the preliminary arrangements for a militia— we have enabled you to raise a militia by voluntary enlistment, but We decline by passing these clauses to give you the power to raise a militia by compulsory conscription in time of profound peace, not only upon no allegation of danger, but when

703
you acknowledge that you do not mean to exercise that power for six months to come, and that there is no case of exigency to demand it.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Government would have no security that they could obtain the requisite number of men if the Committee consented to omit this compulsory power.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he did not believe that the omission of the compulsory clauses would deprive the Government of one single man before the new Parliament met. They themselves had postponed the operation of the ballot to the 1st of January, 1853. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that even when it was begun to be put into operation, four months would elapse before he could get a single man; therefore, until this time next year they could not command a single man by the process of the ballot. He should not vote for the Amendment with a view of rejecting the ballot altogether, but because, if postponed, a consideration might be given to the revision as well as the consolidation of the law, so as to give greater facilities in calling out the force for active service. Under the Bill of the late Government the cost would have fallen upon the general taxation of the country, and not upon each particular county. By this Bill the expense would be charged on the county rates; he did not know whether that was one of the new modes of taxation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was inclined to think it would not be very popular with his supporters.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: My impression is, that, by rejecting this compulsory clause, you will materially affect the chance of success of voluntary enlistment. A man will enlist if he sees the eventuality of the ballot in the distance; and the effect of the ballot in districts in obtaining volunteers, is a very strong reason why we should retain this clause. I repeat that, if you reject this clause, the success of voluntary enlistment will be seriously affected.
MR. RICEsaid, the substitutes would be supplied from the same class as volunteers. If those persons knew that by refusing to volunteer, they could force on the ballot, and as substitutes they could get 20 l. or 30 l., instead of 6l. as volunteers, they would abstain from volunteering, and
704
soon compel the Government to have'recourse to the ballot.
MR. WAKLEYconsidered that the argument of the fear of the ballot inducing voluntary enlistment was valueless, because the Government had announced that there would be no ballot this year. There was a very strong objection to the ballot; and the other day he heard of artisans in one shop having declared that, if drawn, they would rather go to gaol than serve. He hoped the Amendment would be carried, and that they would thus get rid of the Bill.
MR. GEACH,as an employer of some thousands of men, knew their repugnance to being called from their occupation to serve or be trained as soldiers. The hon. and learned Attorney General had argued that they ought to have the ballot to resort to if voluntary enlistment failed. When they voted the number of men for the Army, they might as well vote that if they could not get those men for the usual bounty, they should force men to enter the Army. He believed that there was a very strong feeling in the country that there was no necessity for a militia at all; and if any defensive measures were required, he thought that a large majority of the population would prefer an increase of the standing Army.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTwished to make an observation on the argument of the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Rice), with respect to the persons who he said would be deterred from offering themselves as volunteers, because they would get large sums by acting as substitutes. It was true that 20 l. or 30 l. was paid for a substitute at a time when 500,000 men were under arms, and war was actually going on; but it was absurd to suppose that any such sum would be given at present. The probability was that no larger sum would be paid for a substitute than the bounty offered by the Government. With regard to the clause, he thought it ought to be retained as it stood. They must not play tricks with this compulsory power, which in circumstances of difficulty must be resorted to by the Government. The exercise of that power might be indispensable for manning the Navy; and if the ballot were struck out of the Bill, it would tend to weaken the power and right of the Government to claim the services of its citizens in times of emergency.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he had not joined in any opposition that appeared of a

705
factious character against Her Majesty's Government during the discussions of this measure; but he must say that there was in many parts, and especially in the city he had the honour to represent, a great and growing feeling against raising men by ballot.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 110: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Freestun, Col.

Arkwright, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bagge, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Bagot, hon. W.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Bailey, C.

Galway, Visct.

Baillie, H. J.

Gilpin, Col.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Barrow, W. H.

Hallewell, E. G.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Blandford, Marq. of

Hamilton, Lord C.

Boldero, H. G.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bremridge, R.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Bridges, Sir B. W.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Brisco, M.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Broadwood, H.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hope, Sir J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hotham, Lord

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jermyn, Earl

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Johnstone, J.

Butt, I.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Jones, Capt.

Cayley, E. S.

Jones, D.

Chandos, Marq. of

Kelly, Sir F.

Chatterton, Col.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Child, S.

Langton, W. G.

Christopher,rt.hon.R.A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Christy, S.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Clive, H. B.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Colvile, C. R.

Lewisham, Visct.

Conolly, T.

Long, W.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Cubitt, Ald.

Maunsell, T. P.

Davies, D. A. S.

Moody, C. A.

Deedes, W.

Morgan, O.

Denison, E.

Naas, Lord

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Neeld, J.

Dod, J. W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Newport, Visct.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Packe, C. W.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

Dunne, Col.

Palmerston, Visct.

Du Pre, C. G.

Peel, Col.

East, Sir J. B.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Egerton, W. T.

Prime, R.

Emlyn, Visct.

Pusey, P.

Fellowes, E.

Richards, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sandars, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Scott, hon. F.

Floyer, J.

Seaham, Visct.

Forbes, W.

Seymer, H. K.

Fox, R. M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, S. W. L.

Stuart, H.

706

Thesiger, Sir F.

Waddington, H. S.

Thompson, Ald.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Tollemache, J.

Welby, G. E.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Whiteside, J.

Tyler, Sir G.

Williams, T. P.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Vesey, hon. T.

TELLERS.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Bateson, T.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Hutt, W.

Armstrong, R. B.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F.T.

Kershaw, J.

Bass, M. T.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Bell, J.

Lacy, H. C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Langston, J. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Laslett, W.

Blair, S.

Legh, G. C.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Lewis, G. C.

Bright, J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Brotherton, J.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Brown, H.

Mangles, R. D.

Brown, W.

Martin, J.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Milligan, R.

Carter, S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Chaplin, W. J.

Moffatt, G.

Clay, J.

Morris, D.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Cowan, C.

Mowatt, F.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

O'Brien, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Osborne, R.

Crowder, R. B.

Parker, J.

Currie, R.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Perfect, R.

Divett, E.

Peto, S. M.

Duke, Sir J.

Pigott, F.

Duncan, Visct.

Pilkington, J.

Duncan, G.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Ellis, J.

Rice, E. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Salwey, Col.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Sandars, G.

Evans, J.

Scobell, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Scully, V.

