objected to going into Committee without some reasons being stated. There had been no ballot for the militia for many years, and he should object altogether to the industrious classes being disturbed now for such a purpose, and peaceable and quiet habits interfered with by a measure most unequal in its pressure, and for which no reason was given.

I think it will be more convenient to discuss the subject in Committee, where Members may ask questions and receive explanations, and make remarks upon the matter, without being fettered by some of the rules of debate in a sitting of the House.

wished to know whe- ther the intended measure was confined to England?

I will explain the measure at length in Committee.

Sir, in 1848 I made a statement to the House with respect to the defences of this country, and in the course of my statement, I said I thought it would be desirable to form a foundation for a permanent militia force, which might be of great service in case of invasion. Unfortunately, that proposition of mine, and other propositions with respect to the naval and military service, were coupled with a proposal for increased taxation, which became very unpalatable to the House and to the country, and the Government did not persevere in the proposal. I recall it to recollection now, chiefly for the purpose of showing that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, without any pressure of extraordinary circumstances, it was wise to make provision for the defence of the country. At the time at which I then addressed the House Louis Philippe was upon the throne of France; there was no apparent revolution at hand; the disposition of that King was known to be pacific; his counsels were moderate and wise. At that time I thought it would be advisable to make permanent provision for the defences of the country; and I now renew the proposition, with the hope that the House and the country will take the same view which Her Majesty's Government take, that it would be wise to have a permanent force of militia. When I say that, it is not that I mean to depart in any respect from the assurances which were given in Her Majesty's Speech, that the relations of this country with foreign Powers were of a friendly nature, and that there was nothing apparently at hand to disturb those relations; but at the same time I think it never can be assumed that a country in the position in which this country is can be secure from the danger of war. In the first place, we may have some aggression upon some of our possessions, or even upon our own country. In the next place, it is possible that we may have some dispute with respect to the rights of our subjects, or injury supposed to be inflicted upon them by subjects of other countries. In the third place, we are hound by treaty with respect to several of the countries of Europe to defend them, if attacked. [An Hon. MEMBER: No.] Yes; I will only mention one instance; we are bound to defend Portugal against any enemy that might attack that country; an obligation which was avowed by the whole House in 1826, and Mr. Canning called upon the House to fulfil that obligation. But, in the fourth place, we are connected, and have been for more than a century, with the general system of Europe; and any territorial increase of one Power, any aggrandisement which disturbs the general balance of power in Europe, although it might not immediately lead to war, could not be matter of indifference to this country, and would, no doubt, be the subject of conference, and might ultimately, if that balance were seriously threatened, lead to hostilities. These are reasons, Sir, why we cannot believe ourselves altogether safe from the danger of war. But there is another question which has arisen of late years, and which has been so much the topic of discussion in books and pamphlets, in conversation and in letters, in newspapers, both on this and the other side of the Channel, that it will be quite unnecessary for me to dilate upon it, or do more than mention the subject. It is, that since the invention of steam navigation this country can no longer be considered so safe as it formerly was considered, when it was necessary for an enemy to obtain the command of the Channel, and even to be favoured by the winds and waves, in order to effect any invasion, or even to inflict the most petty insult upon this country. The changes introduced by steam navigation are very great. What would be their extent in case of war, I believe no man can safely predict; but this, at least, is obvious, that any foreign force attempting to land on any part of this coast would no longer have the same difficulties to contend with which other proposed invaders of England in former days had to contemplate. Now, with that change of circumstances we must couple this fact—which is likewise one universally acknowledged—that this country is generally averse to large military establishments; that we never have been able under any Government, Whig or Tory, to endure the notion of very large military establishments, and the maintaining a large standing army, and have rather kept our establishments very far indeed below those of other countries. But it must likewise be considered that in former times, and, indeed, from the time of the Seven Years' War, I believe, to the last peace, it was generally reckoned wise as well as constitutional to maintain a considerable force of militia, which could be, as it were, a reserve for the general army, and upon which the country might rely from time to time for a certain number of men who had been trained to the use of arms. As things at present stand—as they have stood now for many years—we have no support of that kind, no such force of militia. It is to that subject I particularly wish to call the attention of the House. I shall say a few words, and only a few, with regard to our military force. With respect to our naval force I shall not make any observations at present, thinking it much better that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty should state his views upon that subject at length when the naval estimates shall come under consideration. With respect to our military force, I should say that the addition we propose to make to our regular Army in the present year is very small, amounting to 4,000 men of the line, and 1,000 for the artillery, in all rather a less number of men than have been despatched to the Cape since the commencement of hostilities in that colony. But I think it is of importance to state, first, the general policy which we hold with respect to our military force in the colonies, and, next, to advert to the views of the Commander-in-Chief with respect to our present armaments. With regard to the former subject, I should say that there has I been for some time past a policy rather to diminish the military force in our colonies, and rely upon the people of the colonies themselves to furnish such force as may be necessary to preserve internal