Sitting of 18 December 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Jurors and Juries (Ireland) (No. 2); Enlistment of Foreigners.

OFFICERS IN THE CRIMEA—THE IN COME TAX.
MR. JOHN O'CONNELLbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to exonerate from liability to income tax on their pay, officers of every branch of Her Majesty's service in employment at the seat of war, while there employed?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is exceedingly disagreeable to me, and I am sure I may say the same for my colleagues, to give an answer in the negative to any question which purports to have in view—as I am quite certain the hon. Member has in view—the benefit and advantage of the army in the Crimea, and which is intended as an expression of grateful feeling to that army. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that no expression of grateful feeling on the part of this House, or of the other branch of the Legislature, to that army could be too strong; but I am sorry to say it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill of that kind, and simply for these reasons—first, I don't know that the time has arrived to consider any arrangements with respect to rewards for the army in the Crimea; and, in the next place, if the hon. Member directs his eyes to the Gazette, he may be satisfied that the attention of the proper department of the Government has been already directed to that subject. But I must point out to him two grounds affording paramount reasons for objecting to a proposal of this kind. The first of them is, that where the Government think fit to give a reward to a public servant they ought to give it as a reward, and not by way of exemption from a tax. The creation of exemptions is so mischievous, so delusive, and so sure of being productive of future embarrassment, that I trust the House will take every opportunity of getting rid of such exemptions, and will do nothing to create them afresh. And,
462
lastly, I should be sorry to adopt a form of reward for the army in the Crimea which would only apply to a comparatively small and wealthy portion of those of whom that army is composed; whereas I think that whatever we do we should recognise no distinction between the officers and the men, but should acknowledge equally the merits of every man belonging to that noble army.

EXCHANGE OF VESSELS WITH PRUSSIA.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Jealousy for the efficiency of the Navy alone induces me, otherwise most unwillingly at this time, to put a question respecting an Act which impeaches the resources and capabilities of our Royal Arsenals and private yards, and apparently betrays great improvidence on the part of Government in neglecting to prepare vessels adapted for a known and special service, when every delay, omission, and error, and appearance of dependence on any aid but our own, is of serious import in such matters. The question he had to ask of the First Lord of the Admiralty was, on what grounds an exchange had been effected with the King of Prussia of the Thetis frigate for two gun-boats?
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: The exchange to which the hon. and gallant Officer refers has not been completed, but it has been contemplated, and is still contemplated. The circumstances are these:—In the month of June the Prussian Government applied to Her Majesty's Government to know if they were willing to exchange for two gun-boats, made in this country by Mr. Russell, of peculiar construction, light draught of water, carrying heavy guns, and capable of being steered fore and aft —two old corvettes. Her Majesty's Government said they had no objection to such an exchange on principle, but it was necessary to inspect the vessels before they agreed to the proposal. They made inquiry respecting them; Mr. Scott Russell went to Dantzic for the purpose of inspecting them; and reported as his opinion that they were perfectly well suited for the Baltic service, and that it was well worth their while to make trial of the new construction in active war. On that ground the Prussian Government were told that there was no objection at that time to the exchange. That was. I think, in the month of June. Some delay took place, and it was not until the month of September that the Prussian Government acceded to the proposal we made, that instead of two corvettes, one

463
old frigate should be given in exchange for the two vessels in question. In the month of September there was no great anxiety on our part to effect the exchange for those two vessels, because they were not applicable to the Baltic service for this year; but the Prussian Government intimated that they thought the honour of the British Crown was involved in the exchange, and it was not thought proper by us to involve a question of good faith in the matter. Accordingly it has been arranged that, if the two vessels shall be sent to us by the Prussian Government towards the close of the year, the British Government shall take them in exchange for the frigate; but the exchange has not yet been completed. [An hon. MEMBER: What is the draught of the two gun-boats?] I am not quite certain, but I believe about eleven feet.

THE VOTE OF THANKS—INSERTION OF NAMES.
The Resolutions of the 15th December, giving the thanks of this House to the officers and men engaged in the military and naval operations in the Crimea and the Black Sea, having been read,
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmoved that the names of Major General Airey, Major General Estcourt, and Rear Admiral Stopford, be inserted.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente—
"That the like Thanks be given to Brigadier General, now Major General, Richard Airey, Quartermaster General, and to Brigadier General, now Major General, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, Adjutant General."
And—
"That the like Thanks be given to Rear Admiral the Honourable Montagu Stopford, Companion of the Most honourable Order of the Bath, and Captain of the Fleet."

MILITIA SURGEONS.
On Motion that the House do go into Committee on the Militia Bill,
MR. BRADYbegged to call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which medical officers of the militia are placed at the present moment. The Militia Bill was similar to that which had been passed during the last war; but circumstances were changed, and that which in former times might have been perfectly just, might, under present circumstances, be the reverse. It was well known to the Members of the House that the surgeons acting under the present Militia Bill were
464
men of the highest character in their profession. They were men holding a local position, and many of them were rendering essential service to the localities in which they resided. It was proposed that those men should be taken away to perform active duty in the Colonies, or in different portions of the kingdom, and there kept on active service for two or three years, and then disbanded without a penny of compensation, saving the daily pay they had received during the time. It was a well-known fact, and should be remembered, that at the present time the standard of education in the College of Surgeons was reduced in order to make up the deficiency existing, and that the army and naval medical boards had not got a single candidate upon their lists. Under these circumstances, the Bill was to be passed, and the Government would be doing great injustice to the men they were collecting into the militia force, unless the medical officers were placed on the permanent staff. He hoped his observations would not be allowed to pass idly by; that they would be weighed and considered, and that justice would be done to those men by improving their position. Something should be secured to them for coming forward at that time to render essential service to the country.

MILITIA BILL.
Bill considered in Committee.
Clause 1 (Empowering Her Majesty to accept the voluntary offers of the Militia to serve out of the United Kingdom).
MR. BANKESsaid, he had an Amendment to move, which would qualify its terms. It was proposed that it should be lawful for Her Majesty to accept the services, and to employ in any parts or places out of the United Kingdom, under the regulations and restrictions specified in the Act, such part of the militia as it might be deemed advisable so to employ; and to that proposition he desired to add the following words "not exceeding in any case three-fourths of the number actually serving in any regiment, battalion, or corps of any such militia." They had to consider at the present moment, not merely the provisions of the Act which the Government proposed to pass, but also to consider the effect of the Act as it might operate in future times as a precedent which would be referred to in future exigencies of a public nature like the present. The Bill at present offered to them was founded upon

465
a measure which was passed towards the close of the last great war, and which was considered of very great importance, because it gave to the Crown a power over the militia which it had never possessed before. At present, no doubt, there was another great exigency, but it was to be distinguished from that which had formerly occurred. In the year 1813, the powers given by the former Act were demanded and willingly given by the then existing House of Commons. At that period the great enemy of this country, Napoleon, was engaged in the great struggle which was then taking place before his first deposition or abdication; and it was a crisis of vast importance, because there was little doubt that in the event of that great Emperor succeeding, his attention would be again turned towards the destruction of this country, and if he had been again established in the plenitude of power on his throne, they had every reason to expect a reiteration of those threats of invasion which for so many years had engaged the attention of this country. It was a question, then, at that time, whether it was better that they should defend the soil of this country by meeting him with their forces in France, than that they should await the possibility of battles and combats on their own shores. It was, therefore, a very fair and reasonable proposition with regard to that view of the question, that even the constitutional force of the country should be sent abroad to effect the object to which he referred. The house of Commons readily accepted the proposition, and when the Act was proposed it was cheerfully accepted. There was contained in that Act of Parliament a provision, the omission of which in the present Bill he now proposed to supply. It was then considered that, however earnest and desirous the militia of that time were to go abroad on this service, good policy did not permit that the country should be entirely stripped of defensive force; and it was therefore enacted as a positive proviso in the Bill that one-fourth of each regiment should be retained at home. That proviso was not introduced into the former Act without very mature consideration, and he could not but think that it must be owing to haste in the councils of the existing Cabinet that it should have been omitted from the present measure, he found that, a Motion having been made to reduce the amount of the proportion which should be retained at
466
home, Lord Castlereagh resisted the proposition, on the ground that any such alteration would tend to destroy the militia itself—a result which, if probable, would have deterred him from proposing or proceeding with the measure—and that he wished to consult at once the fair freedom of the service and the preservation of the militia, which, he believed, was interwoven with the fundamental security of the country. It was, therefore, the opinion of the Ministers of that day, that if the whole of a militia regiment, or any larger proportion than that fixed by their Bill, were permitted to go abroad, it would prove the destruction of the militia. He was aware that there were many officers to whom it must be very inconvenient to go abroad, and who were, in fact, disqualified from active or foreign service by age or other circumstances; though, should the whole of the regiment volunteer, many would be induced to go at great personal sacrifice, whose presence would be of little actual advantage to the service. By the proposed provision, he thought they would guard at once the public interest and private feelings. The same observation applied to the privates. If the whole of a regiment were permitted to volunteer, he believed they would find that, in the enthusiasm of the moment, many men would shrink from declining to accompany their comrades who could ill be spared from their homes. He urged this as a social question of great importance; for although the difference might not be great as to the numbers actually obtained, the result would be very different in reference to the feelings of those concerned, whilst the proviso would offer no obstacle to the salutary working of the Bill, and would have the effect of rendering it popular throughout the kingdom. As they were now proposing not merely a measure for the present, but a precedent for the future, he should be happy to see the measure passed in a shape, which might be safely recommended for the adoption of posterity, if, after an interval of some forty years, the services of the militia should again be required. The present exigency was not of exactly the same character with that to meet which the former measure was passed. At the present moment we had no risk of invasion to anticipate, and the alternative was not proposed to them of fighting our battles on the shores of France or England. He contended that the efficiency of the measure would in no way be

467
better promoted than by keeping at home an effective reserve. As we had now a Militia Bill universally recognised as efficient for its purpose, and popular throughout the kingdom, it would be a matter of great regret that its working should be impaired, and the prestige it had acquired be destroyed. He hoped the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) would have no difficulty in acceding to a proposition giving to the militia regiments the power of volunteering in very large numbers if they thought fit, but preventing a majority from overwhelming a minority. He should be sorry to see the slightest impediment in the way of increasing our resources, but he believed that the proviso would in fact operate favourably for that end.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONfelt bound to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made his proposal in a spirit of perfect fairness, and in a manner showing that his object was by no means to frustrate or impair the efficiency of the measure, but, according to his own view, to improve it and make it more acceptable and better calculated to work. He (Viscount Palmerston) would endeavour to meet the proposition in the same spirit. He must, however, beg leave to say, that he did not admit that the circumstances of the present moment were parallel to those to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred during the latter period of the last war. There was, as indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman himself indicated, a material difference between them. Though the country was at that period carrying on operations on a great scale upon the Continent, still it was also by no means secure from the risk of having to defend itself on its own shores. But at the present time the country was carrying on extensive and important military operations at a distance from its shores, and in the present state of things there was no likelihood—indeed he might almost say there was no possibility—of the country having to defend itself from foreign invasion. Therefore there existed not the same reason as formerly for maintaining a large force at home. So far, therefore, as the argument, on which the reservation with respect to the number of militiamen to be sent abroad was inserted in the former Bill, consisted in the belief that circumstances might possibly arise, from unforeseen events, rendering it necessary to employ the militia for home defence, so far that argument did not apply to the present moment. However, he
468
entirely subscribed to the sentiments expressed in that passage from Lord Castlereagh's speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted, because no man in the country could entertain a stronger sense than himself of the great value of a militia force and of the great importance of continuing it as a permanent element of the military arrangements, and, he would say, also, of the civil and social arrangements of the country. Not only was it a most important ingredient in the means the country might possess to repel foreign aggression at any time when it might be suddenly called on so to do, but he regarded the militia likewise as a most valuable social element, inasmuch as it brought the gentry of the country in contact with the lower and working classes of the community, and cemented the bond of union, which should always unite them, by common pursuits, common associations, and common objects; and he was convinced that, in a political and social point of view, the militia was just as valuable as it was in a military point of view as part of the defensive force of the kingdom. It was, therefore, needless for him to say, that he should be the last man to propose anything likely to be injurious to the militia system, or to refuse his consent to anything obviously calculated to render that system more permanent, useful, and practicable in its operation. Consequently, he was not disposed to object to the principle of the hon, and learned Gentleman's proposal. Indeed, though the Bill at present contained no restriction of the kind, he was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow that, in the exercise of the large discretion which the Bill, as framed, would confer on the Government, it was of all things unlikely that, in regulating the number for service abroad of any given regiment of militia, whose offer for such service might be accepted, they would not provide that a certain portion of the regiment should remain at home for the purpose of relieving and supplying any deficiency which might arise in respect to the part of the regiment employed abroad. The hon. and learned Gentleman had put his Motion on another ground, which he (Viscount Palmerston) should be the last person to question; he had put it on the ground of personal feeling. Now, undoubtedly, if any class of men were entitled to expect that the Government, in any arrangements they might make, should show the utmost deference