Fordyce, A. D.

Seymour, H. D.

Forster, M.

Seymour, Lord

Fox, W. J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Geach, C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Stewart, Adm.

Glyn, G. C.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Granger, T. C.

Thompson, Col.

Greenall, G.

Thompson, G.

Greene, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Hall, Sir B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Harris, R.

Wakley, T.

Hastie, A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Henry, A.

Walter, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Wilcox, B. M.

Heywood, J.

Williams, J.

Heyworth, L.

Williams, W.

Hill, Lord M.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hindley, C.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wyld, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Hudson, G.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Charteris, F. W.

Humphery, Ald.

cardwell, E.

MR. HUMEsaid, that the Government having succeeded in carrying this important, but most unpopular, part of the Bill by so

707
inconsiderable a majority, ought not to insist on retaining it.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that on the bringing up of the Report, he should move that no substitutes be allowed, in order that hon. Gentlemen who were drawn by ballot might themselves have an opportunity of defending the country.
MR. W. J. FOXthen rose to move a Proviso to the clause, to the effect that no person be made liable to compulsory military service whose name is not on the registration list as an elector for some borough, city, or county. It did not follow that because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had withdrawn the clause respecting the franchise of which he some time ago had given notice, that therefore the principle therein involved was to be given up. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed that we should make militiamen voters; he (Mr. Fox) proposed that we should make voters militiamen. Look at the hundreds and thousands of people who were, it might be said, without the pale of the Constitution, and who—to use language which had once been used in another place—had nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, and yet who were the equals, in many respects, of those who enjoyed the civil rights and privileges of the country. They were outlaws from our institutions; and yet they contributed to the resources of the State as well as to the supply of their own wants, and they ought not, in common justice, to be subject to such a law as this. In considering the classes who were to be liable to serve in a militia, he thought that property, the habits, the customs, and the occupations of the people in different parts of the country, and the possession of the franchise, should be taken into account, as well as the mere amount of population in the different counties and ridings. In the Saxon and Norman period of their history, the right of bearing arms was connected with the privilege of citizenship. He founded his Motion on the plainest principles of justice—the principle that those thousands who were beyond the pale of the Constitution, and whose civil existence was not recognised, should be exempted from the duty of bearing arms. He only claimed for them the exemption that belonged to their proscribed condition. But he recommended this Motion to the Committee on grounds of policy as well as grounds of justice. Were they sure that this enrolment of proscribed subjects might not involve consequences of serious and most momentous character? Lord
708
Brougham, on presenting a petition on one occasion, said that it was the petition of 100,000 men capable of bearing arms, and he laid great stress on the last words. They might, when this militia force was enrolled, have a petition from men not merely capable of bearing arms, but actually trained to arms, and perhaps in the possession of arms. They should not forget the lesson of the Irish Volunteers in 1782. It was an instructive page of Irish history. In 1803 there was a militia raised in that country, and forthwith two outbreaks occurred—one in Dublin, under Emmett, and the other in Ulster. These were the effects of training people to the use of arms. The effect of this measure would be to alter the habits and character of the people. When the feelings of the people of England were excited, they had recourse to the natural arm of defence, or at most they restored to the brickbat and the bludgeon; but in France, where the people were trained to arms, they shouldered the musket and erected barricades. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer desiderated a more military spirit; but if they proceeded to accustom the people of these realms to military notions, might they not apprehend that the popular ebullitions of this country might gradually assume much more of the character of those of a neighbouring country? But there was no indisposition on the part of the people of Great Britain to defend their country. Were there any appearance of danger, there would be no need of the ballot; the people would come forward as one man. Now, there was in this country a considerable and growing body of persons who objected conscientiously, on deep-seated religious grounds, to military service. The operation of the Bill would be to them one of obvious and atrocious hardship. In many, if not in all, the American. States immunity was granted to this class of persons. They had been repeatedly recognised in the legislation of that House, and were not a body who would be treated lightly. It was easy to cut jokes at their expense; very small wits could do that. But from the earliest periods of Christian history there were to be found traces of those who on principle, and in devout obedience, as they believed, to the commands of Him whose name they bore, had objected to military service. While the right of private judgment could be exercised, there would be persons holding what were called"peace principles,"and their numbers were not so large but that Parliament could af-

709
ford to treat them with generosity; and the Proviso which he had prepared gave them an opportunity, by submitting to the penalty of disfranchisement, of preserving the integrity of their consciences. A short time ago he was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman who was now the leader of the House of Commons, express his regret that the Reform Bill had not led to the political enfranchisement of the working classes. Now, let the right hon. Gentleman unite this compulsory measure with emancipation; let him at once confer the franchise; let him and his Colleagues recognise as amongst the most sacred rights of labour that a man ought not to be taken away from his daily occupations by the fiat of a body in which he had no voice, and which called upon him for the duties, without giving him the rights, of a citizen.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the two grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman put forward the Proviso which he had proposed, seemed to be these: first, that everybody who was compelled to serve should have all the rights of citizenship conferred upon him; and, secondly, that many persons who entertained conscientious scruples against military service under any circumstances, and who came under the operation of this Bill, would, by having to pay the penalty of disqualification in the event of their not serving, thereby contribute all they ought to do towards the force which was about to be raised. With regard to the first of these questions, namely, whether the rights of citizenship should always attach upon those who were called on to serve, that was evidently a much larger question than could be discussed now. It must be discussed as part of a great measure; the Committee must consider how far it would be applicable to other services, and whether the mere fact of serving in a force should entitle a man to vote for a county or borough. But the way in which the hon. Gentleman had framed his Proviso, put it out of the question for the Committee to adopt it in its present form; it could only he adopted in the way to which he (Mr. Walpole) had referred, as part of a general measure for extending the franchise. The operation of the Proviso would be to narrow the basis out of which the ballot would be drawn, and to throw upon a minority the whole burden of serving, to the exclusion of the great bulk of the people of this country from the service. This was so serious an objection that he thought the arguments of the hon. Gentleman
710
could hardly have much influence on the Committee. As to those persons who were said by the hon. Member to entertain conscientious scruples against the Bill, there was a much graver question mooted by him in that observation than could be settled by such a Proviso as this, because, if the objection were good for anything, it would amount to this, that any person who had an objection was entitled to say, "I will not contribute to the militia service either by personal enlistment or by paying any taxes which go to defray the charge of that service." The objection was equally applicable in both cases. No person would say, "I have a conscientious scruple against serving in the army or militia," who would not say, at the same time, "I have a conscientious scruple against applying any part of my fortune or my means to enable people to do that which I think is contrary to right principles." The question, therefore, which the hon. Gentleman had raised was so much larger, taking it in cither point of view, than could be disposed of by such a Proviso, that the Committee, he thought, would not deem it right to adopt it in the manner in which it had been proposed.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he was not surprised at the great anxiety of the Government to shuffle through this Bill in any way they possibly could, for he put it to their common sense whether the measure did not seem to them more absurd, more preposterous, and more wretchedly contrived, each minute. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that he did not want the riff-raff to serve; but when you called upon a man to abandon his home and his family to stand forward in defence of his country, it was reasonable that you should see he had something to which his heart was attached, and which would bind him the more strongly to the national institutions. The Bill was professedly on account of the danger to be apprehended from a foreign Power; but had it never occurred to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the foreign Power which they so much dreaded was watching the progress of the measure through the House of Commons? What, he would ask, must be the conclusion at which that Power would arrive when it looked at the efforts made in order to raise a force of 50,000 men for one year only—when it saw that the English Parliament was afraid to trust the Irish people, whom they had so sadly misgoverned, with arms for the de-