tranquillity, and keeping only a very small force of our regular Army there. We have acted in pursuance of that policy in more than one instance; and I should say generally I think it is better, with respect to the force we maintain in our colonies, to have it in positions in which a considerable number can be collected, rather than dispersed, as has been in former years, over all our colonies, thus leaving many of them open to attack, and without any adequate force to protect them. With regard to the second topic I have mentioned, I should say that the Commander-in-Chief and the Master-General of the Ordnance have for some time turned their attention to the improved arms which have been introduced, the muskets, which it is well known have a much longer range than those formerly in use; they have likewise considered the subject of training the men to the use of those muskets, and inquiries have been made, and hoards of officers have sat, as well with respect to the choice of the musket that shall prove the host arm of service, as the weight of balls to be used, and the practice of soldiers in the use of the weapon. These matters have been subject of much consideration, and the noble Duke at the head of the Army unceasingly turns his attention to this matter, with a view that whatever military fore we have be in the highest degree of efficiency. I now come, then, to the subject of a militia; and we have to consider, in. the first place, whether it would be advisable to establish a militia on the plan of the old militia, or whether it would be better to establish one on the plan of the local militia. Now, with regard to the regular militia, as it was constituted in the last war, I should say that it differed little from the regular Army; but, at the same time, it was a force which the Government was restricted from using out of the United Kingdom. I own I think, if we were to propose such a force at present, there would, in the first place, be a very great objection to any compulsory service in such a force, considering it as a permanent military force; and if it were to be restricted (as it would) to service in the United Kingdom, it would be better, in case of hostilities, to have a large increase of the military force. But what I have now to propose is a force of a very different description. It is a force intended to be embodied for very limited service, employed generally in their own counties, and only called out for a small portion of the year. It appears to me, that if, at the breaking out of war, you had no force of this kind, it would take a very considerable time before you could collect and organise a sufficient number of recruits for your Army, and during that time you would have but a very limited and insufficient force; and, considering: that some of your posts abroad, such as Malta, and Gibraltar, and others, would ask for an increased force, it would be impossible to have a sufficient number of men to supply them. But, if you can have a considerable number of men who have been partly trained, they would be immediately available, and for a certain time they would be upon the coast and ready to meet invasion, while at the same time the process of recruiting was going on and the increase of your regular Army; and when that was done, the militia might return to their homes, or at all events be confined to very limited and partial service. I will now state the nature of the local militia as it was established in 1808, and amended in 1812, and remained till the end of the war. The local militia were balloted for in the same manner as the regular militia, by a long and expensive process, I think, and when chosen they were assembled and trained for twenty-eight days in the year. They were balloted for from all persons between eighteen and thirty years of age, and they were commanded by persons appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, having certain qualifications in respect of property. The proposals we have now to make, so far as there is any change, are, first, with respect to the officers. With respect to the officers, we propose that two-thirds should be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, and one field officer and one-third of the captains by the Crown; so that the regiments may have the benefit of the experience of half-pay officers available for this service, and who must be of great use in assisting the officers appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. We propose that the Lord Lieutenant should not be bound by the restriction of qualification, but that he should name any persons for officers he may think fit, of course with the approbation of the Crown, as formerly, but without the requirement that they should be possessed of a certain amount of landed property. It is very desirable that the gentlemen of the county should take their part in the command of the local militia, but that there should not be too strict a regard had to a qualification derived from property. When the original militia laws were framed, there was a very great jealousy of the Crown, and of encroachments upon liberty, and it was supposed that if there was a limitation to persons of property, it would form a security against any attempt of the Crown in that respect; but our liberties are now so firmly secured, that of all dangers there is none less than that of an attempt by the Crown, by means of a standing Army, to suppress our liberty. With regard to the men, we propose some alteration from the former plan, according to which all men between eighteen and thirty years of age were subject to the ballot. That was a considerable number of years; and the process of sending round to each householder, and requiring a return of the number of persons in his house between those ages was a long, complicated, and very costly one. We conceive that it would be at the same time better, and a great advantage to a large portion of the population, if, taking the force we thought sufficient, we took them within a shorter number of years. We propose, therefore, for the first year, that the ages at which persons should be subject to ballot for the local militia should be from twenty to twenty-three, and in subsequent years that they should be only persons of the ages of twenty to twenty-one. It is supposed that the former proposition of taking from twenty to twenty-three, taking one-fifth as the number to be balloted, would give a force of about 80,000 men, and that in subsequent years the number to be procured from the age of twenty to twenty-one would amount to an average of 30,000. In procuring these men, I think it would not be necessary to adopt the means taken formerly; I believe that, with the assistance of the census of last year, we should know the number of persons in each county and union who would be liable to the ballot, and that it would he sufficient to require all such persons to present themselves on a certain day; that, however, is a part of the