469
and consideration for their feelings, the officers of militia had the strongest possible claim on this account; because no class of men had more cheerfully and more effectively devoted themselves to that public service which they had to perform than the gentlemen and others connected with the militia. Both officers and privates had behaved so well that they were fully entitled to expect from the Government and from Parliament full deference and allowance for any personal feelings by which they might be actuated. The only objection which he should have to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be, that it proposed to define the proportion of those to be sent abroad in reference to the numbers actually serving in the regiment. This was a very vague and indefinite standard of comparison, for the numbers actually serving in a regiment varied from time to time. He should have no objection to the hon. and learned Member's proposition if, instead of the numbers actually serving in a regiment, the actual establishment of the regiment or battalion in question were substituted as the standard of proportion. This was a fixed amount, and there would consequently never be any difficulty in ascertaining the numbers to he sent abroad; while, on the other hand, the number actually serving varied from week to week, so that it would always be almost impossible to say that any given number of men should exactly constitute three-fourths of the number actually serving in a regiment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could agree to this modification of his proposal, he (Viscount Palmerston) should offer no objection to it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that as the noble Lord had substantially accepted his right hon. Friend's proposition, he had only to express his satisfaction at the spirit of concession manifested by the Government.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYasked whether it was clear by this clause that a regiment volunteering to go to one garrison would not find itself carried to another, and also if the clause contemplated any other garrisons than the places in the Mediterranean?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the mode in which the Bill would work would be this:— A communication would be made to certain regiments of militia, asking them to volunteer for certain places
470
named in that communication. They would be asked, for instance, to serve in any part of the Mediterranean, and in the attestation which each man who engaged would make, the places named in the communication would be mentioned; and of course no man could be held liable to serve in any other places than those mentioned ill the attestation.
LORD LOVAINEwished to know whether the head-quarters would go with the three-fourths sent abroad, or remain with the one fourth left at home?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid that, of course, if a whole regiment were to go abroad, the regiment would go in a body, and the head-quarters would go with them. It was contemplated that portions only of regiments should go; and, as it would be inconvenient to have small portions of regiments acting as separate battalions, power was taken in the Bill to add portions of different regiments together, and to make provisional battalions of them, as was done in 1804.
LORD LOVAINEthought the noble Lord had not fully answered his question. Would the three-quarters sent abroad be joined to part of any other regiment to form a provisional battalion; or would it go out as a separate regiment, leaving the other quarter at home as a sort of depot company?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that would depend very much upon the strength of the regiment volunteering. Suppose a regiment of 1,200 men, for instance, volunteered, if three-quarters of them were sent abroad they would be sufficient to form a separate battalion; but in the case of a regiment of 600 strong only volunteering, three-quarters of that regiment would be too small a number to form a separate battalion, and they would have to be added to portions of other regiments.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know what objection there would be to regiments of militia volunteering for actual service in the field?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, Her Majesty's Government had no wish to ask the militia for more sacrifices than were actually required by the public service. All that it was thought necessary to ask the militia for was to do duty in certain garrisons in the Mediterranean, thus setting free regular regiments, which, of course, were more fitted from their nature to take the field than the best militia regiments could be.
MR. BENTINCKwished to know whether it were intended that the portions of regiments remaining at home, whether they included or not the head-quarters, would be embodied together to serve in this country as provisional battalions. [Viscount PALMERSTON: No.] He understood then that it was intended they should remain in their respective counties for the purpose of continuing the duties of their service as usual.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwished to know, in the case of three detachments on a foreign station forming a provisional battalion, who was to command them? He had the honour, worthy or unworthy, of being a full colonel, and should decidedly object to serving under a lieutenant colonel, hoping that he had done nothing to merit degradation. Until he was condemned or found incompetent, he could not submit to be placed in a lower rank than he had hitherto held.
LORD LOVAINEthought his original question had not yet been fairly answered. Suppose a large regiment of 1,200 men were to volunteer, 800 of them would be sent abroad, and 400 would remain at home—would the head quarters go abroad with the 800, or remain at home with the 400?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONmust ask the noble Lord to say what he meant by head quarters?
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he meant the staff of the regiment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that such portion of the staff would go with the regiment as was necessary for the performance of the regimental duties.
LORD LOVAINE: Supposing the lieutenant colonel declined to volunteer, would the regiment be commanded by the major?
MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that so many regiments had volunteered that there would be no difficulty in getting regiments in which the lieutenant colonel had volunteered.
COLONEL NORTHasked a question in respect to detachments of regiments going out. Suppose 300 from one, and 400 from another, would the adjutant accompany such a detachment? He thought that the Bill before the Committee placed the country gentlemen of England in rather a disagreeable position, and more especially as to those who, like himself, had passed a great number of years in Her Majesty's service. He was sure that in private
472
matters there was no person in the country whose opinion he would sooner take than that of the noble Viscount; but upon a measure of this importance he thought that the country gentlemen should clearly understand the peculiar pressure which required their services, He had no hesitation in saying, that if he were merely called upon to reside in Corfu or Malta, for three or four years, the inconvenience would be so serious that he would, if possible, avoid it—but if the pressure be such that every English gentleman would be expected to come to the assistance of the country, he felt he was speaking the feelings of others as well as his own, when he said that no loss or inconvenience would prevent them going to any part of the world where their services could be of use. He had served a great number of years in the Army, and he was anxious and ready to offer his services if occasion required. If, however, there were no such pressure, he thought that those who were younger, and who had fewer ties to bind them to this country, should be selected for foreign service. While they had the Bill before them they ought to make the phraseology of it so plain as to protect the country gentlemen from the snarling cry that might be raised, that they had not done their duty.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, he was sure that when an hon. Gentleman put a question of this importance he was entitled to a more satisfactory answer than his noble Friend near him had received from the Secretary at War. It was not the sort of answer which an hon. Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House ought to receive from the right hon. Gentleman. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman were no answer to the question of the noble Lord. His noble Friend referred to matters of considerable importance as to the clauses of an Act of Parliament. The question was—what the effect of this clause would be? He was rather surprised to hear the noble Viscount ask his noble Friend what he meant by the head quarters of a regiment. They wanted to know what would be the effect of the alteration now made in the Bill? What would be the position of the head quarters, the field officers and the superior officers of the regiments? He would take the case which his noble Friend had himself suggested—that of 800 volunteering to go abroad, and 400 remaining at home. The fourth section provides that in the event

473
of 500 men having volunteered, and the proper proportion of officers not volunteering with them, it would be then open to the Crown to resort to promotion, and to take other steps to fill up the vacancies so created. He apprehended the question of his noble Friend to be this—what was to be the position of the field officers in the case supposed? Were they to be superseded?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to reply in the negative.
SIR J. PAKINGTON: Well, then, he thought that they required some explanation as to the position of field officers not being able to go out with the regiment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that their position in such case would be precisely the same as it was at the present moment. They might remain at home, or go abroad if they pleased.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, it appeared to him that the portion of the regiment which remained at home would be thrown upon the shelf, or disembodied.
MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that in the answer which he had given to the noble Lord he did not mean the slightest discourtesy. He wished to observe, that the case which the noble Lord had so ingeniously raised was never likely to occur. The number of regiments volunteering en masse, with their lieutenant colonels at their head, was so great, that the only difficulty was, to determine which offers to select. It was clear, therefore, that no difficulty would arise from want of field officers.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he understood that it was proposed to disembody that portion of the militia regiments which remained at home. If the Government proposition—as he understood it—be adopted, he was at a loss to know how the recruiting process was to go on—how they were to fill up the blanks occurring in consequence of the number of volunteers from the militia regiments to the line.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member would recollect that almost the whole of the militia force had been raised while it was yet disembodied, and before it was called out for training. The portions now disembodied would have the same means as before of obtaining recruits.
MR. PALKthought there was one point of some importance, because it appeared to him that the Government were throwing a veil of mystery over that which involved
474
nothing but a simple statement of fact. There was a power taken in the Bill to appoint field officers in her Majesty's service. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint field officers who had served in the regular army to command those detachments of regiments intended to serve in garrison duty abroad?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he believed it would not be necessary to do so, as the Government had already received ample offers from militia officers to afford the Government the means of completely officering all the militia regiments which went abroad.
MR. HENLEYwished to know how this Bill would work in the event of its being desirable hereafter to extend the service of the regiments sent abroad with their own consent? Could the system of volunteering go on toties quoties—in other words, if a number of officers and men who were sworn in to proceed to a Mediterranean station should, after a while, get tired of being cooped up in a state of inactivity at Gibraltar or Malta, and would like to go to the seat of war in the Crimea, would it be in the power of the Government to give them an opportunity of gratifying this wish? This was a point of some importance, because we might before long be in want of forces. So little foresight had been shown by the Government, that they were not aware six months ago that they would want the militia to perform even garrison duty abroad; and, therefore, it was desirable that they should at once determine beforehand whether, supposing more troops were wanted, proposals would be entertained from militia regiments who were near the seat of war, and who would like to see a little actual fighting.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the regiments who offered, and whose offers were accepted, to serve on any station in the Mediterranean, would be limited under such an offer and attestation to service in that particular quarter of the globe. With regard to any further extension of service, they would stand exactly in the same position as regiments at home. Their service could only be extended under a fresh offer, accepted spontaneously by them, and under a fresh engagement and attestation; but they would stand, with regard to this matter, precisely on the same footing as if they had not volunteered at all.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 2, relating to the bounty to be given under the Bill.
COLONEL SIBTHORPobjected to the part of the clause which provided that the amount of the bounty should be fixed from time to time by the Secretary at War. He wished it to be distinctly defined how much bounty was to be given to every non-commissioned officer, drummer, or private who was disposed to volunteer; and he had given notice of an Amendment in this clause to that effect. The Government ought to deal liberally in the matter of the bounty, and if they did so he believed they might easily obtain a large force of most efficient men. He also hoped that the period of service for which the militia were to engage themselves should be clearly specified in the clause, as the words "during the war" were very unsatisfactory and indefinite, and would seriously interfere with the attainment of the object of the measure.
MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that the effect of the gallant officer's Amendment was, not to fix the amount of the bounty in the Act of Parliament, but merely to direct that a specified bounty should be fixed. Of course, this would be done, and it would be the business of the Secretary at War to do it. It would not do to insert the amount in the Act, because it must obviously vary according to the circumstances of the time. It was, therefore, obviously better that it should be left to the discretion of some one to fix the amount of the bounty.
MR. DISRAELIbelieved that the amount was fixed in the old Act.
MR. S. HERBERTadmitted that it was; but said that there was this difference between the two cases, that the former Act was passed under an immediate pressure and to meet peculiar circumstances, and the result could be judged of at the moment. It would be far preferable to leave the amount of the bounty in the hands of the militia officers, because the difficulty or facility of obtaining men varied considerably.
MR. HILDYARDtook the opportunity of the discussion upon this clause to throw out to the Government, and particularly to the President of the Poor Law Board, a suggestion which, if adopted, would act as a very effective bounty in aid of this Bill. His suggestion was, that the wife and family of no militiaman should be removable during the period of his voluntary
476
service. The effect of this would be, in the first place, to prevent a very great deal of the expense incurred in removal; and secondly, it would only be just to married men volunteering, because such persons did not at all apprehend that the step they took would render their families any more liable to become chargeable to the parish. If this inducement were held out, he believed that many married men would be willing to go abroad. There was a great difference between the case of such men and those who enlisted in the regular army, and he thought a much larger proportion of the militia were married men than was the case in the regular army. He believed that, in fact, many had volunteered into the militia under the belief that they would not be required to leave their wives and families. Of course, if they now volunteered for foreign service under the influence of that patriotic spirit which so happily pervaded the nation, they ought to be encouraged in every possible way to do so. He would recommend that the sum necessary for the maintenance of the families of the militiamen to whom he referred should be taken from the Consolidated Fund, as the advantage to be gained by the measure would be a national one. He would not make any motion on this subject, but he hoped that the President of the Poor Law Board would give this suggestion his consideration.
MR. HENLEYsaw nothing in the Bill to make it clear whether the men who volunteered for this particular service were still to be entitled to receive the annual sums in the shape of bounty which the Government had originally contracted to pay them when they enlisted for the militia. That was a point which he thought ought to be placed beyond all doubt by the clause.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that of course the new bounty paid would include any arrears of the former periodical bounty that might remain payable for services still to be performed in the militia at home. Of course, the fresh engagements contemplated by this Bill would cancel the former bargains made with the men as to the sum of 1l. which they were annually to have received. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hildyard), he thought that that hon Member was under a mistake in supposing that a larger proportion of militiamen than of men belonging to the line were married. He believed that the case

477
was quite the contrary, and that a very small proportion of the militia were married; and, in accepting offers to go abroad, the preference would naturally be given to single men.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that he understood the noble Lord to state that the previous bargains with the men volunteering for this service were to be cancelled, and that they would not receive the annual payment that had been guaranteed to them for a given number of years. Therefore, in the case of a man who volunteered for a specified service, would all claims for future annual payments be put an end to?
MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that all must admit that, whatever arrangements were made with men belonging to the class of these volunteers, the most scrupulous good faith must be kept with them. This was the spirit in which the Government desired to deal with them, and care would be taken that the men would not be losers by any bargain into which they might enter. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would be satisfied with this assurance.
MR. HENLEYwas sure the Government desired to act with good faith towards these persons, but this point ought to be made clear by the Bill, because the men might wish to know the provisions of the measure in this respect before they volunteered.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he understood objections were entertained to engaging the men to serve abroad "during the war," as provided by this clause. Some persons imagined that the war would last ten years, though he hoped it would not. Yet, to get rid of this difficulty, he was ready to substitute words making the service one that should continue for a period of five years, instead of during the war. The five years' engagement would be strictly limited to service in the particular place or places specified in the offers made, and would not be a general engagement to serve in any station out of the United Kingdom.
Amendment agreed to.
COLONEL SIBTHORPmoved to leave out the words, "that such bounties as shall from time to time be fixed by the Secretary at War," in order to substitute the following—
"That it should be distinctly and definitively fixed as to the full amount of bounties to be given to each non-commissioned officer, drummer,
478
or private soldier who shall be disposed to volunteer his services."
MR. S. HERBERThoped the gallant Colonel would not press his Motion, as it would obviously be unwise to fix either the minimum or maximum of the bounties. That was a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the Government, who could then vary the bounty according to the circumstances of the moment.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, his opinion was, that upon this point the Government should be as unfettered as possible. At some subsequent period the Government might be obliged to call for the presence of the militia at other garrisions than those which were now contemplated, and, therefore, any bounty which might be fixed at the present moment might not suit all the circumstances which probably would arise in the future. The Government had already conceded a very important improvement in this clause, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause as amended to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4,
MR. FITZROYmoved the insertion of words to the effect that it should be lawful for Her Majesty to accept the services of one field officer of any regiment of militia in which 300 private men, "or any smaller number, not being less than three-fourths," of the number of private men actually serving in such regiment, shall offer to extend their services under this Act.
Motion agreed to; Clause, thus amended, to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 and 6 agreed to.
COLONEL SIBTHORPmoved the omission of Clause 7, which provides that no militia officer should rank higher than lieutenant colonel, and that the following clause should be inserted instead—
"That every rank which each officer in the militia held heretofore shall continue to be held by him, and that be shall continue to hold and to exercise all the powers and functions of command appertaining to his rank which he did, and during the whole of the period he may be employed in service out of the United Kingdom."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas sorry that he could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member. These things must be done according to general rules and principles, and the inconvenience of having officers of militia with the rank