711
fence of their native soil? He would put it to the Government, was not that fact alone a reproach to them? He thought that Bill was not put forward without some grounds; hut he should like to hear it explained why Ireland and why Scotland were not included? Did they distrust the people of Scotland as much as they distrusted the people of Ireland? It ought to be made known from one end of Scotland to the other, that she was placed in the same category with misgoverned Ireland. Supposing the Government succeeded in carrying their Bill in its full integrity, what would they gain by it? Only a force consisting of 50,000 of the lowest class, the most wretched of our population, and that only for one year. Now, he would ask, was it worth their while for such a trumpery measure to create such a lasting prejudice against all future Militia Bills? The very fact of a man enlisting in such a force would of itself prove he belonged to the dangerous classes of the community; for they appealed, not to the sound part of the population—they appealed, not to the men enjoying citizenship, but to the lowest rabble, who had no stake in the country. The whole thing was a bundle of absurdities, based on a false assumption, and conducted thoughout with a want of ability which was absolutely disgraceful, not only to the Government, but to that House. He regretted that night after night he was compelled to take a part in discussing such oceans of balderdash. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) sincere in saying that the real object of the Government was to obtain a respectable class of men to serve in this militia—a class that could be depended upon in the event of an emergency, he was bound to reconsider the proposal made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox). He (Mr. Mowatt) repeated that some alteration in our military provision for the defence of the country was necessary; and, therefore, it was that he was anxious the feeling of the country should not be set to sleep by so paltry a measure, by such a string of trumpery nonsense as this.
The O'GORMAN MAHONprotested, as an Irish representative, against some of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had repeated the unfair and unworthy declarations made by anonymous correspondents in journals of a low character, which, however, received some sanction when reiterated by
712
a Member of that House. The hon. Gentleman's declaration, that the measure was odious to the country, was not a question into which he would enter—he would leave that to be decided between the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. But when it had been distinctly declared both by the late and the present Governments that such a precautionary measure was necessary for the welfare of the country, he would ask upon what principle of common sense it could he designated by the hon. Gentleman as an odious, abominable, and disgraceful measure? He would apply himself to other remarks of the hon. Gentleman. When the hon. Gentleman insinuated that Her Majesty was afraid to confide arms to the Irish people, he (The 0 'Gorman Mahon)would say decidedly that, if Her Majesty were under such an impression, She laboured under a misinformation very similar to that evinced by the hon. Gentleman himself; and most assuredly the English people did the people of Ireland a gross injustice, if they believed there was a man amongst them who would not defend her shores against a foe. He solemnly declared that such a supposition would be totally unfounded, notwithstanding their difference on various subjects of legislation —notwithstanding the passing of that vicious measure which was supported both by the late and the present Government, the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill—a measure brought in by the late Government because a gentleman arrived from Rome with a red hat, red stockings, and red appurtenances, in order, as it was alleged, to deprive Her Majesty of all sovereignty in this land. He utterly repudiated the insinuations thrown out against the Irish people, and called on the Committee to assist the Government in supporting a measure which had been declared to he necessary for the common weal.
MR. MOWATTbegged to explain. He had not alluded in any observations he had made to Her Majesty— [The O'GORMAN MAHON: NO; Her Majesty's Government.] He was satisfied that the hon. Gentleman and the Committee understood him to refer to the Government, but he would take this opportunity of saying that the anger of the hon. Gentleman should be directed not against him, but against right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for he had merely invited them to explain why the Bill had not been extended to Ireland, although he had certainly put it hypothetically that the Government were afraid to intrust the Irish people with