machinery of the Bill which requires great consideration. I will not now enter further into the details, but only say, that I think the process may be more economical and speedy than that hitherto adopted, owing to the change in the age to that of twenty to twenty-one in most years, instead of eighteen to thirty, and with the advantage of our knowledge which we have obtained through the census of the number that ought to be in the union and parish between those ages. With a view to the ballot, the Lord Lieutenant will be ordered to make the necessary subdivision of the county, having regard to the boundaries of unions and parishes, and it will be necessary to make such subdivision where there are not at present unions and parishes. The Deputy Lieutenant of the county, some of the magistracy, and adjutant, and some other officers of the local militia, would be present when the men were to be balloted for. It is proposed that when they are balloted, one-fifth should be taken, and that ten per cent of those remaining be taken as a reserve for all cases where excuses might afterwards be made. There would then be, according to the Militia Acts, an appeal, at which excuses might be made or disqualifications proved; and there would be the examination whether the men were fit for service, and those who belonged to the reserve of ten per cent might be called in to supply deficiencies. It is proposed also that any man from twenty to thirty years of age may volunteer to serve in the local militia, and that so far as these volunteers supply the requisite number, the balloting should not take place. It is proposed likewise that the volunteers thus placed in the local militia should serve for one year less than the balloted men. The period of service proposed for the local militia is four years; but it is proposed that we might by an Order in Council require them to serve for six months longer, and in case of Parliament, by an address to the Grown, requiring their services still further, another period of six months may be added, making twelve months altogether, in the event of the country being menaced with danger. I next come to the question how these men shall be trained in the use of arms. It is proposed that they should be formed into battalions, and be assembled either for fourteen or twenty-eight days in the first year, and for fourteen days in subsequent years. It is not proposed that either the twenty-eight or the fourteen days should necessarily be consecutive; the men might be trained for a week, and then, if it were necessary for any operations in the country, or for any other reason, they might go back to their homes and come again at another period of the year. That is the practice at present with regard to the pensioners. It is likewise proposed that three hours' drill and training should count for half a day, which would he a more convenient period to take in some parts of the year, when the service might be performed after the regular work or business of the militia man is 'finished. During the period they should be out, they would have the same pay and allowances as regular soldiers, and would be of course subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act. With regard to the service to which this force could be applied, I conceive that in case of any danger of invasion they could be embodied and marched to any part of the country where their services might be required. With respect to the amount of training which I think it would be necessary to afford the men, and which I have already stated, I believe that it will be found amply sufficient for the purpose, and that in a very short time after the commencement of hostilities they would become very effective. It should be remembered that many of our great battles have been fought with armies a considerable portion of the troops of which were mere recruits—troops which had never been in action, and which had received their training almost exclusively in the field. The next question is, what will be the immediate expense of this force? It is estimated that in the course of the present year not more than 30,000 men would require to be trained in the manner I have described—there would be a greater number enrolled, but that is the number which it is intended to train for the year. The expenses altogether, including the ballot, in the first instance, the cost of clothing, the pay for the time the men are at drill, and the expense of the officers attached to the force, would be somewhere about 200,000l. It may be necessary to take a somewhat larger sum, as there may be a number of small incidental expenses not included in this sum. The number of men enrolled in the first year will not be less than 70,000; in the next year there would be 100,000, in the third about 120,000. These would be the numbers enrolled only, not called out. The further calling out of the force would be matter for the consideration of the Grown and Parliament, and the force might readily be increased to 150,000 men. Such, then, is the plan of Her Majesty's Government for amending the laws respecting the local militia. It involves, of course, a large number of details; my object, however, was rather to give the Committee a general idea of the plan than to enter into any detailed explanation. I believe myself that the people of this country will gladly adopt the use of such a force as the militia for the purpose of its security and defence. I ought not, however, to omit to state that the Bill will contain a provision to the effect that in certain places, where there is a large police force in existence, such force should be organised and trained according to the regulations of the local militia; and inasmuch as there would then be a trained force in such particular county, that there should be a proportionate exemption from such members of the local militia as would otherwise be required in the first ballot. In cases where volunteer corps already exist, or might hereafter be raised, their services will be accepted by the Crown, according to the provisions of the law at present in force, and such force of volun- teers will be accounted as corps of local militia, and in proportion to their numbers would be the diminished force of militia which would be required. This, therefore, is the plan which I shall have to propose; when, however, the Bill is before the House, hon. Members will be better able to judge of its provisions. For my own part, I should be perfectly willing if upon the details the Bill were referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering how far it might be advisable to adapt its provisions to the present Local Militia Act, or to make such further improvements in it as might be considered necessary. Whatever may be the course adopted with respect to the details, if the principle of the Bill is agreed to, it will be a satisfaction to me to have proposed to the Committee a plan for laying the foundation of a national force of this kind.