479
of colonel, liable to be found in garrison with officers of the line in command of a battalion with only the rank of lieutenant colonel, was felt so strongly that, in the arrangements which it became his (Viscount Palmerston's) duty to make for the militia about to be raised, he determined that in future no officer should be appointed to the command of a militia regiment with the rank of a full colonel, and that in future militia regiments should be commanded, like regiments of the line, by lieutenant colonels. The same reason which led him to think that that was a proper arrangement for a regiment of militia at home, would naturally apply to those provisional battalions that had to go abroad; and Her Majesty's Government thinking that, in the organisation of the militia at home, it was desirable that all future appointments of officers in the command of regiments should be made with the rank of lieutenant colonel only, it would be inconsistent on their part to send provisional battalions abroad, where they would be liable to be mixed up with regiments of the line in garrison duty, and allow them to be commanded by full colonels. It was, therefore, following out the principles upon which the militia organisation had been based that Government had determined that the provisional battalions should not be commanded by officers holding a higher rank than that of lieutenant colonel. Everybody knew—and no one better than the gallant Colonel himself—that regiments of the line were always commanded by lieutenant colonels, and that it would be attended with great practical inconvenience if a militia battalion going abroad were commanded by a full colonel, whilst the regiment of the line was commanded by a lieutenant colonel.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: Then, I ask the noble Lord what position I am to be in?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The gallant officer is one of those persons of rank, position, fortune, and social connection in this country whom—with great deference I may be allowed to say—I should wish to see employed in exercising their beneficial influence at home, rather than in the command of regiments of militia abroad. And though I should have the greatest confidence in a regiment going into action commanded by the gallant officer, nevertheless he must be conscious that his influence in his own circle at home might be attended with greater advantage to the nation.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: In reply to the facetious observations of the noble Lord, all I have to say is, that the sooner he and his colleagues vacate the Treasury bench, give up their salaries, and repair to the seat of war, the better it will be for the country.
Amendment negatived.
LORD HOTHAM: As it was now the avowed intention of the Government to send militia regiments to garrisons abroad, he would ask them how they proposed to deal with officers who might hold commissions in the Army at the same time that they served in militia regiments stationed in foreign garrisons. In the case of regimental duties of every description the senior officer in the regiment necessarily took the command. It was, however, a very common thing for the major or majors of the regiments to have superior rank in the army to the lieutenant colonel of the regiment, and the rule of the service was, therefore, that whilst in regimental duties only the senior officer in the regiment took the command, in duties of a general nature, that was to say, when one regiment was brigaded with another, or discharging garrison duties with another, the command then fell, not upon the senior officer of the regiment, but upon the senior officer in the army. In the case of two regiments brigaded together, the major, whatever his seniority in the army, served under the lieutenant colonel of his regiment; but if the officer commanding the brigade happened to be disabled the command was then taken, not by the lieutenant colonel of the regiment, but by the major, because his rank was superior in the army. Now the Government had encouraged the entrance into the militia of half-pay officers in the army. It seemed to him, therefore, that if, after encouraging old officers of this description to serve in the militia, the regiment of militia was sent to a foreign garrison, it would be dealing unjustly with those officers to ask them to serve in respect of garrison duties in an inferior position to that in which they would be entitled to serve if they had remained in the regular army. Take the case of the garrison of Gibraltar. There might be several regiments of militia and regiments of the line in that garrison at the same time, and in those militia regiments officers of a rank in the army, but upon half-pay, superior to any of the commanding officers in the garrison. Indeed, an officer might find in command of the garrison a person who had

481
previously been one of his subalterns. It would be a matter of great hardship, therefore, to old officers, whose presence in the militia Government was anxious to encourage, if officers of this rank were ordered to attend a general court martial without having the same rank there that they would have enjoyed had they remained on full pay in regiments of the line. In some cases, the question might concern the command itself. If he mistook not, it was only within the last two or three years that the garrison of Bermuda was afflicted with a pestilence of a dreadful description, and the officer in command of that garrison was twice or three times changed in consequence of the person exercising the command being struck down by death or sickness. It might happen that in a garrison the officer succeeding to the command might be disabled; and, according to the rule as now laid down, unless the noble Lord consented to its modification, the command of that garrison might devolve on a purely militia officer, whilst there might be serving in that or another militia regiment an officer of twenty or thirty years' standing, who, he (Lord Hotham) supposed, would be a more competent person to assume the command of the garrison. In making these remarks he did not mean to reflect upon any of the officers of militia; they were entitled to every possible amount of consideration which Parliament could extend to them; but ho was greatly mistaken if these officers on being appealed to would not say that, in such an emergency as he had described, they would infinitely rather see the garrison in which they were stationed under the command of an officer of twenty or thirty years' experience than their own. It was on these grounds that he (Lord Hotham) ventured to submit, that, inasmuch as they were about to alter the service of the militia regiments, and place them in garrisons with regiments of the line, they should recognise the station of the officers holding Her Majesty's commission, although serving in a militia regiment, and, as regarded garrison duty, put them in the same position as if in full pay in Her Majesty's Army; and he begged to move the insertion of a proviso to that effect.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONopposed the Amendment as inconsistent with the established law and practice of the army. All officers of militia who had been in the regular army must be upon half-pay—they could not accept a commission in the
482
militia unless they were on half-pay, or had retired from their particular rank in the army; but no officers on half-pay could exercise military authority under the Mutiny Act. It was impossible for them, therefore, being in a foreign garrison upon half-pay of the army, and only upon full pay as a militia officer, to exercise under the Mutiny Act any military authority over any portion of the regular army stationed in the same garrison. No officer on half-pay could exercise military authority unless he was placed upon the staff; and that he conceived was a sufficient reason why the proposal of the noble Lord could not be adopted. To say, therefore, that they should rank according to their position in the army would be an empty enactment, unless they were also empowered to exercise military authority over regiments of the line, and unless any soldier disobeying their orders were made liable to be tried by a court-martial for such disobedience. But such a departure from the ordinary rules of the service would involve such a change in the fundamental principles of military organisation as to be liable to serious objections, and those objections would not be counterbalanced by any advantages which, in one case or another, might possibly arise on that proposal. It was not at all likely that in Gibraltar, Malta, or the Ionian Islands, such a circumstance could occur as that which had taken place in the Bermudas, and the garrison be left without some officer of rank, who would entirely override any regimental officer who might be in command of a militia regiment.
LORD HOTHAM: It was perfectly true that no officer on half-pay could exercise command unless he was put upon the staff, and, according to the terms of the Mutiny Act, no officer on half-pay could exercise military authority; but, in point of fact, this very Bill gave to officers in the militia service power to act under the Mutiny Act, for, by Clause 11, they were to serve indiscriminately with officers of the regular army upon courts-martial. The question, then, was, in what capacity they were to serve upon these courts-martial? And was it not just that they should take their place at the table of the court-martial according to the superior rank they held in the regular army, and not according to the inferior rank they held in the militia? Then, in regard to staff duties, were they or were they not to take the ordinary duties of the garrison, and were field

483
officers of militia to act as field officers of the garrison or were they not? His position was that they ought to be on the roll of field officers in the garrison, according to their rank in the army, and not according to their rank in the militia. And, in asking this, he asked no more than was due to their services and what they had a right to expect from the Government, who had avowed that the service of those men was just what they required.
COLONEL NORTHthought the proposition of the noble Lord was but fair to those officers of the line who had joined the militia service, and should, therefore, give it his support.
COLONEL DUNNEdid not apprehend that many officers of the line would suffer by the measure of the Government as it stood, because he knew that officers of the line would not accept commissions in the militia of a rank inferior to that which they held in the regular army. The only thing worthy of consideration was, whether the time served by those officers in the militia should be counted as part of their regular service. In his opinion it ought.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that militia officers were brought under the Mutiny Act was undoubtedly true; but that was in virtue of the commissions under which they received their pay.
Amendment negatived; clause to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to; Clause 10 struck out; Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to; Clause 16 struck out; remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD LOVAINEdesired to add a clause to the Bill by which it should be put on record that, in the case of a certain portion of a regiment volunteering to go abroad, the remaining portion at home should be kept on duty to add vigour to the regiment that had been sent abroad.
MR. S. HERBERTdid not exactly see the effect of this clause, and thought it doubtful as to whether it was necessary to insert in the Act a clause stating that the portion of the regiment remaining at home should be embodied or disembodied, as this would be done according to the circumstances and the requirements of the time.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. BANKESmoved the insertion of the following proviso, namely— "Provided always, and be it further enacted, that the total number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and private men to be raised by
484
this Act, by extending their services as hereinbefore mentioned, shall not exceed 15,000."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in point of fact it was not at all likely that Government would want so many as 15,000. They had followed the precedent of the former Act, which did not fix any particular limit, and it seemed to him it would be creating an unfounded apprehension that the whole militia were to be sent abroad if they inserted this proviso.
MR. BANKESsaid, the former Act did limit the number; the number was 30,000; but then the militia were wanted for the field, which was not the case here, and 15,000 would be sufficient. However, he would not press the proviso.
Motion withdrawn.
MR. FITZROYmoved the insertion of a clause making subalterns of militia, of five years' standing, eligible to the rank of captain without property qualification.
MR. HENRY HERBERTsuggested that subalterns who had served three years should be entitled to that privilege.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it should be remembered that the five years included a period during which the regiment had been disembodied, and when the subaltern could only have served twenty-eight days in the year. He thought, therefore, the five years ought not to be considered too long.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, Mr. Bouverie, my objection to the clause is, that its tendency is not, as fully as I could wish, to promote the efficiency of the militia. In my opinion whatever can be offered in the form of reward, should be to those officers who manifest zeal and patriotism in our present struggle—I mean to those officers who join their more humble neighbours in the several counties to volunteer for any duty by which the soldiers of the line are set free for foreign service. I think that every officer who has accepted rank in his own county in the militia force ought in inclination, at least, to be ready to volunteer for the more extended duty which may be desirable. I say in inclination, because I am aware that many noblemen and gentlemen holding commissions in the militia have civil duties to discharge which are important to the public, and would render their volunteering for remote service not only inconvenient but prejudicial; and as to those noblemen and gentlemen, I would relieve them from any unfavourable impression which their not volunteering might

485
otherwise warrant, by taking from them all choice, and disqualifying them from such service; but, on the other hand, officers not so rendered ineligible, but remaining at home as matter of choice and personal convenience, should reap no advantage beyond that conferred by the indulgence of such inconvenience. They have in that indulgence all to which they can be entitled. They do not equally with those who volunteer support the character of their county militia, and encourage the privates of the regiment, and to them, therefore, no peculiar advantages should be extended; and I should have been glad if Government had taken that view of the subject, which, in my opinion, is not carried out by the clause now under consideration. It is not, however, my intention to oppose the Clause, or in any way to impede the passing of the Bill.
Clause read 3a and added to the Bill.
MR. J. G. SMITHwished to draw the noble Lord's attention to the claims of subaltern officers in the militia to a retiring allowance. Certainly, they were entitled to it.
MR. BANKESsaid, it would be a great convenience to embodied militia regiments if they were permitted to use the ordinary military barracks of the country when they were not occupied by regular troops.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas quite aware of the necessity of such accommodation being afforded, and knew that a desire existed in the Quartermaster General's department to make arrangements for suitable quarters for the militia; but, unfortunately, at the conclusion of the last war, it not being apprehended that the country would have any occasion for barracks at any very early period, a great portion of them were sold or given up, and the present barrack accommodation was comparatively small. The first object of the Government had been to put into the barracks those persons who were employed in raising troops for the public service. After that, the militia were quartered in such barracks as were available. When there were but few regiments of militia embodied, care was taken to afford them accommodation in the barracks, but now that a great number of regiments were embodied it was impossible to find barrack room for them. With regard to Dorchester and Weymouth, with which district the right hon. and learned Gentleman was connected, those places were chiefly garrison towns for cavalry, and to put a regiment of
486
infantry into a cavalry barracks required changes to be made which would afterwards render those barracks wholly disqualified for cavalry barracks. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was the wish of Government to put the militia into barracks, as it was obvious that such a mode of quartering the men would greatly improve their discipline.
COLONEL ARCHDALLasked if county officers in Ireland would be eligible to hold commissions in the militia?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that there was an objection to appoint any person to a commission in the militia who had other public duties to perform which were incompatible with the duties imposed by such a commission.
COLONEL SIBTHORPconsidered that the allowance to the assistant surgeons ought to be considerably increased; those allowances were at present wholly inadequate to the station held by those persons. He also wished to know whether the colonels or lieutenant colonels of militia who preferred serving their country at home would be liable to be superseded by their juniors of similar rank on their return from foreign service?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that with regard to those officers who now held a rank of command in the militia, their rank would be wholly untouched by their regiments going abroad. They would remain full colonels of their regiment, and on the return of the troops from abroad would resume their command. All those who were in the position of the hon. and gallant colonel would continue to hold the rank and power they at present possessed.
Bill reported.
Bill, as amended, considered.
House resumed.
MR. FITZROYmoved a clause respecting notices for drawing out and embodying the militia regiments, which was agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

QUEEN'S SPEECH—ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIG reported HER MAJESTY'S Answer to the Address of the Commons, as follows:—
"YOUR loyal and dutiful Address has afforded Me much satisfaction.
"I THANK you for the assurance of your support

487
in the measures which I consider to be necessary for the vigorous prosecution of the War in which We are engaged. And I trust that the result of your exertions and sacrifices may, under the Blessing of the Almighty, be the establishment of the Peace of Europe on a secure and lasting foundation."

MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred:—Motion considered.
(In the Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SLIGO ELECTION.
MR. WHITESIDEmoved, "that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Indictment found at the last Assizes for the county of Sligo against Michael Gethin, Henry Simpson, and James Simpson, directed by this House to be prosecuted for certain grave offences by the Attorney General for Ireland." He was told that it was impossible to obtain a conviction against these men from a common jury of Sligo and he therefore recommended that the case should be removed by certiorari into the Queen's Bench.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, it was unusual to ask for the production of such a document as this, but still less was it usual for a Member of the House to give the Government advice as to the course which a law officer of the Crown ought to take. The observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman betrayed a want of courtesy from one Member of the bar to another.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was at a loss to understand the latter remark of the right hon. Baronet, because, when the privileges of the House had been so shamefully violated as to induce a Select Committee unanimously to recommend that the parties should be prosecuted, he had a right, as a Member of the House, to make the observation he did, and to warn the right hon. Baronet of the fact, that it was in the power of the Attorney General to have an impartial trial by removing the matter into the Queen's Bench. He made that observation in no invidious sense, nor did he intend to make the least reflection upon the mode in which the former prosecution had been conducted.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was
488
not intended to have a second trial, and he should be glad to know if the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to press the Address for a copy of the indictment?
MR. WHITESIDEreplied in the negative.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGNERS BILL.
Message from The Lords—That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to permit Foreigners to be enlisted, and to serve as Officers and Soldiers in Her Majesty's Forces."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved, that this Bill be now read a first time.
Bill read 1°; to be read 2° To-morrow.
MR. DISRAELI: I conclude the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. For the sake of facilitating public business, I do not object to the second reading of the Bill to-morrow; but I should be sorry if the noble Lord would conclude from that that I do not object to the passing of this measure, for I shall offer it my most uncompromising opposition.
Adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Enlistment of Foreigners.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE—THE ADDRESS— OBSERVATIONS.
LORD BROUGHAM,in presenting a Petition of John Gilmour, Secretary of the London Committee of Merchants associated fur the Assimilation of the Commercial Laws of the United Kingdom, praying that a similar measure to the Bills of Exchange Bill of last Session may be passed, said, I hope your Lordships will suffer me on this occasion to express my regret at having beets unavoidably absent on the opening of the Session —not that there was any reason to apprehend a struggle in Parliament upon the great matters which caused its assembling, unless the struggle who should render most effectual assistance to the Government in carrying on the war, there being in every quarter an entire abnegation of all factious views and feelings—nor that it was necessary to join my voice with more eloquent tongues in the chorus chanted to the immortal glories of the Allied arms, or to mingle my tears with those which unhappily bedewed their laurels. It is, indeed, a bitter cup of which we have now to taste, when, at the close of a long life, devoted, according to the measure of my humble means, to the cause of peace, the furtherance of improvement in knowledge and in freedom, in all that constitutes civility and refinement, I find the world plunged in war such as has never before been waged—the war of enlightened government against benighted despotism—of civilisation itself against barbarism—barbarism armed with the weapons which civilisation puts into its hands, and with the superadded, the unhallowed force that it derives from a savage nature's execrable resources, to which its humaner antagonists would blush and shudder to resort. That in this conflict the right may prevail, and our arms be crowned with victory, all good men, all rational must pray, and the happy union which binds the Western Powers together is the best earnest of it. But I would fain be permitted to remark the unreflecting injustice with which, in our anxious desire of success, we are apt to regard another great Power, Austria, forgetting how very different is her position and ours

423
in relation to the common enemy. She touches on his territory, is in part surrounded by it, while we have all Europe between. Yet let me add, that the combat is now raging at our cost for her even more than for ourselves; that the contest is not more for the Ottoman than for the Austrian empire; that, if it ends unfavourably, our Ottoman Ally will be less injured than our Austrian, by the reverse of fortune. To ward off so fatal a result from her by all means, is the most imperative duty which Austria owes to her own States; and, let me further say, she is grievously, most grievously, deceived, if she imagines that any effort she may make to ensure the success of the Allied arms, can possibly increase the hatred of her felt by Russia, or quicken the desire of vengeance for what Austria has already done. With her aid, or without it, we may look for a successful result of the present operations; and then let us hope that he who broke the blessed peace of thirty-nine years with which Providence had crowned the glorious, the equally glorious, efforts of the Allies in twenty years of war—he who had once earned so high a character, probably for moderation, possibly for self-denial, certainly as the enemy of anarchy and the defender of order, a character in later times, I will not say forfeited, but in abeyance—not confiscated, but sequestered—may be disposed to regain the possession of it, as he easily may, for the honour of his arms, in a military view, is untarnished, and he may cause the past to be forgotten by once more listening to counsels of justice and moderation, and allowing the peace of the world, which he broke, to be restored.

THE VOTE OF THANKS—INSERTION OF NAMES.
LORD COLCHESTERcalled the attention of the noble Duke the Secretary of War, to the fact that the name of Rear Admiral Stopford had been omitted from the Vote of Thanks. Admiral Stopford had rendered the most important services as Captain of the Fleet, and he wished to know whether the question had been brought before the Secretary of War with a view to insert the name omitted?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that his attention had been called to the omission; he had consulted precedents on the matter, and, although he found the cases were not precisely alike, there was sufficient similarity between them to enable
424
him to supply the omission. The noble Duke was also understood to say, that the names of Major General Airey and Major General Estcourt had been also accidentally omitted. Under those circumstances, he had handed their names to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and proposed that they should be inserted in the previous Resolutions by Resolution of the House.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwas extremely glad this would be done, but, at the same time, he was sure their Lordships would feel that, unless there was, on that particular point, a distinct precedent by the insertion of the names of officers on a former occasion, nothing could be more dangerous than the course now proposed—namely, to insert words of alteration in a Resolution passed on a previous day. It was contrary to all the regulations of the House, and might lead to the most pernicious results. It must be, therefore, understood as a precedent confined to the particular point of the insertion of the names of officers accidentally omitted.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he believed there were two precedents for the course proposed.
Moved, That the First and Second Resolutions of the House on Friday last be now read: The same were accordingly read:—
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente,
"That the Names of Brigadier General, now Major General, Richard Airey, Quartermaster General, and Brigadier General, now Major General, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, Adjutant General, be inserted in the said Resolution, and in the Order for communicating the same."
Moved, That the Fourth Resolution of the House of Friday last be now read: The same was accordingly read:—
Resolved, Nemine Dissentiente,
"That the Name of Rear Admiral the Honourable Montagu Stopford, Captain of the Fleet, be inserted in the said Resolution, and in the Order for communicating the same."

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
EARL GREYmoved for Copies of any Orders made by Her Majesty in Council with respect to the appointment of a Fourth Secretary of State, and the Division of the Colonial and War Departments; also of any Correspondence which has taken place between the different Departments of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Changes which may

425
have been made in the arrangements for transacting the Business of the Army in consequence of the above Division. His Lordship said, that in the last Session of Parliament he had brought under the notice of the House the constitution of the Colonial and War Department; and the noble Duke the now Secretary of State for the War Department then was of opinion, that it was not necessary to make any new arrangement. Subsequently, however, it appeared it was found necessary to make a change, and Her Majesty was advised that the former Colonial and War Departments should be re-arranged, and that a fourth Secretary of State for War should be appointed. He presumed that there had been an Order in Council authorising the establishment of a fourth Secretary of State, and the arrangement of the business, performed by the two former departments, in the single office; and he presumed that that had led to correspondence between the Offices. He had no wish that any correspondence of a confidential character should be produced; but he presumed there could be no objection to the production of the papers he asked for. After the recess, he thought the whole question of the War Department should be brought under the notice of their Lordships.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, there was not the slightest objection to lay before the House any papers on the matter. The noble Earl was wrong in supposing that there had been any Order in Council on the subject; the alteration had been effected by a somewhat similar document, a declaration in Council, which would be laid on the table. His noble Friend was correct in saying, that the alterations proposed in a department were generally made by personal communication and private correspondence; but the only document of any material importance in regard to them, was the Treasury Minute by which the arrangement was effected, transferring the Commissariat Department from the Treasury to the Secretary of War. There was also another document embodying the provisional arrangement between the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of War, which it was necessary to make, because the House was aware that until within the last fortnight no office had been provided for the Secretary of War, and he had been in the occupation of some rooms lent by his noble Friend the First Minister of the Crown, and se-
426
veral of the officers of the new department continued to occupy offices in the department of the Colonial Secretary. Under these circumstances, several of the arrangements under the new department were merely provisional, and the final arrangements had not been made. He could not, therefore, name the precise documents which would be laid before the House, but, at the same time, such as could give the information asked for by the noble Earl should be produced without delay.

THE IRISH AND SCOTCH MILITIA.
THE EARL OF GLENGALLwished to ask the noble Duke the Secretary of War a question with regard to the embodiment of the Irish and Scotch militia. By the powers which the Government now possessed, they could enrol and embody no less than 40,000 of those Scotch and Irish troops; he very much regretted that they had not thought it right to do so in March or April last, for, if they had, in all probability they would now have got 30,000 out of these 40,000 men together, and he did not think it was too much to suppose that, had they been embodied at that early period, one-half at least would have volunteered into the line, and thus they would have been able to add 15,000 trained men to our army in the Crimea.. However, that was not done; and now, at the eleventh hour, when they had received news of the losses sustained by our army both by pestilence and in action, it was found necessary to send to Scotland and Ireland to raise soldiers to fight for their country. He did not think it was too late to embody those men at present, so as to form a strong reserve, ready in a short time for active service. They knew how rapidly the English militia had been embodied and disciplined, and what a fine soldier like appearance they presented; and he was convinced, that if the whole of the Irish and Scotch militia was embodied, we should in three months have a large body of men trained, and prepared, and ready to volunteer into the line. In 1814, when we were at war with France, the battalions were constantly recruited by fresh militiamen; and, at Waterloo, a great part of the veteran troops known as Wellingtonians were in America and other parts of the world, and the English army, recruited by militiamen, was considered only an indifferent army; but those militiamen behaved with a courage and daring which were worthy of their more expe-

427
rienced brethren. He, therefore, hoped to see that, instead of the Government looking to foreign countries for soldiers, the Irish and Scotch militia would be called out and trained at once, so that, on the resumption of hostilities, such as volunteered might be ready to go out. He was of opinion that our soldiers already in the Crimea would a great deal rather have these sturdy young militiamen drafted into their battalions than trust to the aid of foreign troops enlisted in a mercenary spirit. The militia had always stood their ground when they had been engaged, but it was not certain whether foreign mercenaries would exhibit the same firmness. The sturdy militiamen would be good hands at the sort of work which our troops had to perform in the Crimea; but nearly all our soldiers knew from a work which, he hoped, was a school-book in the regimental schools—the Rev. Mr. Gleig's Battle of Waterloo—that, although 13,000 Hanoverians behaved as nobly as our own men, the Belgian cavalry could not be induced to stand for any time under fire. The Government made a great secret of whence it expected to get those foreigners, lest the Emperor of Russia should interfere to prevent our getting them. He did not think the Emperor of Russia cared one pin where we got them from, and that, as a man of good sense, he would prefer meeting foreign mercenaries rather than our own sturdy militiamen. He therefore wished to know how many of the Irish and Scotch militia regiments had been ordered to be embodied, and how many more were afterwards to be embodied?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not think it right or necessary to enter now into a discussion with the noble Earl upon the subject of a Bill which stood for a third reading that night, or whether it was necessary, in addition to the militia, to have the aid of foreign troops. As to the noble Earl's question, he begged to remind him that when he said the Government ought to have embodied the Irish militia in March or April, he seemed to forget that there was then no Act of Parliament constituting the Irish militia, either for enrolment or embodiment. The difficulty was, that the Government had not done what it had not the power to do. The Bill was afterwards passed on the proposition of the Government for the enrolment of the militia in Ireland and Scotland; and so far the Government deserved the credit for their prescience of the necessity
428
rather than blame for not having done in the spring that which Parliament only enabled it to do in the summer. The noble Earl, however, had extended his complaint against the Government. On a former evening he only said that the Government should have enrolled and embodied the militia sooner. The noble Earl informed the House the other night that no one knew as much of the Irish militia as he did; and, if that were so, he must be aware that there were reasons connected with the measure which had prevented the Government from enrolling the militia in Ireland and Scotland until five or six weeks ago. Preparations absolutely necessary as to the officers and other preliminaries rendered it impossible for the enrolment of the Irish militia to take place at an earlier period. In answer to the question of the noble Earl, he (the Duke of Newcastle) had informed him the other night that nine regiments of militia had been ordered to be embodied, for it had been found in Ireland that regiments were enrolled with greater facility when they were to be embodied immediately than when embodiment was to take place at a more distant period. Thus nine regiments, numbering about 6,000 or 7,000 men, had been embodied. The whole Irish militia to be enrolled amounted to about 27,000 men, and other nine regiments would be embodied almost immediately; but he was not prepared to assure the noble Earl that the whole militia would be embodied. It was desirable to embody those regiments first which were in the most forward condition as regarded officers and the readiness of obtaining men, but he had reason to hope that ere long all the Irish regiments would be embodied. He might make the same remarks with respect to Scotland; and, as to England, he stated the other evening that it was intended to embody a very large proportion, if not the whole, of the militia; but there were considerable difficulties in the way arising from the want of sufficient barrack accommodation.
THE EARL OF DESARTrejoiced to hear that it was intended to embody the constitutional force of the country, and felt certain that the appeal to the Irish people would be responded to by every class. Never was the service more popular, whether in the ranks of the Army or in the best school for reinforcing the regular forces—the militia. The measure to which the House gave its assent last Friday (the Enlistment of Foreigners Bill) was most

429
discreditable to its propounders, and most disparaging both of the resources of the country and the spirit of the people. What would the Emperor of Russia think when he found that he had only to redouble his efforts to drive into the sea the heroes of Inkerman, and that henceforth we could offer no resistance to his ambitious designs, save through a body of paid foreigners? He very much feared that our gallant force would gain less by the assistance of these foreign troops than they would lose by the conviction which would be forced upon the Emperor of Russia's mind that it only needed one blow to destroy all the resources of England. He warned the Government that, if the measure was passed, it would be universally disliked by the people, who considered that Englishmen were able to fight their own battles, and to guard the honour of their country without the aid of foreigners, and he would remind the Government that, whatever might have been the conduct of the German troops in the 18th century, yet now there were some German Governments which did not stand very high in the estimation of this country.

ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGNERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now road 3a.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that as the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) had not intimated his intention of proposing any Amendment, it was to be presumed that the Government intended that the Bill should go to the House of Commons as it now stood. That being the case, and as few of their Lordships were present on Saturday, and could not have been expected to be present, it was but right that he should restate what material alterations had been mule in the Bill. Those alterations were entirely confined to the substitution of 110,000 for 15,000 men, and that, no doubt, was a material and valuable concession on the part of the Government; but it was not one which did much credit to the forethought or mature consideration which ought to have characterised the concoction of a Bill of such very great importance—for it appeared to be indifferent to them whether the number of foreigners to be enlisted was to be 10,000 or 15,000. However, so far as that alteration went, it was a great improvement of the but it was the may one. There could be
430
no doubt that, under the second clause as now worded, under the designation of "body of reserve," it was possible foe the Ministry to retain in this country a very large portion of the 10,000 men whom the Crown was to be permitted to have in England. It was a remarkable circumstance that, while it was declared to be the intention of the Government that the reserves of British regiments employed in the Crimea should he established at Malta, or some such station conveniently near to the Crimea, it was also intended that the reserves of the German battalions should be retained in England. That being so, the only reason why such nn arrangement was proposed—why English reserves were sent to the Mediterranean garrisons, while the German reserves were kept in this country—must be that the Government mistrusted those German troops, and would not venture to place them in a Mediterranean garrison. How, then, could they with any degree of security employ those troops in the Crimea against the enemy? Would there not be, he would not say the probability, but a risk, that, having been armed, disciplined, and clothed by this Government, they might transfer their services to the enemy whom they were paid to combat? The noble Duke had just observed that there was insufficient barrack accommodation in this country for the militia—and, if so, where were these German troops to be placed? Were they to be placed in the existing barracks, to the exclusion of the in militia, and thus defer the embodiment of the militia till the German troops were sent off to their regiments abroad? He also wished to draw their Lordships' attention to a point to which he had not previously adverted—the fifth clause. By that clause Her Majesty was empowered to make Supplemental Articles of War, varying from the Articles of War which were applicable to Her Majesty's native forces, and those varied Articles of War were to apply specially to the German or other foreign legion which might be engaged. By the Mutiny Act, the Articles of War were transmitted to the Judges of the superior courts, and they were bound to take judicial notice of them. The Judges would be thus compelled to take judicial notice of two different sets of Articles of War, applicable to two distinct bodies of men. But that inconvenience was nothing compared with that of having in the same army foreign and English troops subject

431
to different Articles of War. The greatest inconvenience would arise in the administration of punishment for offences. The same offence, committed at the same time, by the same persons in company and conspiracy—by a foreigner and an Englishman—would, under different Articles of War, be punished in different modes. It was hardly necessary to say how prejudicially such a circumstance would operate on the troops. He saw the Commander in Chief (Viscount Hardinge) was present, and would like to ask that noble and gallant Lord whether this clause had been submitted to him before being laid before the House? He asked that question because he knew that his noble and gallant Friend, when in India, had perceived the strong inconvenience, if not danger, arising from having different Articles of War for the Native and British troops, and he altered the Articles of War relating to Natives so as to make them in conformity with the articles which governed the Queen's troops. It was true the practice of flogging, retained in our Army, though rarely employed, did not prevail in the German service, which had different punishments, such as the "stick;" but in this country no punishment could be inflicted except by the authority of law, and it was a serious matter if our Articles of War were to be altered, so as to be acceptable to these German troops, and to place them in a different position from Her Majesty's troops. Another question of great importance was, whence were these foreign troops to be obtained? He should rejoice if by any arrangement the King of Hanover might place at the disposal of Her Majesty—becoming a party to the war—those magnificent troops whose assistance in the Peninsular war was admitted by all to be of the greatest possible advantage to us But, though he entertained that opinion with regard to those troops, it was not the same with respect to some of the other German States. Unless he was mistaken, be believed it was the general opinion of officers who had served in the Peninsular war, and were acquainted with the relative qualities of foreign troops, that, however favourably they might regard the conduct of the German Legion composed of subjects of the Sovereign of this country, that favourable opinion by no means extended to the introduction into Her Majesty's service of German and other foreign troops, obtained anyhow, in any place, and from any country, over whom
432
we should have no control beyond the authority exercised under the Articles of War. His opinion of the Bill remained unaltered by anything which he had heard in the course of the debate. He still adhered to the opinion that no troops in the world were equal to British troops. Whatever might be the merits of foreigners or Germans under ordinary circumstances, he did not believe that any German troops could equal British troops under circumstances like those which existed at Inkerman, and which might again exist in the prosecution of the war. A chain cable might be made partly of wrought iron and partly of cast iron, and when painted all its parts look equally well, and it might answer its purpose sufficiently under ordinary circumstances; but when the strain of the storm came, the cable would yield where the links were weakest, and the ship would be lost. So it would be with an unequal line of battle, when equal confidence could not be placed in all the regiments forming it. If one part of the line gave way the position would be endangered, and the greatest possible calamity might ensue. He wished to have the whole British Army formed of wrought iron, and that no part of it should be likely, under any circumstances, to prove weak or unsafe. Every man opposed to the enemy should be one in whom entire confidence could be placed. After all, the great difference which existed between the British and every foreign soldier was one which, he believed, he might allude to without exaggerating the advantages of our constitution—the sentiment of personal dignity which it imparted to every man, however lowly, and which was a sentiment not to be obtained under any other Government of Europe. The British soldier was proud to be an Englishman—he would consider any shrinking from his duty to be dishonour—he felt that he should be hooted by his fellow-townsmen—would be scorned by, the women. Those feelings it was which made them fight so well, and enabled them to beat their enemy. But how different would it be with the foreigners whom they might enlist. Whose opinions would they regard if they disgraced their service? We knew nothing of their history or their feelings. They might desert with impunity in the hour of danger, might disgrace the army to which they were attached, and, returning to their own country, be as much respected as they ever were on the banks

433
of the Oder, the Weser, and the Danube. He had asked, the other night, whether there was an understanding with German Powers? He received no answer; but one ought to be given, and he wished to know the fact. There were but two classes of men from whom recruits could possibly be drawn—because they were to be all trained troops—those who had been discharged from the service and those who were in actual service. Those who had been discharged from the army were absorbed in agriculture and trade, and the chances of our success in recruiting among them were very uncertain. We did not know how we wore to appeal to those men. But it was different with the soldiers now serving, and he wished to know what consideration was to be given to German Princes for selling the services of their subjects? Could any one believe that little German Princes would put themselves to the inconvenience of allowing their subjects to leave their ranks and enlist in foreign armies in preference to their own without some consideration? There must he a "consideration;" and he wished to know what it was. He wished to know, in common sense and common truth, whether there was any difference in fact between the "consideration" we were to give to the little German Princes for selling to us the services of their subjects and the consideration which the buyer of slaves gave to the King of Dahomey for the bodies of his subjects? He did not see how, if they repudiated the detestable practice of slave dealing, the principle could be different on the banks of the Elbe from that which took place on the banks of the Congo. After having insisted upon the abolition of the "detestable traffic," as it had been called, conducted on the coast of Africa, was it to be endured that Parliament should be asked to assent to a Bill for establishing such a traffic in the interior of Germany? If the Princes of Germany joined our alliance, well and good; then we might fairly and honestly assist them with pecuniary aid in bringing their troops into action; but if, on the contrary, they sold the blood of their subjects for money, he saw no difference between them and the lowest and most debased princes on the African coast. He bad not devoted his attention to those studies which had distinguished Her Majesty's Ministers—studies solely devoted to the object of extending the wealth and industrial resources of
434
the country. Admitting the value of those objects, and that it was most desirable, in time of peace, that a very large portion of the attention of Parliament should be bestowed upon them, he had given his attention to what appeared to him an object of greater importance—that of maintaining in security the country of which he was proud to be a citizen, of preserving its strength, and giving it that material security against foreign States which was essential to the conservation of its liberties. One of the wisest of mankind bad declared that one of the most material points in the greatness of a State was the maintenance in it of a body of military men. To the extent to which the present Bill went, it would impair the advantages which, in that respect, this country already possessed. To the extent, to which they paid and trained Germon soldiers instead of Englishmen, and formed them into regiments, they were depriving themselves of the incalculable advantage of having, when peace was coneluded—if that should ever be—in every village throughout the country men who had been trained to, and who had been engaged in war, and who, under the present regulations of the service, would be liable to be called out if the State required their aid. He was satisfied that Her Majesty's Ministers could not have adopted a more imprudent course than that of introducing the principle of employing foreign instead of British soldiers in the prosecution of the war. He said. "instead of British soldiers," because he felt perfectly satisfied that the more easily they obtained foreign recruits, the less trouble would they take to obtain English recruits. He wished to force Her Majesty's Government to place reliance upon the people of England, They had attempted to carry on a war without a reserve, and a campaign without animals, that is, without the means of moving the army—an attempt which necessarily doomed our troops to bloody and fruitless victories, and rendered the honourable and safe peace which had been talked of a thing almost impossible, because, if they continued to act upon these principles, it was contrary to all the theory of war, it was contrary to all the military experience of ages, it was contrary to common sense, to suppose that they would ever obtain that decisive success which could alone lead to a safe and honourable peace. It had been said, however, by a noble Lord (Viscount Palmer-

435
ston) that their reserve was the people of England. He knew not what military knowledge that noble Lord might have acquired, although he was aware that some of the noble Lord's admirers had represented him as a person who was best fitted, by his antecedents and his previous long-acquired knowledge, to conduct the hostilities in which this country was engaged; but he (the Earl of Ellenborough) knew that a reserve in war meant a body of disciplined soldiers, ready at any time to give their assistance to the army in the field. To talk of a reserve existing "in the people of England" was really to treat with contempt the reasoning powers of that people. if that was, however, the feeling of the noble Lord, let him appeal to the people of England, and not to the people of Germany, Now was the time to make that appeal, when the country was represented to be in a condition of great difficulty, entirely owing to the laches of the Government, and to their having neglected the necessary precautions and preparations by which only success in war could be obtained. There was one point upon which he was most anxious to address some observations to their Lordships, and he should not discharge his duty unless he took the earliest convenient opportunity of doing so. He referred to the general conduct of the war. He considered that every military principle had been disregarded in the course of our operations, and that nothing which we had the means of doing had been done for the purpose of oppressing and coercing the enemy; but he did not think the present occasion was one when it would be convenient to enter upon such a discussion, but he would deem it his duty, at the earliest possible period, to state to their Lordships his sense of what had been done, his opinion as to what ought to be done, and his deep apprehension that, unless the war was conducted upon military principles, the failure would be most fatal, and the result would be, not only to disappoint the just expectations of the people, but to bring the greatest calamities upon the country.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that, having taken no part in the previous discussion upon this Bill, he might be allowed, now that it had reached almost its last stage in their Lordships' House, to state the grounds on which he would give it his support. He thought that, although the measure was undoubtedly of consider-
436
able importance; very undue importance had, in one sense, been attached to it in consequence of the incredibly exaggerated apprehensions which had been expressed by some noble Lords as to its effect. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had conjured up phantoms which disappeared before the light of investigation, and the more the grounds of those apprehensions which had been expressed were sifted and examined, the more unfounded and absurd would they be found; and when that phantom of fear which he had conjured up came to be analysed—when the light was held to that spectre which the imagination of the noble Earl had created—it would be found to vanish into the air, in the same way in which less accredited spectres usually disappeared. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was anxious to express his opinions upon the measure with regard especially to those points which had elicited the criticism of the noble Earl. In the first speech made by the noble Earl in opposition to the Bill, he dwelt upon a point on which he had said little to-night—the constitutional objections to which the Bill was open. They had heard somewhat less from the noble Earl to-night as to the constitutional question than they had been accustomed to hear from him on previous occasions. The constitution, he thought, was a horse which the noble Earl found he could not ride, for it had fairly broken down with him. The Bill had unquestionably excited a good deal of apprehension out of doors, because the people did not know the precise nature of the measure, nor what its practical operation would be. But the opponents of the Bill in that House were not similarly ignorant of its real character. He honoured and respected the public out of doors for the jealousy of the measure which they had, not unnaturally, exhibited; but he could not say the same for noble Lords in the House, for they ought to know better. When the people out of doors were told that this was a Bill in the prosecution of the principles of which they would be called upon to part with that constitution for which they were fighting, and told so upon the authority of the noble Earl opposite, and that the duty of carrying out the plans of the Government was to be carried out by Germans engaged for that purpose, they naturally thought the Government were about to do something very dreadful. The noble Earl and the other opponents of the measure seemed, however, to forget that there had been