713
arms. The hon. Gentleman had ridiculed the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, although supported by the late and the present Government; and yet in the same breath he called on the Committee to sanction the present measure, for the simple reason that the late Government had brought in the Bill, and it had been carried on by their successors in office.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mowatt) had stated that the Government was anxious to shuffle through this Bill; if so, they were grievously disappointed, for every endeavour had been made, and by none more than by the hon. Gentleman himself, to prevent the clauses passing through Committee. The hon. Gentleman rose to speak to the Proviso of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Pox); but a very small part indeed of his speech was applied to that Proviso, and at last some of his observations had raised the ire of the hon. Member for Ennis (The O'Gorman Mahon), who chose to grapple with the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mowatt) stated that this Bill was a string of trumpery nonsense; but as every clause had been carried by large majorities, the hon. Gentleman's observation was at least a reflection on the majority of that House. The hon. Gentleman had said he was "ashamed to be found night after night discussing such oceans of balderdash." Now the course which the hon. Gentleman should take was obvious—he should show his sense by retiring. He (the Attorney-General) objected to the Proviso on one broad ground, that it made the most invidious distinctions between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He considered that every subject of the Crown was deeply interested in the defence of the country; but by the Proviso, the hon. Member for Oldham raised the inference, that only those who voted for Members of Parliament were interested in the defence of the nation, and, therefore, that they alone ought to be compelled to take up arms. He would take it for granted that those who enjoyed the franchise were not the least respectable of the community. The hon. Member for Falmouth said, "You will have the lowest class, the vagabonds, by this system of voluntary enlistment;" and then the hon. Gentleman, by his Proviso, proposed that when this force of "vagabonds" was obtained, the Government should take the respectable classes of the community, and compel them to
714
serve with "a vagabond force." He thought some misapprehension existed in that House as to the rights enjoyed by the people of the country. There were two kinds of rights—civil and political; but though only a proportion of the people enjoyed political rights, all Her Majesty's subjects possessed civil rights, and all therefore were interested in those rights and the country in which they enjoyed them. By adopting the Proviso, therefore, they would narrow the base from which they would select the defenders of the country, and for that reason alone he would object to it. The hon. Gentleman had stated, and truly stated, that many persons had a conscientious objection to war—even to defensive war; but he could not see how the Proviso would obviate the objection.
MR. W. J. FOXrose to explain. The object of the Proviso was, that persons enjoying the franchise, and having a conscientious objection to war, might take their names off the registration list, and thus prevent the necessity of serving.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL,understanding the hon. Gentleman's object, must say that he did not think it desirable or reasonable that persons should be allowed to escape from service in that or any other way. Many persons, for instance, had a conscientious objection to paying public taxes; and a thousand other conscientious objections might be taken to the performance of the duties of the subject, so that if such a principle as was involved by the Proviso were sanctioned, they would fritter away every obligation which a man incurred when he became a member of a community. He would submit to the Committee that the Proviso ought not to be allowed to stand.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was unwilling to excuse any man from the performance of a public duty, and therefore he would not limit the ballot to those who enjoyed the suffrage. He would recomend the hon. Member (Mr. Fox) to withdraw his Motion, and to substitute for it a Proviso to the effect that every person drawn by the ballot should be entitled to have his name registered in the list of voters for the town or county in which he resided. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Ennis (The O'Gorman Mahon), he must remind him that the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), was so far from thinking this Bill necessary that he actually voted against it; and if the hon. Member was such a follower of

715
the noble Lord as he professed to be, he would vote against it too. He would advise the hon. Member to trust more than he was inclined to do to those who, like himself (Mr. Hume), had voted against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and to believe that there was no more need for the Militia Bill than there was for that other measure which the hon. Member had so properly and so justly condemned.
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, he must defend himself from the charge of inconsistency made against him by the hon. Member for Montrose. It did not follow that he (The O'Gorman Mahon) was bound to be inconsistent, because the noble Lord the Member for London, lately at the head of the Government, had come down one night, and proposed a measure, which he voted against a few nights afterwards. The charge of inconsistency which the hon. Member for Montrose had made, came very badly from him as the Solon of the Opposition benches, because he and his friends had for a whole series of years been living illustrations of the most consistent inconsistency.
MR. PACKEsaid, in the earlier part of the evening hon. Gentlemen opposite inveighed against the ballot, because of its harshness; but this proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham would increase that harshness tenfold, as it would limit it not to those who were now on the register— limited though they were as compared with the general population—but the hon. Member proposed to allow any elector who had a religious scruple to serve in the militia to escape by merely dropping his name from the register. He wondered how any hon. Gentleman who voted for this burden to be put upon the constituents, would afterwards face his own.
MR. BUCKsaid, the Committee would fall into a great absurdity if it consented to the Proviso of the hon. Member for Oldham. The Committee had already agreed to adopt the ballot, but the Proviso of the hon. Member for Oldham would make that principle more harsh in its operation. How could the hon. Member go to his constituency after he had endeavoured to make the ballot more oppressive than it otherwise would be? The hon. Member wished to give those on the registry who objected to serve an opportunity of withdrawing, and, therefore, he would limit the number of those who were to be drawn by ballot.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he could not ac-
716
cede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, because although he certainly desired the extension of the suffrage, he could not advocate its connexion with such a qualification as this proposed amended Proviso would create. The argument against his proviso was, that it would make a broad demarcation between different classes of the people—the enfranchised and the defranchised, and that it would narrow the base from which this militia force was to be provided. As to the line of demarcation he would only say that he did not propose it; he found it so, and he wanted to bridge it over. As to narrowing the basis, he would observe that the ballot was not to come into operation until some time next year. After the opinions expressed by those from whom he had expected support, he should not press his Proviso, but begged leave to withdraw it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONwished to know whether the Government would lay upon the table of the House a list of the exemptions, that the Committee might have an opportunity of examining them.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Government had carefully considered the subject, and he would at once afford the information required. The exemptions were to be as follows:—1st, Peers of Parliament; 2nd, persons serving in other forces of the Crown; 3rd, officers on half-pay; 4th, commissioned officers who had served four years in the militia; 5th, resident Members of either University; 6th, clergymen; 7th, persons licensed to teach in separate congregations; 8th, constables and peace officers; 9th, articled clerks and apprentices; 10th, seamen and seafaring men; 11th, persons employed in Her Majesty's dockyards, &c.; 12th, persons free of the Company of Watermen; 13th, any poor man having more than one child born in wedlock.
MR. MILNER GIBSONcould not see why Peers should be exempted, or allowed to escape the payment for a substitute. The duties of the other House were not so severe as those required from Members of that House. He thought that the Peers ought not to be exempt, and he should take the sense of the Committee upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's list began with Peers, and ended with paupers. What did he mean by a poor man? What was the degree of poverty required? [Sir C. BURRELL: A day labourer.] Then a day labourer was the poor man, and all day labourers who had one child born in