said, the noble Lord had not replied to his question as to whether this Bill would apply to Ireland.

This is a Bill only for England and Wales. With respect to Ireland, we do not propose a local militia.

supposed that he was to consider that the noble Lord had now answered his (Mr. Reynolds') question, but he was at a loss how to interpret the answer. He did not know whether the exception of Ireland from the Government plan was to be regarded as a boon or an insult. As an Irishman he could not accept the exemption of Ireland as a compliment. If the arguments of the noble Lord were good for embodying a local militia in England—and he (Mr. Reynolds) was not prepared to say that they were not good—those arguments were still better as applied to Ireland. If it was necessary because of the fear of an invasion from some part of the Continent—and he could not guess as to the particular country by which they were most likely to be interfered with—to raise a local militia in England, there was more urgent need of possessing such a force in Ireland, where, in consequence of her geographical position, the danger was still greater. He must remind the noble Lord that an Irish local militia was embodied once before at a time of great peril, when the existence of the empire was in the scale. He must remind the noble Lord, in particular, of 1798, when an armed French force arrived at Killala, and marched without impediment from the Bay of Killala to the centre of Sligo; and it should not be forgotten that that force was encountered by a body of Irish militia, commanded by Colonel Vereker, now Lord Gort. [An Hon. MEMBER: Surely not the present Lord Gort.] Well, his father. It was a trifling mistake; and there was no doubt that it was very creditable to the present Lord Gort to have had such a father. To have exempted Ireland from this plan was, therefore, no compliment to the loyalty of that kingdom: and he greatly regretted that the noble Lord had made such a mistake.