437
scarcely any period in English history at which great efforts were made when the constitution bad not been violated in some manner or other, but violated with precautions which prevented any mischievous results; that there had been no period, from the wars of the Duke of Marlborough to those of the Duke of Wellington, at which they had not been indebted for their success in every brilliant action and in every successful campaign to the employment of the very means which the noble Earl now so strongly deprecated. Did the Duke of Wellington deprecate the employment of such means? Was he an authority on the subject? Did the Duke of Marlborough deprecate the employment of such means, and was he an authority? It stood to reason that when this country was compelled to take a more prominent part in a great military struggle than its own resources, in some respects, enabled it to support—for, thank God! this never had been a warlike country so far as the maintenance of a great standing army was concerned—the Government should have recourse to those means by which we could best match the power which our adversary could bring against us. He agreed with many of the opinions which had been expressed by the noble Earl on the subject of the war. The noble Earl had, upon various occasions during the last Session, expressed to the House with great eloquence the sense he entertained of the magnitude, the importance, the difficulties, and the possible duration of the war, and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had on one of such occasions taken the opportunity of stating that upon every one of those points he entirely concurred with the noble Earl. Whatever might have been the case some months ago, the whole world was now agreed, Parliament was agreed, the public was agreed as to the immense difficulties attending the war and the power of the enemy—too much overlooked at first—with whom this country was contending. They had to cope with an enemy determined in his objects, and having extensive resources at his disposal, and they had to consider how they could meet all the efforts of that enemy for the accomplishment of his ambitious projects. This country had the good fortune to possess a navy which was capable of engaging successfully in a contest with the fleets of its adversary, and by an admirable arrangement our naval forces bad, during the last year, been stationed both in the Baltic mid the Black Sea so as to command and en-
438
tirely to defeat all the efforts of the enemy, compelling him to let his ships rot in port or to be himself the instrument of their destruction by sinking them in front of the forts erected to protect them. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) considered that these successes on the part of the navy were highly creditable to the Board of Admiralty. This country had the advantage of a public credit which enabled it to command to any extent "the sinews of war;" and, although the noble Earl had spoken of commercial pursuits with some contempt, he might remind the noble Earl that it was by the successful pursuit of commerce and a sound political economy that the country was enabled to provide the means for carrying on this great conflict for the maintenance of the national honour. In those respects which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had mentioned, this country was more than equal to Russia; but in one respect, as all the world knew, and as Russia herself knew, we were not on an equality with her. Russia possessed a population infinitely larger than that of this country, and she had therefore the means of raising numerous armies without difficulty. Was it not, then, the duty of the Government to direct their attention to this point, and to have recourse to every means by which they might be able to oppose Russia with numbers against numbers? If he were asked by what means they ought to oppose the great warlike Potentate with whom they were contending, he would reply, by all means and every means. They must oppose the enemy by their army, which had been justly described by the noble Earl as almost incomparable for gallantry; but did that army possess numbers equal to the conflict? Would the noble Earl affirm that it did, or did he think that we could at once in this country turn out a body of accomplished soldiers capable of meeting the whole power of Russia? This country had, in every war, shown that it could not pretend to send out an army equal to the armies of some foreign Powers, and it had sought to supply the deficiency in the number of its troops by the best auxiliaries that could be obtained. That course had been taken on former occasions, when the greatest success had attended the British arms, and when no inconvenience had been experienced. But they were now told that, although they thus had in their hands the means of supplying the deficiency which was admitted, it would, in the first place, be highly un-

439
constitutional to avail themselves of such means, and secondly, that it was highly inexpedient to do so. Now, assuming for a moment that it was desirable that they should add to their disposable force some 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000 efficiently trained troops, what was the objection by which they were to be deterred from availing themselves of such assistance? The objection, when it came to be sifted, had no reference to what these troops were to do abroad, but was founded on the apprehension that Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who was deeply interested in the success of the war against Russia, might, by the advice of Her Ministers, who were also deeply interested in the success of the war, divert those troops from the object for which they were raised, and, making use of certain depôts which in the machinery of the transaction it was necessary to have in different parts of England, might launch them against the population of England, establish some new form of arbitrary and unconstitutional government, and that neither the yeomanry force, nor the people of England, would be able to resist this mighty power, and the liberties of England would be for ever extinguished. This was the apprehension which had alarmed not only the noble Earl, but some others—the apprehension that these foreign troops might be employed to extinguish the liberties of the English people! Why, if such fears were expressed out of doors by any country barber or farmer, he would be laughed at for his apprehensions. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would be sorry to see the principle of this Bill carried to the extent of employing foreign troops, not only in foreign wars, but also on service at home. There might have been periods of our history when it was necessary to do so; but in these days it would be not only unjustifiable, but outrageous. To show how little constitutional principle had to do with such employment of foreign troops, he might remind their Lordships that in the reign of William III., when no little jealousy of constitutional rights had been excited, the Dutch Guards were retained and paid in England in time of war without any objection. There was certainly jealousy of the employment of such troops during peace; but when they were required during the war the public were very glad to have their services, and no one proposed that they should be dismissed. Apprehension of the employment of foreign troops seemed to have first arisen, not unnaturally, soon after the suc-
440
cession of the House of Hanover, from the suspicion that the German views and sympathies of the Sovereign might induce him to endeavour to enforce principles of government alien to the constitution of this country, and subsequently the employment of foreign troops was prohibited by Parliament. Very shortly afterwards, however, the country was involved in war, when it was engaged in contests which required great military efforts, the necessity of employing foreign troops was felt, the prohibitive enactments were relaxed, and Parliament hastened to sanction the enlistment of foreign auxiliaries. But who, he would ask, adopted the principle of the employment of foreign troops to a greater extent than any other statesman? It was Lord Chatham, the great war Minister; one of those giants—as the noble Earl had described him—who stepped in among a set of ordinary men, and assumed the direction and management of the war. He was aware that the noble Earl had intimated that Chatham had only acted in the matter under the guidance of the Duke of Newcastle of that day, or, at least, had merely adopted the plan in order to please him—it was the Duke of Newcastle who dragged in Lord Chatham, and not Lord Chatham who dragged in the Duke of Newcastle. But what was the result of employing those foreigners in those times? Why, in the brightest pages of the military history of England in the last century every success was obtained with the assistance of foreigners more or less in the pay of England. And what was the great boast of that Minister, Lord Chatham, who was so reverenced by the noble Earl? Why, that he had conquered America in Germany. And how? Why, by the very men whom the noble Earl would now push aside. If they were to adopt the principles now advocated by the noble Earl, and trust to themselves alone, they would expose the inferior force they now possessed to the most cruel, the most intolerable, and the most arduous conflict, and would endanger the character of the British troops by compelling an army not wanting in courage, valour, or discipline, to carry on a contest with an infinitely inferior numerical force. The noble Earl had used another argument which appeared to him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) to be equally fallacious. The Government were desirous of placing in the field, in addition to the army now engaged, a force which would render their troops more equal in point of number to those of the enemy; but the

441
noble Earl stepped forward and said the employment of this additional force would only tend to degrade the British soldier. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not understand the meaning of that observation. He should object as strongly as the noble Earl to the permanent incorporation of these troops into the British army; but he could not see how it would be a degradation to the British army to have a well-trained and disciplined force, whether of Germans, Italians, Spanish, or Dutch, fighting gallantly by their side. At this very moment had they not the co-operation of the Turks? Perhaps the auxiliary force employed might be, as remarked by the noble Earl, somewhat inferior to the British troops; but there was no reason why the employment of a somewhat inferior force would be degrading to the British army. [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: I never said it would.] The remark had been made in the course of these debates, though perhaps he was in error in attributing it to the noble Earl. But could it be supposed that the employment of foreigners would prevent our soldiers from fighting with satisfaction and confidence in themselves? To go back to one of the most interesting scenes of British history—the battle of Minden, where the valour of our troops raised the British name to the very highest position—they would find that the actual English army engaged was extremely inferior in number to the "mercenaries" as they were now called, who fought side by side with them. But when at the battle of Minden the Enniskillens, the Blues, and the Scotch Greys, and other gallant regiments of cavalry, were permitted to advance—too late perhaps—but when they were permitted to advance at last, not under a pusillanimous but under a brave and talented leader, did they make their celebrated charge in that great conflict with less hope, with less confidence, and with less satisfaction, because they saw associated with them regiments of Germans, Hanoverians, of Hessians, and of other troops? Would the British soldier lose the prestige of his profession, because he saw engaged in the conflict men of other nations? He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) showed no such apprehensions. Her Majesty's Government were now called upon to act in every possible manner and in every possible shape. They felt the importance of bringing every well-trained Englishman into the field, and they also felt the expediency of annexing to our army and placing at the disposal of Her Majesty some of those regiments of other
442
nations whose services might be procured, and who would not object individually or collectively to engage in the war. Was there any reason why such a force should not be engaged? The noble Lord opposite had asked if there was a manufacturer who would admit cast-iron into a work which required to be constructed of wrought iron. That would be perfectly well so long as they could get all they required of wrought iron; but what would be the ingenuity of the manufacturer who, having a vast national machine to bring into play, and to whom it was of the utmost importance to bring it into play at a given moment—what would be his ingenuity when, having first used all the wrought iron he could lay his hands upon, he should hesitate to avail himself of a somewhat inferior material? With respect to the alteration of the Articles of War, he should be glad for their Lordships to hear the opinion of some noble Lord who was more of a military authority than himself. He would, however, remind the noble Earl, that the Act of 1806 expressly enabled His Majesty to do that which Her Majesty would be enabled to do by this Act—namely, to shape the regulations of war in such a manner as to adapt them to the altered circumstances of the case. He trusted that he had now answered all the objections which had been raised to this Bill. Its object was merely to give to Her Majesty a small extension of the prerogative she now enjoyed; it would be of immediate benefit to the service of the country, and would enable the Government in a short time to bring into action against the Emperor of Russia a body of well-disciplined troops, who would, he had no doubt, fight for the cause of England as gallantly and as successfully as the warriors and victors of Alma and inkerman.
TEE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, but for the remarks which have fallen from the noble Marquess I should not have thought it necessary again to trouble your Lordships upon this matter. I must, however, be permitted to say that, notwithstanding the great respect I entertain for the noble Marquess, I cannot but think on the present occasion, in commenting upon the speeches which have been delivered now and upon former occasions by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), the noble Marquess has somewhat departed from that courtesy which has generally characterised him. He talks of arguments used in this House by my noble Friend as

443
being positively absurd:—he says my noble Friend has been raising up before the country an idle phantom, and he says that he should entertain respect for an opinion such as that advanced by my noble Friend, were it entertained out of doors; but he can entertain no respect whatever for the expression of such an opinion in this House. Now, my Lords, I must be permitted to say that the noble Marquess, in holding such language—in characterising as absurd the arguments of his opponents, and in declaring that he has no respect for their opinions, because the persons expressing them ought to know better—has somewhat departed from that position which the high character of the noble Marquess has always maintained with those who are Members of this House. Nor do I think the noble Marquess has been exceedingly happy in the ridicule he has sought to throw upon the "constitutional" argument of my noble Friend. He made it a sort of charge against my noble Friend, in the first instance, that upon this occasion we had heard little of the "constitutional" argument; and then he said, that such was the paucity of objections to this Bill, that my noble Friend was unable to make two speeches upon it without of necessity entering into the same arguments and objections. Having first complained that my noble Friend did not lay any stress upon the constitutional argument, he proceeded at once to cast the whole power of his ridicule upon a constitutional argument and a constitutional objection—but which was not in the least like that raised by my noble Friend. Now, with regard to the constitutional objection, my noble Friend did lay considerable stress upon it on former occasions, and, though not repeating them now, I apprehend he would be disposed to lay considerable stress again upon those constitutional grounds of objection—upon the employment of foreign troops in England, and in substitution for and to the exclusion of the troops of this country itself. It was to the employment of a foreign force in this country that the constitutional argument of my noble Friend was altogether addressed. It was not that he apprehended that 8,000 or 10,000 foreigners introduced into England could destroy the liberties of the people or make themselves masters of the country; but what he said was, that it was contrary to the principles upon which this country had proceeded to give to any Government the power of placing any portion of the guardianship of England in Germans, or in the
444
hands of other foreign troops, in substitution or exclusion of the troops of the country itself. And, my Lords, if that be the constitutional doctrine characterised by the noble Marquess as based on absurdity, I humbly beg to take my full share of the absurdity cast upon my noble Friend. It cannot be forgotten—for it has been asserted over and over again—that you did not embody your militia because you had not sufficient barrack accommodation for them; and yet this Bill enacts that you arc to embody, and lodge in this country—I presume in barracks—a large body of foreign troops, for the purpose of drilling and training, and for the purpose also, this Bill now tells us, of forming a permanent depot of reserve:—in other words, you are to have permanently established in this country, or so long as the present war lasts, a considerable body of foreign troops, occupying those barracks which are not sufficiently extensive to enable you to accommodate your own troops, and which, it has been remarked, does away with the argument of embodying and raising troops of your own. My Lords, the constitutional argument of my noble Friend was against the establishment of these troops in the country in substitution for the troops of this country itself; but my noble Friend used another argument with regard to the inexpediency of the adoption or incorporation into the British Army of these foreigners at all. My noble Friend was first of all charged with having said that it was degrading to have these foreign troops serving by the side of British troops; but my noble Friend never made such a remark, nor did any other Member of your Lordships' House. What was said, was a statement made by a noble Friend of mine who is not now in the House, that it was a humiliating and degrading idea to the people of this country that the home forces, at the very outset of war, should be found insufficient to carry it on. And I think that it is a humiliation and degradation to this country to be placed in such a situation. Nobody ever said that it was degrading to the British troops to fight by the side of foreigners, but it is degrading to this country to be obliged to confess that it can only fight its battles with the assistance of foreigners. But, if it be necessary to have these foreign troops—if we are to endure that humiliation—there was no occasion for this Bill, for the purpose of raising these troops—not the least in the world. The necessity that arises for this Bill is that you must drill and train these troops