717
wedlock were to be exempted. Then, as to the Watermen's Company; why, the watermen were almost extinguished by the steamers, and the exemption should be applicable to engineers and stokers. The Government was legislating in the spirit of the days of George III. There ought to be an opportunity given by which the question of exemptions should be submitted to the House, and the sense of the House taken on it. Then, again, with regard to resident Members of the Universities— why should they be exempted? Could not they purchase substitutes? Did the exemption apply to all Universities? In order to give the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this subject, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department should move to repeal the exempting clauses of 42 Geo. III., and bring up a clause containing such exemptions as the Government thought ought at present to exist.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if any hon. Member thought that exemptions should be added to or taken away from those now proposed, it was of course in his power to move a Proviso to that effect, and take the sense of the Committee upon it.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he must complain of the mode in which the Bill was managed by the Government. It was said that an opportunity of discussing the question of exemptions might be taken by any Member moving a clause or a proviso, and no doubt they were at liberty to do so; but the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would admit that any one who wished to discuss the Bill fairly, was placed in a position of extreme difficulty by the course taken by the Government; and he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman was on that side of the House, they would hear him, as a lawyer, enter on a dissertation to show how impossible it would be for militiamen to understand this Bill, taken in connexion with other Acts of Parliament, and that even the law officers of the Crown were unable to reconcile them. His right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) objected to some of the exemptions; and if those objections were valid ones, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary ought to bring up a clause to meet them. He would be a bold man who would say that Peers should be exempted, and not Members of the House of Commons; he would be a bold man who would Bay that clergymen and ministers of reli-
718
gion should be exempted, and not schoolmasters; that watermen and dockyard labourers, and seafaring men, and peace officers, and members of the Universities, should be exempted, and not medical men. If there was any class that had a claim on the generous forbearance of that House, it was that of medical men. He (Mr. Bright) should like to know if the exemptions of members of Universities applied only to Oxford and Cambridge. Why was the University of London not exempted? He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would consent to bring up a clause, showing that he was prepared to reconsider the question of exemptions, leaving out those which could not be defended, and adding such as the Committee would consent to, for he (Mr. Bright) did not think there should be no exemptions, though those which at present existed certainly required correction.
MR. WALPOLEconsidered that it would be the best course for any Gentleman who wished to make any exemptions, to move a clause containing such exemptions. He would not say that the Government would not consider the present exemptions, although he thought good reasons could be given for them.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, there ought to be an exemption for the Society of Friends; and he should be glad to see the Government have the credit of it. They were not a numerous nor an increasing body; and if the Government would consider the interest of their own measure, they would perceive that the effect of leaving room for a charge of religious persecution in the case of so respected and popular a body, was tenfold greater in one direction, than anything that could be gained by annoying them in the other.
MR. FOXsaid, he would withdraw his Proviso.
SIR HENRY W1LLOUGHBYrose to move another Proviso, that no married man should be liable to the ballot, and no unmarried, except between the ages of twenty and twenty-five. In support of his Motion he would state that it appeared by the last census there were 8,753,000 males in England and Wales alone. Of these there were 800,000 between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, and deducting the married men, there would still remain 600,000 liable to serve. He mentioned this to show that they would, even if they agreed to his Motion, still have a large class to draw from. It was of no

719
use disguising the fact that the ballot was exceedingly unpopular in the various towns throughout the country, and the reason was that married men were liable to be drawn. As the Committee had acceded in favour of the ballot, he saw no reason why the class whose claims he advocated should not be exempted,' and he thought that county Members particularly should support his proposition, because in the event of a man being drawn, the expense of maintaining his wife and family would in all probability be thrown upon the land. He trusted that the Committee would sanction the Proviso which he now begged to move.
Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Clause the words "Provided always, that no married man shall be drawn by Ballot."
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. Member ought to have come down prepared with some statement to show to what extent the area of choice would be limited by the adoption of his Proviso; because unless some data were given, it would be impossible for the Committee to come to a decision without running the risk of so narrowing the field of choice, as to throw a burden upon a small number of persons. A man with move than one child was exempted on the principle that a heavy burden might otherwise be thrown on the parish. He should feel it his duty to oppose the Proviso of the hon. Member.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, it was now when the exemptions came to be discussed, that they saw the odious character of this measure. He, for one, entirely disapproved of the proposition of the hon. Member for Evesham (SirH.Willoughby). He thought, if there was to be a ballot, there should be no exemptions at all, whether of Peer or poor man. Many a man who was called poor was a richer man than a Peer; for, if a poor man lived within his means, he was a richer man than a Peer who did not live within his means, but squandered them. But why should they inflict this penalty upon a poor man at all? Why did many men refrain from marriage but from motives of prudence—and he (Mr. Waklcy) said that they were entitled to great credit for their discretion—and the Committee was now going to offer a premium upon imprudent marriages; for he believed, if this proposal were to be adopted, it would lead to the formation of an enormous number of imprudent marriages, which would end in nothing but misery. He
720
could not see that a single benefit would be derived from the Amendment. They would come by and by to the general question of exemptions; and if there were to be any exemptions at all, he would put in his claim for the exemption of the medical profession.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDsaid, he was old enough to remember something of the ballot, and he was quite certain, if hon. Members referred back to the heartrending scenes which attended it, they would not be surprised if the alarm of the country was ten times greater now than it is. fie was inclined to join the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) in exempting married men, if there was to be any exemption at all; but, to render the measure just, it ought to fall upon the Peer as well as the poor man.' But, with the firm conviction that the more the Bill was discussed and known, the more it would be seen to be a measure totally uncalled for, he trusted it would be yet prevented from passing.
MR. PETOsaid, he must earnestly impress upon the minds of the Government, that though the Committee had by a late vote come to the decision that it had not sufficient confidence in voluntary enrolment, it would be well to consider if the country would not prefer the augmentation of the standing Army. That would be but a larger payment for the protection— if that was necessary—of our property. The fact of two Governments having deemed it necessary to bring a precautionary measure before the House, was a sufficient reason for its being considered of importance; but he said, let the House give the Government the power to augment the standing Army if necessary. He could assure the Committee that the industrial classes felt deeply upon this question— they viewed it with feelings which few had an idea of. He could assure the Government it was with no party feeling he made this suggestion; but he thought, if the country was not satisfied with this measure, the Committee would do well to consider his suggestion.
MR. G. SANDARSsaid, the hon. Member for Pinsbury (Mr. Wakley) had stated that he was against all exemptions. He himself (Mr. Sandars) had a strong objection to the compulsory clauses, and for that reason he had voted against them. But it had been stated that this measure was extremely unpopular; now, if hon. Gentlemen looked to the division lists,

721
they would find that only one of the hon. Members for Liverpool voted against the second reading; the same might be said of Leeds, Birmingham, and other places, and also of the City of London. He regretted Government had found it necessary to introduce the compulsory clauses; but he would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby).
MR. MOWATTthought it well that the Government should attempt to modify the hardships of the measure as much as they could. As the number of men required for the first year would be only 50,000, and they hoped to get the greater proportion by voluntary enrolment, he thought there was not much cause to apprehend that by limiting the ballot to unmarried men, there would be any difficulty in obtaining the number of men that would be required. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wak-ley) said the object should be to make the exigencies of the Bill equable upon all parties; but was it doing so to treat the unmarried man without incumbrance, as the man with a wife and half-a-dozen children?
MR. EWARTsaid, he was convinced the common sense of the country was against the measure entirely. He objected generally to exemptions; but the Government, by their measure, introduced the question of exemptions, and one of them was the case of a poor man having more j than one child. The proposed proviso, therefore, in one respect, approximated very nearly to what was the law under the Militia Act, and he should give it his support. Let the Government go to the country On the volunteer principle, and not have recourse to a conscript system, borrowed from the example of France. They had the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson), and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. G. Sandars), rising on the other side, and stating they were against the compulsory clauses; but reason brought them back to the same conclusion, that the best way of meeting the difficulty was by increasing our standing Army. If that great man who now swayed the destinies of France—great on account of his elevated position, if from nothing else-—could hear their debates on this subject, he would consider it the most ridiculous exhibition ever made by legislators. They ought to have a real force, not a paper force, like that by which this Bill pretended to (legislate for the country.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY,in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman
722
(Mr. Henley), said, that of the 8,753,000 males in England and Wales, there were about 1,600,000 between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, and deducting one-fourth of that number as married men, an ample margin would be left from which to obtain the requisite number of men.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir II. Willoughby), but considered the principle which he had enforced to be of the most vicious character. There was nothing in our legislation on all points which ought to be avoided more than the system of exemptions. In the system of taxation, it was productive of the greatest possible evils. The principle which ought to be acted upon was not to increase exemptions. Under no circumstances ought such a procedure to be sanctioned. If the exemptions which now existed by law were not adapted to the present times, irrespective of the objection to all exemptions, the Committee would be able to deal with them; but the Committee were now asked to increase the list of exemptions, and thereby diminish the area of service. He certainly should oppose the proviso, first because it would tend to diminish the area of service, but principally and chiefly because he was opposed to the system of exemptions.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was opposed to all exemptions, and trusted that many of them would be done away with. If it was thought desirable to relieve married men, it would be better to diminish the age at which they were to be made liable, than to exempt them altogether.
MR. MOWATTsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to exemptions were strangely misapplied. In the first place, Ireland was exempted; then came Scotland; and then the great bulk of the population were exempted. Eight or ten classes of exemptions were put forward, and yet, when a practical proposition was made for giving relief without interfering with the operation of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said if there was one thing more than another to which he was disposed to take exception, it was the system of exemptions.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 53; Noes, 159: Majority, 106.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would now bring forward the Amendment of

723
which he had given notice, for the exemption of schoolmasters and teachers in schools.
Amendment proposed—
"To add to the end of the Clause, the words, 'Provided, that no person carrying on the occupation of Schoolmaster or Teacher in any School or other place of instruction for a livelihood, shall be liable to serve in the Militia raised under this Act.'"
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the exemptions had better come at the end of Clause 18; and if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to that, he would then state what his views were respecting it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman would submit the list of all the exemptions he proposed, so that they might have an opportunity of considering them, and whether any additions should be made to them, he would agree to the proposal, otherwise he could not see but that this was the proper time to press this proviso.
LORD SEYMOURwished to know whether there was to be a distinct class of exemptions.
MR. WALPOLEreplied that the exemptions would be the same as in the 42 Geo. III.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, all exemptions were in the nature of compromises. They had heard a great deal from the head of the Government about compromises, that it was the principle of good government. Were they to have any compromise here?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they proposed exactly the same exemptions as in the Act of 42 Geo. III., but further exemptions were proposed, and in reference to that he said as a general principle he was opposed to exemptions, and should oppose increasing them; and when a fair opportunity occurred for discussion, the Government were not indisposed to consider the exemptions in the Act revived by the present Bill, and if any objections could be raised to the objections therein contained, they would consider them. He gave in his full adhesion to the principle of compromises, and he was quite convinced that, without that principle, nothing ever would be carried in the House of Commons.
MR. BRIGHTthought his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) was perfectly right in proposing this Proviso now. The exemptions came after the ballot clause in the 42 Geo. III., and it was right that they should come after that clause now. If they determined not to exempt
724
Members of the House of Commons, he did not see why they should exempt Peers.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 86; Noes 164: Majority 78.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had now another Proviso to bring forward.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of the Clause the words, 'Provided, that no Peer of the Realm shall be exempt from serving in the Militia to be raised under this Act, anything in the first recited Act or in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding.'"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the exemptions proposed by the Government were all of ancient date, and had not been proposed without much consideration. That being so, he could not assent to the crude and off-hand propositions now made by the right hon. Member for Manchester.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he should support the Proviso. Surely it could not be any indignity to the House of Peers to be put upon the same footing with the Members of this House? He should like to see any hon. Gentleman who would stand up and contend that the Peers were invested with such a sanctity and dignity of position that they ought to be excluded from the burden which they were about to lay upon a large class of the people, and upon the Members of that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the crude way in which the Proviso had been brought before them; but nothing could be more crude than the manner in which the Bill itself had been prepared. They had got a hundred clauses in the Bill before them, and many of them contained most objectionable provisions. He trusted that House would have spirit enough to assert its own privileges.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Manchester very much misconceives my observation. When I objected to a matter of this kind being brought forward in a crude manner, I meant to say that I objected to such a question being brought forward without giving fair notice. The question has certainly given rise to a debate, without the slightest notice to the Committee of the hon. Gentleman's intention of bringing forward the proposition. As to the observation of the hon. Gentleman, the ad captandum observation he has made, as to Members of this House being entitled to the same privileges as those of the other