445
in England; and the necessity of training and drilling them in England arises from the fact that you are now about to levy them, not, as in former times, by the consent and under the authority of their own Sovereigns and as regular forces, but that you are about to levy and bring up from all quarters of the world the refuse of other countries, whom you are to introduce into this country to train and drill by the side of your own army. The noble Marquess says, that in all our wars, from the time of Marlborough downwards, we have been indebted for our successes to the co-operation of the troops of foreign countries; but, I think, if the noble Marquess had followed up the investigation he commenced, he would have found that in almost every instance the troops which we had co-operating with and assisting us fought under the banners or with the sanction of their respective Sovereigns, or they were fighting in a national cause, or in a cause which was to them of national interest. At the battle of Minden, to which the noble Marquess referred, we might be considered not so much the principals as auxiliaries, and the battle of Minden was fought much more as a German than an English cause. We were there associated with German troops, acting under the authority of German Sovereigns or the representatives of German States; but that is not the case of a body of mercenaries collected from various quarters, acting neither with the authority nor under the control of their own Sovereigns, and fighting for a mere pecuniary reward, with no inducement of allegiance or patriotism. I agree with my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), that those are not the materials which I should like to see placed beside the British soldier, The noble Marquess says he has all along been impressed with the importance and magnitude of the war. I wish he could have impressed the same opinions upon his Colleagues, for then we should have had abundance of the "wrought-iron," without being obliged, at the last moment, to avail ourselves of the services of an inferior material. My noble Friend complains of your employing foreign troops as mere mercenaries in a cause in which they have no national interest. What has been the case in former instances? Take the wars of the Duke of Wellington. No doubt we employed the Spaniards in Spain, the Portuguese in Portugal, and the Germans and Hanoverians for the liberation of Germany; but can any man say that those
446
troops were not acting under the sanction of their own Sovereigns and that they were not fighting for a national cause? In point of fact, with regard to Spain and Portugal, it was the Spanish and Portuguese armies in whose cause we were fighting; and strange, indeed, it would have been if the Duke of Wellington had refused to allow the natives of countries for whom we were fighting to fight upon our side in a cause in which they were most concerned. My Lords, there have been two objections raised to this Bill which I have not yet heard satisfactorily answered. The first is, that it is a non-constitutional principle to admit the drilling and training of foreign bodies in England with a view to their permanently remaining in the country; and the second is that, as a matter of expediency, it is unwise to introduce these foreign troops—first, because, from the manner in which you propose to raise them, the country can have no just confidence in them, because they might betray the trust reposed in them, or not answer your expectations; and next, because, for the paltry purpose of paying a body of some 10,000 or 20,000 Germans, you make a declaration in the face of Parliament and the country which cannot but give the greatest possible discouragement to those efforts which have been making upon the part of the country, which are being made now, and which will continue to be made without stint if you do not discourage them by your own conduct and your own powers. The noble Marquess has left all explanation as to the alteration of the regulations of the army to other and military authorities, and I should follow his example did I not think that a question of considerable importance has been raised by my noble Friend as to the difference in the Articles of War and in the regulations under which different portions of the same army are to be called upon to serve. We have not heard from my noble Friend the Commander in Chief in what respect he conceives it necessary to introduce a difference of practice here, which difference of practice his own experience) when in India, must tell him proved to be so detrimental to the character of the army as to render it necessary for him to take, with regard to the Indian troops, a course which was most unpopular, which went contrary to all their prejudices and feelings, but which course he found it necessary to take, notwithstanding that he ran counter to those feelings and preju-

447
dices, rather than have a different treatment, more especially in the case of punishment, between the European and Native forces. By this Act the British army will still be subject to corporal punishment; but it is admitted that the German troops will not be subjected to corporal punishment, or, at any rate, not to the same corporal punishment as the British soldier. Now, my Lords, can there by possibility be a subject on which the feelings of the army, in England and out of England—and not only of the army but of the whole population—could be more strongly excited than that there should be such a distinction drawn between the troops? My Lords, I cannot conceive—I was going to say, anything more dangerous—but I cannot conceive anything more objectionable than that such a distinction should be drawn, and drawn, mind you, not by the authority of Parliament directly given, but by the authority of the military departments, acting under a general power given them by Parliament, to vary the Articles of War and the regulations of the Army. My Lords, there is another matter I wish to mention, which I do not ring forward as an objection to the Bill, but which is, I think, deserving of the very serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government. You are looking to every quarter from which you can draw troops for the service of the country. You do not want money—you have abundance of money—but you want men. You may have any amount of money provided you choose to avail yourselves of the means at your disposal without adhering to any preposterous principle in reference to obtaining it—but what you most want is men. And have you not a large Native force in India? I believe, as many persons believe, that in this war, especially in the case of irregular cavalry, the services of these troops would be exceedingly efficient, and that we might raise, at no distant period, an almost unlimited force of trained soldiers, who would at the present time be most serviceable. These troops have always fought gallantly, side by side with your own soldiers; and I think it a matter of great importance, and that it would be most valuable for you to obtain the means of introducing into the war a portion of these Indian troops, and of teaching them that the Russians, in the presence of British soldiers, are not to be feared; you will give them a feeling anything but friendly towards the Russians in India, and you will have a force, fight-
448
ing with your own troops, which will be inspired with something akin to a consciousness of fighting for a national cause. I think from that quarter you might derive, and without much delay, very valuable military assistance. Leaving that subject, however, I now wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the course of the war, we are to look for any assistance, any co-operation in men or money, from our great colonial possessions? I have lately read, with very great satisfaction, that the Legislature of Canada have spontaneously voted 20,000 l., to be applied in mitigation of the hardships and privations sustained by the troops in the East. I look upon that as an indication of friendly feeling most valuable under present circumstances; but you will observe that it is only an indication of friendly feeling; it is only an indication of sympathy with the cause; it has nothing whatever to do with the feelings of loyalty, allegiance, or of obligation derived from affinity. That sum of 20,000 l. (and I do not complain that it was so) was to be divided in equal proportions between ourselves and our allies. I repeat, that I do not at all complain of this;—all I say is, that it is a mere indication of sympathy with the cause, and not of allegiance to the Crown. Now, the North American colonies are at this moment, by the course recently pursued, by the course of legislation which has been adopted towards them in the Imperial Parliament—these provinces, I say, are to all intents and purposes just as independent of this country as Ireland was previous to the Union. They are under the same Sovereign, indeed, but their affairs are conducted by Ministers of their own; they have responsible Government; they are not liable to British debt; they are not liable to the overriding of British law; they are, in point of fact, left wholly and absolutely to administer their own affairs as a friendly country rather than as a colony—as united to this country by the ties of the Crown alone. The same may be said to have been the case with regard to Ireland before the Union, and yet was there ever a war in which England was engaged at that time to which Ireland was not ready to contribute her money and her men for the purpose of carrying on the war in conjunction with this country? I do not say that we can make any such claim upon the colonies of England; and, with regard to many of them, I am ready to admit that

449
the character of the population, and the busy nature of their occupation, render it not very probable that they could render us any support in men. But I do not think that argument applies to the British possessions in North America. I believe that those colonies are enjoying a state of unparalleled prosperity and of great wealth, and that they contain a very considerable amount of, to a certain extent, unabsorbed population. I would, then, willingly entertain the belief that, towards carrying on this war, the North American colonies would gladly contribute in men from their own means and without payment; but if you have the money ready, I am convinced of this, that you would have no difficulty whatever in raising in the North American colonies—and the point, I think, is well worth the consideration of the Government—a certain amount of force to be incorporated in your army, to be commanded by officers now resident in Canada, to be joined to your army—though not as a local corps, for I deprecate the establishment and appointment of local corps as a very inefficient mode of giving reinforcements to your army. It is my firm belief that there is nothing which would gratify these provinces more than to be enabled, I do not say whether wholly at their own expense, or at the expense of this country, to raise some three or four regiments, or possibly more, to be incorporated with the British army, to share in all the services of the British army, and to be in every respect placed upon the footing of the British army. Such regiments, however, should, I think, be subject to this simple difference, which I would leave for the consideration of the Commander in Chief; that that period of service allotted generally to the British army, to be passed within this country, should, as a general course, be assigned to the North American contingent, to be passed by them within the North American provinces; so that, as our troops go to Canada and to New Brunswick, counting this as part of the five years out of fifteen (or whatever the proper term may be of foreign service) so the North American regiments should have their tour of service so arranged that their casual service in this country should reckon as foreign service, and that, keeping up their connection with Canada, they should be permitted to return to Canada for the usual period of home service; but, in all other respects, they should be part and parcel of the British
450
army, united together in British feelings and sympathies, and yet kept closely in connection, not only with our army, but with their own population in the North American colonies. I throw this out for the consideration of the Government, not knowing whether they have taken any steps to act upon it, but deeming it very likely that if they did the result would be satisfactory. Looking to the position of the North American provinces, to their prosperity, to their practical independence, to their entire immunity from the debts and obligations of this country, I think it is not too much to expect that, advanced as they are to this practical independence, they should still be ready to testify their allegiance to the mother country by joining you in carrying on the war—remembering besides that one consequence of that, as of every war, may be that you may be called on to use a large numerical force in defence of your own possessions. I do not bring forward this as a claim upon our colonies; but, I believe, a principle which they will be glad to recognise is that they should be put upon such a footing of military equality with you as that their army should be incorporated with yours; and in that manner—possibly without expense to this country, but certainly if we supply the necessary funds—a valuable body of men may be raised, not only for this occasion but for future service; men who would not be foreigners, inasmuch as they are the subjects of the same Sovereign, and who would be happy to have the opportunity of manifesting their sympathy with this nation and their allegiance to their Sovereign. I have only thrown this subject out for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, for, of course, the passing of this Bill affords no opportunity of incorporating within it any provision of the kind. In regard to this Bill, I have only to say that, retaining all my objections to it—retaining them notwithstanding the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, and, indeed, feeling them confirmed by the line of argument he has taken, which affords, in my opinion, a wholly insufficient answer to the arguments of my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Ellenborough)—I shall content myself, when called upon to say "Aye" or "No" to the third reading of this Bill, with saying "No." Your Lordships have thought fit, though by a narrow majority, to affirm the principle of this Bill, and the Bill is almost wholly one of principle. As far as I am concerned, therefore, I will not give

451
your Lordships the trouble of dividing against the third reading, although, if a division be taken, I must certainly, acting in conformity with my views upon the subject, again say "Not Content."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEexplained that he had not used the expression "absurd" with reference to any arguments that had fallen from any noble Lord in that House during the discussion of this Bill; and that all he meant to say was, that some of the objections taken to the measure out of doors, by persons not well informed of the reasons which had led the Government to propose it, and of the grounds on which it was proposed, appeared to him absurd.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) having appealed to him as to the effect of a difference of the regulations of war contemplated by this Bill with regard to the men who would be enlisted under it, he begged to say the cases which the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) had put were not quite parallel. The case to which his noble Friend had alluded, was to an alteration made in the mode by which discipline was maintained among the Sepoys, as compared with the Queen's army. Formerly both the armies had been on the same footing, corporal punishment being inflicted in both cases; but, at a time when it was found that inconvenience resulted from attempting to maintain discipline in the Indian army by corporal punishment, this mode of punishment was suspended by Lord William Bentinck, and offenders ordered to work in the chains on the high road. That was carried into effect for some years; but in time it was found to be so detrimental to the public service, the Sepoys losing caste by this mode of punishment, while corporal punishment entailed no loss of caste, that the Indian authorities were of opinion that the system required alteration. During his service in India the old system was reverted to, the two armies were again put upon the same footing, and the change was found to work advantageously for the whole force. With regard to the employment of a German or other foreign force with a British force, under different systems of punishment, he had to observe that Her Majesty had the power of making any Articles of War She might please without having recourse to Parliament, provided the rules so laid down did not exceed the punishments laid down by the Mutiny Act. Her Majesty could
452
mitigate the severity of the Articles of War, but She could not, without legislative authority, add to their severity. In the Peninsular war, to which repeated reference had been made, the Portuguese troops were under our immediate control; they were subsidised by us, but they were placed under a distinct command and were subject to our Articles of War. The German Legion, on the contrary, formed a portion of our army, and in their case there had been a suspension, and not an abolition, of our system of corporal punishment. With respect to the alleged inconvenience of such an arrangement, he should confess that, in his opinion, that inconvenience might to some extent arise, but he did not anticipate that it could operate prejudicially. The German Legion during the last war was not subject to corporal punishment, and he did not think that punishment would be more required in the new force which might be constituted under this Bill. He confidently hoped that the Militia Bill introduced by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) in 1852 would answer and would ultimately provide us with sufficient soldiers; but he believed that the present Bill would be found the readiest mode of attaining an object which they must all desire to secure. He trusted, therefore, that the House would offer no opposition to its immediate enactment.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he did not think his noble and gallant Friend had answered his question. He wanted to know whether a system could be expected to work satisfactorily under which two regiments, the one composed of Englishmen and the other of Germans, but both serving under the same general, should be subject for the same offence to different punishments?
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that there were instances in which a foreign force had served with our own, subject to a different system regarding punishments, and yet no practical inconvenience was found to result.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Serving under the same general? The German troops would not submit to the punishment inflicted upon English soldiers. They submitted to one which was very likely more severe, but still there was a difference.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that, when a very young man, he had the command of a Portuguese regiment, which was brigad-