725
House, I would beg to remind him that the matter does not arise in the shape of a question of privilege between the two Houses. The exemption is incidental to the Peers unconnected with Parliament in the same way that a Peer is exempted from serving on a jury, while Members of this House are not exempted from serving as jurors—except while Parliament is sitting. This is a question on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given fair notice, and he has given no notice whatsoever. He and his Friends have loaded the paper with different Amendments, but he has given no notice of the Amendment on this subject, which has nothing to do, in my opinion, with the Clause now before the Committee.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he should be sorry to take any person by surprise; but he had three or four times made an appeal to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department to submit to the House the list of exemptions he would support, in order that the sense of the House should be taken on each separate I exception. The right hon. Gentleman had told him that he would not do that; that it was for him (Mr. M. Gibson), or any person who wished to do so, to move Provisos with a view to objecting to any exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman might propose, or to propose any exemptions they might think it necessary to add; and he (Mr. M. Gibson) was now taking the course which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself. The I right hon. Gentleman proposed to exempt Peers from serving in the militia by the Bill he had submitted to them; and he (Mr. M. Gibson) took the opportunity—a most fit-ting and legitimate one—by a Proviso in the mode the right hon. Gentleman had suggested himself, to object to that ex-emption. He saw no just ground for it; he did not see why Peers should not purchase substitutes if they were drawn as well as other men.
VISCOUNT PALMBRSTONsaid, he was not prepared to say what his opinion might be of the exemption of Peers. He was really very much at a loss to imagine, at the present moment, upon what foundation the exemption rested; but he thought the Committee should consider this, that—if he understood the matter right—the only way the exemption formed part of the Bill was by reference to the Act of 42 Geo. III., with all its provisions. Now, it was not proposed that the ballot should take
726
place, at the very earliest, till the beginning of next year, when they were told that a consolidated Bill would be submitted to the House. He thought, therefore, that it would be better to reserve the exemptions—-many of which it might be found fitting to take away—till the consolidated Bill was brought in.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that what his right hon. Colleague had said was, that he did not object to these exemptions being taken into consideration by the Committee at a proper time, but what he objected to was, that no notice had been given of such an intention; and he thought it might be well for them to consider whether they ought not to postpone all consideration of them at present.
MR. VERNON SMITHwould advise his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) not to press the Amendment if the Government declared that they were prepared to consider those exemptions.
MR. EWARTthought that if the Government promised to consider the question of exemptions, his right hon. Friend ought to consent to postpone it; but if no such promise were made, that was the time to press the subject.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he understood the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, very distinctly, that on a future occasion the exemptions would be taken into consideration. [Gries of "No, no!"] He had heard him say so, and he thought it would be, better if the whole question of exemptions was included in one discussion.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not agree to the suggestions that had been made on the opposite side of the House. They had now the upper hand, and let them not give way.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 162: Majority 66.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he was against exemptions altogether; but if there were to be any, no persons could put in a stronger claim on public grounds than medical practitioners. He should therefore move a Proviso, exempting them from liability to serve in the militia.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of the Clause the words, Provided always, that not any legally qualified member of the medical profession actually practising shall be liable to serve in the Militia raised under this Act, anything in the first recited Act or in any other Act to the contrary not withstanding."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that they merely continued by the Bill the exemptions in the old Act of Parliament, and he objected to the extension of exemptions, beyond those contained in that Act.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the persons on whose behalf this proposition was made, were exempted from serving on juries.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he hated quacks and quackery as he hated the devil, and he was therefore against the Proviso.
MR. WYLDthought that if they consented to an exemption in favour of medical men, they would only be following out the spirit of their legislation of late years. He thought the exemption a fair one.
MR. OSWALDwas a little puzzled what to do. By a large majority, and without a single reason being heard, they had already consented to exempt Peers. It was stated that Peers were exempted from sitting on a jury. But did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of Exchequer know that it was part and parcel of the English Constitution that a man was to be tried by his Peers?
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 77; Noes 167: Majority 90.
MR. PETOmoved to add a Proviso to the clause, that no person belonging to the Society of Friends, or Quakers, should be liable to be drawn or called on to serve. He was aware that a brother of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ellis) had suffered several months' imprisonment on account of his refusal to serve in the militia.
COLONEL SIBTHORP,knowing how skilled the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was in military tactics, should be sorry if the country were deprived of his services in the militia. He should be delighted to drill him some of these fine days.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was provided by the 50th Clause of the 42 Geo. III., that the deputy lieutenants of the county might provide a substitute, and levy the sum required for his support by distress; and, in case of no goods, they were empowered to commit the defaulter to gaol for three months. This latter portion of the Act seemed to the Government not conformable to the spirit of the age, and when the proper time came, they intended to introduce a proviso on the subject, so as to prevent Quakers from being liable to commitment.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had intended to
728
propose a clause protecting the sect of which he was an unworthy member from a harsh and unnecessary enactment. In the case of any member of that sect refusing, as he would refuse, to provide a substitute, the deputy lieutenants would be enabled to provide one; and then the power was given to distrain on the person required to provide a substitute. If he had no goods or chattels, a Quaker appearing to have sufficient ability to pay 101. must be sent to the common gaol for three months. It was implied that he put away his property, that he skulked from the liability. He (Mr. Bright) was sure there was no man of that sect who would conceal property liable to be seized from the officers. The Proviso he had prepared would simply repeal that portion of the Act of George III. which empowered two or more deputy lieutenants to commit a Quaker to the common gaol.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the object of the Government was that Quakers should not be placed in a worse position than other classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
MR. ELLISsaid, his father had a strong objection to serve in the Army, or to permit his sons to bear arms. His (Mr. Ellis's) younger brother was balloted for, and the consequence was his imprisonment, for he had no goods to be seized on default of personal service, or procuring a substitute. Now, he thought the Committee would agree with him that that was a most arbitrary and unjust proceeding. He hoped that the possibility of such injustice under this Act would be prevented.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had another Proviso with respect to the balloted men. By the clause as it stood the man balloted for and obliged compulsorily to serve, was also obliged to take an oath that he would serve faithfully for five years. Now, he objected to the compulsory oath. To the volunteer who accepted a bonus, and who knew the conditions upon which he joined the militia, he saw no objection to his taking an oath; but when they compelled a man to become a soldier, and further to call upon him to take an oath to serve faithfully for five years, it was little short of blasphemy. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; he repeated the phrase, and he was not at all sure that a Court of Law would not release a man from his obligation who had taken the oath under duresse. Such an oath so taken with the fear of imprisonment before the eyes of the militiaman, was not a binding oath. An oath, to be

729
obligator and binding on the conscience, must be taken with the free will of the deponent. The hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. L. Hodges) stated that no less than 800 men had deserted from one militia corps, and probably the greater number of these men had been balloted for, and had called God to witness to the solemnity of an oath. For his own part, he declined tampering with so sacred a subject as an oath. He knew upon what might be termed military evenings that little attention was paid to religious considerations; but he must ask the Committee, upon this occasion, to deliberate before they adopted the Clause, without the qualification he proposed, or one to a similar effect.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of the Clause the words, Provided always, that notwithstanding the first recited Act, or any other Act, no private man chosen by ballot to serve in the Militia shall be compelled to take any oath that lie will faithfully serve in the Militia for the term of five years, or until he be sooner discharged."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would not be led away into a discussion upon an abstract proceeding—a discussion, he admitted, involving a principle of the greatest importance, but one which was by no means peculiar to the Militia Bill. The very same objection might be made to the administration of oaths in Courts of justice, for they were often made under pains and penalties. ["No, no!"] But he said, Yes. A man who was subpoenaed took the oath reluctantly, and to such a man the same objection applied.
MR. LAW HODGESsaid, that none of the men who had deserted from the regiment in question had been balloted, and, consequently, had not taken a compulsory oath.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, the corps of which the hon. Member for West Kent spoke was a disgrace to the nation. He hoped no other branch of the service had such a stigma upon it—800 deserters— 800 men forgot their duty to their King and their country; it almost made one ashamed of the country where such cowardly louts could be found. Why should not a militiaman take an oath as well as other people—why should he not serve faithfully and truly—and, if not, why should he not be punished? The man who committed the foul crime of desertion ought to be stigmatised as an outcast of society.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer must form a very low estimate of the faculties of the Committee when he made a comparison between the case of a man brought to a Court of Justice under a subpoena, and a man compelled to serve in the militia against his will, and then compelled to swear to serve faithfully. The witness in the Court of Justice was only sworn to tell the truth—the militiaman, who had been balloted, was obliged to swear he would do a thing which he disliked to do, and if he did not so swear he would be punished. There was, in truth, no parity whatever. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), in his great Maynooth case, had mentioned nothing half so odious and infamous as this. Hon. Gentlemen had cheered the hon. Member for West Kent, when he said the 800 deserters were not balloted men; but if men who freely enlisted had violated their oaths, how much more likely were those to break them who were forced into swearing, and who had taken the oath under duresse? The requirement was immoral and depraving, and ought not to be extorted from any British subject.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, he had for many years taken a deep interest in this subject. What was right and expedient in 1802, might not be light and expedient in 1852. He hoped the Committee would consider the advance that had been made during the last fifty years. About 4,000 or 5,000 oaths had been abolished at the Custom House alone. He had himself twice succeeded in inducing the House of Commons, by majorities, to abolish compulsory oaths in Courts of Justice. He would just allude to the preposterous state of the law in this respect:— If a man was balloted in the militia, he must make a promissory oath as a security for his obedience and fidelity; but if the man were a Moravian, or a Quaker, or a Separatist, or had been any one of these, and was now an infidel, he was exempted from swearing. But if he said he was an Independent, then he must take the oath. If a balloted militiaman did not take the oath, he subjected himself to imprisonment. If a man valued an obligation, he would respect it without an oath, and if he did not, the oath was no security. He knew an instance of a man who had been four years in prison because he refused to take an oath on the ground of conscientious scruples; and at length an Act of

731
Parliament was passed, whereby he was released from the necessity of swearing, and that man had since conducted himself as a good and loyal subject. When the Chartist riots were apprehended on the 10th of April, he (Sir W. P. Wood) knew of two men, peaceable and loyal persons, who, though not coming within the class of persons excepted by the Statute, declined to take the oath, though perfectly willing in any other respect to act as special constables. Their objections were based on conscientious scruples, which could not be overcome. The absurdity of some of the declarations made in Courts of Justice was glaring and manifest. From the roll in which declarations were entered by the officers of the Court of Queen's Bench, he had an extract made. It appeared that such officers of the King's, as the Masters of the Swans, &c, were obliged to make a declaration that they would not injure the Church of England; and the absurdity was only put a stop to by the officer of the Court appealing to the judge whether the King's chimney-sweeper should be called upon to make such a declaration. In short, with scrupulous persons there was no need for the oath; and, notwithstanding it, unscrupulous persons would still remain unscrupulous. He would support any proposal for relieving parties from such unnecessary oaths.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would not allow itself to be led, at that time of night, into a discussion about oaths—a subject not at all peculiar to the question of the militia.
MR. VERNON SMITHwould beg the Committee to bear in mind that this was the year 1852, and not the year 1802; and that since the latter period the Legislature had found it expedient to abolish an infinite number of oaths, which had manifested themselves as not only absurd, but mischievous. If you could not rely upon the loyalty and integrity of a militiaman, you certainly could not rely upon an oath exacted under such circumstances.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 79; Noes 156: Majority 77.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that as it had been admitted by the Government, and expressly declared by the noble Lord the
732
Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmer-ston), that the compulsory clauses could not come into operation this year, it was obviously unnecessary to enter into them now. That being the case, he should move that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought this was hardly fair dealing with the Government. This clause had been under consideration for several hours, and the Committee should understand the position in which it would be placed, if, after its repeated appeals to the Government to expedite the business of the country, it should accede to the Motion of the hon. Member—a Motion which, he must say, appeared to him to have the character of being factious.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that if the Motion were pressed to a division, he should feel compelled to vote for the Government, as he could not see any possible object in reporting progress. They had all been rather accusing Her Majesty's Government of a desire to delay, and ought, therefore, if only for consistency's sake, to seek themselves to expedite the public business.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, they had not been discussing these clauses, but for three-fourths of the night they had discussed the exemptions. The division on the compulsory part of the clause was hurried on in the earlier part of the evening to allow Gentlemen—who had now returned with white waistcoats—to go to dinner, and the majority was but 17. It was their intention to take another opportunity of discussing that point; but they did not intend to take what were called factious proceedings against this measure; and, looking back to the course hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken in past years, the conduct of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would bear a very fair comparison with that of those who now sat on the Ministerial benches. He proposed to take a division on the ballot in a fresh House, and therefore supported the Motion.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 40; Noes 179: Majority 139.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should now move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He would appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to proceed any further with the Bill that night. He did

733
not make this Motion with the view of throwing any impediment in the way of the Bill; but there was a strong desire that a division on this clause should proceed in a full House, and not in one fatigued with something like eight hours' discussion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, notwithstanding the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, and the explanation with which he had accompanied that appeal, he was still at a loss to understand the motive for further opposition. If the hon. Gentleman thought there was any chance of defeating this Bill, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could assure him he was mistaken. He might by the course he was taking inconvenience the Government, he might prevent the progress of necessary legislation, he might prolong the duration of this Parliament, but this Bill would nevertheless become law. Anxious as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at all times to defer to the convenience of the minority, he felt he had only one duty to fulfil now, and that was to persevere in pressing this Bill forward.
MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEYsaid, he had hitherto opposed the Bill, but he would be no party to any factious opposition, and should therefore oppose the Motion.
Motion withdrawn; Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: — Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.