453
ed with British regiments. On that occasion the British officers punished their men according to the Mutiny Act, and he (Viscount Hardinge) punished the Portuguese under his command by blows with the stick or sword; and yet he had not found that that difference of punishment had been productive of any great inconvenience.
EARL GREYthought the case of the Portuguese soldiers was totally different. Those soldiers in the Peninsular war were in the service of the Portuguese Sovereign; but in the present instance we were to have men in the service of the Queen of England, receiving the Queen's pay, serving under the authority of the Mutiny Act (for they were expressly put under that authority), and yet for these men special Articles of War were to be provided under this clause. The difference was very great. The case was much more analogous to that of the Indian army; and inconvenience having resulted in India from a distinction in the system of punishments there, he thought we had every reason to anticipate a similar inconvenience in this ease. But was there any necessity for this clause? He inferred that the clause was introduced, merely copying the old Act of Parliament, and as a mere adherence to custom. Now, he need not inform their Lordships how entirely changed things were since those days; and he would ask, was it likely that any real inconvenience would arise from subjecting Germans, or Swiss, or any other foreign soldiers, to the same Articles of War, administered in the same spirit as those to which the British soldier was subject? Unless some inconvenience from such a course were pointed out, he thought it would be far wiser to omit this fifth clause; it should not be retained in the Bill for the sake of a mere adherence to bygone custom. He would now add a few words with reference to the Bill itself. On a former evening he had expressed his opinion that the Bill was one which was open to some objection, but, at the same time, he must say it appeared to him that those objections had been greatly exaggerated, and that a tone had been taken upon this subject which showed that noble Lords had allowed their own passions to be excited, and had thus used language tending to excite the passions of others; otherwise he thought that much which had fallen from noble Lords under the influence of excitement would not have been heard; for example, the noble Earl (the Earl of
454
Ellenborough) had to-night declared that he saw no difference between the conduct of a German Prince who allowed his men to fight under foreign banners, and that of an African Prince who sold his subjects into slavery.
TEE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I beg pardon. I said those Princes who took money for the service—who received a consideration for it.
EARL GREYwould suppose even that the German Princes received "a consideration." Would any man tell him that it was the same thing to take "a consideration" and give permission to your subjects voluntarily, from their own free will, to enlist in an army where they would be well treated—that this was for one moment to be compared with the conduct of an African Prince, who kidnapped his subjects, bound them in chains, and sold them to a foreign slaver with the perfect conviction that they would be carried across the sea and worked to death in four or five years far from their own homes? Could the noble Earl have wished any longer to address himself to the reason of their Lordships or of the country when he used arguments of that kind? He (Earl Grey), at all events, would leave it to their Lordships' reason to compare the two cases. Then, with regard to the constitutional argument, a great deal had been made of that; and, as the Bill was originally drawn, he was bound to admit there was some force in this objection. It was contrary to the spirit of the constitution, that foreign troops should be employed in this country for the sake of maintaining order, and for this obvious reason, that, should the Crown desire to exceed its reasonable powers and enforce its decrees by a military force, we all knew that the British army, formed of our own fellow subjects, would not support or enforce any such acts; whereas it was perfectly conceivable that a foreign force might do so. There was, therefore, originally an objection in principle to the Bill, though practically it was an objection of almost inconceivably small weight, because nobody could believe that the occasion was ever likely to arise. Now, however, that the clause had been so altered as that the keeping of foreign troops in this country was simply limited to the object of disciplining them and forming depôts for service abroad, when the Crown was entirely restricted from making any other use of these troops than that of engaging them in foreign

455
service, this objection—small as it was in the first instance—was now gone altogether, and to speak of this Bill in its present form as unconstitutional, was merely a repetition of that sort of vague language which was so often heard in either House of Parliament, where, if there was a measure to which you wished to give a bad name, while you had no clear or tangible objection to it, you called it "unconstitutional." Then, again, he could not help thinking that the noble Earl opposite had been led away by his eagerness into another very untenable proposition. He had objected to the employment of cast iron in the middle of a chain, declaring that the strength of a chain was the strength of its weakest link; and, therefore, he seemed to deprecate the employment of foreign with British troops, because, he said, "I object to an unequal line of battle." An unequal line of battle! Why, he believed there never yet was any army employed upon any field of battle, on the face of the earth, with regard to which the general did not feel that some regiments were entitled to higher confidence than others. Even among the British forces, some regiments were to be trusted more than others. The Old Guard of Napoleon was only to be employed as a last resource, and that General considered one battalion of those troops equal to three battalions of any others. The noble Earl himself had not stated from his Indian experience that the Sepoys were equal to the British troops, and although, indeed, they were entitled to great credit, still every one was aware that they were far from being equal; but that was not found to be sufficient reason for not employing Native regiments. Again, did the Duke of Wellington exclude all but British troops from his army either in Spain or at Waterloo, lest he should have "an unequal line of battle?" That great man, in one of the last speeches he ever made in their Lordships' House, when he spoke on the Militia Bill, stated that in the Peninsular war he seldom had under his command an army more than one-third of which was composed of British troops upon whom he could firmly rely. It appeared to him, therefore, that the objections to this Bill had been much exaggerated. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) said that he wished an earlier provision had been made of "wrought iron." He (Earl Grey) quite concurred in the opinion of the noble Earl that more effectual means ought to have been taken
456
to increase the regular British army at an earlier period, and that if that had been done this measure would probably not have been necessary; and he should have been very glad that it should not have been necessary. But, granting that such was the case, were their Lordships, because a mistake might possibly have been made by Her Majesty's Government, to refuse to adopt any means which might be within their power for increasing the army? The noble Earl who began the debate (the Earl of Ellenborough) had dwelt a great deal upon the arduous character of the struggle in which we were engaged:—was not that a reason why we should avail ourselves of assistance from any quarter from which it might be obtainable? He thought that the Government would probably be able under the provisions of that Bill to obtain very useful troops; and he did say that, after such an application had been made to them by Her Majesty's Government, knowing of what character this struggle was likely to be, that that House or the other House would indeed be taking upon itself a most fearful responsibility if it were to refuse to the Government at such a moment, and in such a crisis of the national interests, those means which they conceived necessary to carry out this struggle to the safety and glory of the country. He therefore rejoiced to collect from what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite, that it was not intended again to divide the House upon this Bill, and he trusted it might successfully pass into law.
TRE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to say one word in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl. The noble Earl had, in speaking of the troops employed in India, expressed his opinion generally that the Native regiments were inferior to the Queen's troops; but it was his (the Earl of Ellenborough's) opinion that if Native troops were brigaded with English regiments and engaged with them for any considerable period under fire, and officered by English officers in whom they had confidence, and who showed confidence in them, to the extent of their physical strength, the Native regiments would show themselves equal to the Queen's regiments. The 35th Native Regiment served with the 13th Queen's Regiment at Jellalabad, and proved themselves equal to that regiment in courage and devotion, and there were many other instances; and not only that, but in one case a Native regiment

457
marched to an attack, in which it was true they failed, when the European troops had been repulsed.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that, as his Friend the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had been charged by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) with discourtesy for having applied the epithet "absurd" to an argument against which he had been contending, he should like to know whether a similar charge might not be brought, with at least equal justice, against the noble Earl himself, who had characterised the opinion held by the Government upon a certain subject as "debasing" and "degrading." But he had risen principally for the purpose of adverting to another topic. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellen-borough) had overpowered them all the other night by what he said would have been the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel on this subject. Now, he (Earl Granville) could not help thinking that that was a somewhat strange statement from a noble Earl who had stated, in the course of his evidence before a Committee of that House, that he had made it a point never to consult Sir Robert Peel on any matter connected with the business of his department. It appeared to him (Earl Granville) injudicious in the noble Earl not to hear what his colleague and leader might have to say upon such subjects; but perhaps it was owing to the noble Earl's knowing by intuition what Sir Robert Peel would say that he spared him the trouble of personal communication. But the noble Earl had on the same occasion stated that on every important subject which came under his consideration he took care to consult the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Earl had expressed in eloquent and striking language his high opinion of the character and the intellect of that truly great man. He (Earl Granville) wished, therefore, to read a passage from the speech of the Duke of Wellington on the Militia Bill, in the month of June, 1852, which would, he believed, go far to show that the noble Duke would have given his support to such a measure as that then under their Lordships' consideration. That passage was as follows—
"Everything has its beginning, and this is a commencement of an organisation of a disciplined militia; in the same way as if you are to have a corps of reserve, you must have a commencement, involving some months for disciplining them before you could have your corps of reserve ready.
458
You must make a beginning here, and see that it will take some months before you can form reserve regiments. The armies of England, who have served the country so well, are your Lordships so mistaken as to suppose that they were ever composed of more than one-third of real British subjects—of natives of this island? No such thing. Look to all your great services. Look at the East Indies. Not more than one-third of the soldiers there are such British soldiers. Look at the Peninsula; not one-third of the men employed there were ever British soldiers. Yet I beg your Lordships to observe what services those soldiers performed. They fought great battles against the finest troops in the world; they went prepared to face everything—aye, and to be successful against everything, or this country would not have borne with them. Not one-third of those armies were British troops, but they were brave troops, and not merely brave—for I believe every man is brave—but well organised troops. Take the battle of Waterloo; look at the number of British troops at that battle. I can tell your Lordships that in that battle there were sixteen battalions of Hanoverian militia, just formed, under the command of a nobleman, late the Hanoverian Ambassador here—Count Kielmansegge—who behaved most admirably; and there were many other foreign troops who nobly aided us in that battle, avowedly the battle of giants; whose operations helped to bring about the victory which was followed by the peace of Europe, that has now lasted for thirty-two or thirty-four years. I say, my Lords, that however much I admire highly-disciplined troops, and most especially British disciplined troops, I tell you you must not suppose that others cannot become so too."—{3 Hansard, cxxij. 730.]
He hoped he was not presumptuous in thinking that that extract would afford a better means of judging what the Duke of Wellington would have thought of that Bill than any statement of the noble Earl would serve to show what would have been the opinion of Sir Robert Peel upon the same subject.
THE EARL. OF MALMESBURYsaid, that there was no kind of analogy between the position of the force which was to be raised under that Bill and the position of the Hanoverian Legion which we had employed during the last war. The Hanoverian Legion was composed of subjects of the British Crown, and they fought in a national cause; and in the case of the Brunswickers and the Dutch troops they fought under the actual command of their own Sovereigns, who were in alliance with us. Again, there was no analogy between the proposed new force and the Portuguese or Spanish troops which had co-operated with our army in the Peninsula, while serving under their own Governments. The foreigners whom we might enlist under this Bill could only be regarded—he did not wish to use the word offensively—as mer-

459
cenaries and as a sort of condottieri. The Members of that (the Opposition) side of the House had been charged with using exaggerated language in combatting the measure, and with spreading abroad exaggerated terrors as to its probable consequences. But if any such exaggeration had been indulged in, either in that House or out of it, the fault was solely attributable to the course which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. They had introduced the Bill suddenly, and without the slightest notice, and they wished to pass it through Parliament with a hurry which would leave no opportunity for its mature consideration. The manner in which the Bill had been brought before Parliament was therefore calculated to awaken that suspicion of foreigners which was so deeply seated in the English character, and which, even if it were a prejudice, was calculated, like other national prejudices, to ensure our national strength and promote our national safety. Unless the Government were so unacquainted with the feelings and prejudices of the people of England as to be unfit to govern, they must have known that such a measure as this would excite much opposition; and, surely, if the measure were one of such urgency as Her Majesty's Government believed it to be, they ought to have called Parliament together a month earlier to consider its provisions—for the same necessity which was supposed to exist at the present moment for its enactment must have equally existed a month ago. The Bill had been brought forward not only in a great hurry, but also with a good deal of mystery; and Her Majesty's Ministers had as yet given no reason why they had kept their intentions on the subject so complete a secret, and had not stated who were the soldiers whom they meant to employ under the powers with which they were to be vested. Unless the House of Commons were treated with much more candour, the fears to which reference had been made would be greatly increased. Before he concluded he wished to say a few words with respect to the articles of war. The noble and gallant Commander in Chief (Viscount Hardinge) had alluded to the case of other armies serving with our own, and subject to a wholly different discipline. But those other armies, such, for instance, as the French army in the Crimea, were the subjects of another Sovereign, and were placed under commanders of their own. It appeared to him that the
460
passage from the speech of the Duke of Wellington, quoted by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), offered no argument in favour of that Bill, for that passage merely went to show the advantage of a militia force; and his (the Earl of Malmesbury's complaint against Her Majesty's Ministers was that they had not sufficiently relied on the enlargement of a national force of that character.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought that there was one serious consideration involved in that matter to which no reference had yet been made. It was a question of most serious importance how these troops were to be officered. In the main they must be officered by their own countrymen; and as it was not proposed to give them any half-pay after the conclusion of the war, he was afraid that the advantages offered would not induce any respectable officers to come and command these troops. In the cases of foreign troops employed by us on former occasions they had always been officered by the gentlemen of the countries from which they were drawn. Such would not, he was afraid, be the case in the present instance, and he thought there was danger that the inferiority of the character of the officers might render such a corps as it was proposed to raise rather unmanageable. He believed that they would act wisely if, instead of adopting the policy which it was the object of that measure to carry into effect, they were to follow the advice of the Duke of Wellington, and to strengthen our own militia force.
THE EARL OF GLENGALLsaid, he wished to remind their Lordships that there would be no analogy between the position of the force which would be raised under that Bill and that of the foreigners who had served with the Duke of Wellington, because the latter were either men who continued under the command of their own Sovereigns, or were absolutely incorporated with the British Army. Some of these miscellaneous foreigners formed two battalions of the old 60th Regiment.
Resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
On Question that this Bill do pass,
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had no objection to strike out, in accordance with the suggestion of noble Lords opposite, the 5th clause of the Bill. By doing so all question as to the Queen's prerogative in respect to foreign troops would be removed.
Clause struck out; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned till To-morrow.