begged that the noble Lord, before the debate proceeded further, would state one point more clearly. The noble Lord had not stated how the force was to be distributed over the country with regard to the counties.

In counties. They are not to be taken out of their own counties without their own consent, except in cases of danger of invasion, or of other imminent danger.

said, he had heard the statement of the noble Lord with deep regret. He (Mr. Hume) was totally opposed to this project. He was as earnest in his desire that the country should run no risk as any one else; but if they were in danger, he was for having a proper regular force, as, for instance, the existing force properly applied; and he warned the Committee and the country against sanctioning the principle involved, and all the social mischief implied, in the scheme of a local militia. The militia was an old and worn-out expedient. The militia was resorted to for the purpose of avoiding the putting the Crown in possession of too great a standing army; and the course which was formerly taken in removing the militia force from under the control of the Crown, and placing it under the government of a Committee of the House of Commons, indicated the jealousy which had existed between the Crown and the Parliament, and out of which sprung the very idea of such a force at all. That jealousy had now long ceased; and no one within those walls would have any jealousy of any powers Her Majesty might enjoy as the executive officer of this country; for the Crown, like every individual in the nation, would be bound by the rules which the constitution laid down. Why, then, were they to revert back to a system of war preparation which no longer was necessary? This scheme would be a tax bearing most unjustly upon those classes who would be drafted into the local militia. The service would be compulsory; and thus people who could not afford absence from home would he subjected to a removal from their ordinary occupations, to their own great injury, and to answer no good national purpose whatever. The proposition which he would submit to the Committee was, whether, with so large a military force, and with so large a naval force, they would be warranted in consenting to the plan propounded by the noble Lord. An expense of 200,000l. was, no doubt, a slight matter; but they were not to consider this plan in reference simply to the expense. Ft was a plan full of social evil. The evil would fall altogether on the poorer classes. The payment to obtain exemption from the conscription was a heavy and serious burden to men of the working classes; and he thought the proceeding both morally and politically injudicious; for it was resorting to the old doctrine which was held before the division of labour was recognised. But there could be a division of labour in defending the country as in everything else. He was for the regular army so long and to such an extent as the regular army was necessary. To take one of the industrious community forcibly and make him temporarily a soldier was mischievous; in the first place, as removing him from a labour that could not probably do without him; and in the next place, as unfitting him, by the new habits he would acquire, for resuming an orderly citizenship. They had seen the effects of what he might call militia forces on national characters among the nations on the Continent: and he wanted to know if they were to overlook all the lessons thus taught them. France used to be referred to as an example to be avoided; and now they were going to imitate her example. He had nothing to say against military men. He was not abusing military men. They formed habits necessary to their profession, which were fit for their profession and not for ordinary callings, being, as he believed, dangerous to private society. What was now proposed was to introduce military manners, modes of thought, and modes of acting into ordinary life; and it was to this he objected. But, apart from the principle of the Bill, he objected to the details. The men to be selected, according to the noble Lord's plan, were to be between twenty and twenty-three years of age. Now, why was this margin fixed upon arbitrarily? Why were men between twenty-five and thirty to be exempt? It was an obvious injustice, and utterly indefensible. The noble Lord had talked about the "balance of power," and of the expediency of this country being on its guard when the balance was overthrown, and of some one nation assuming too much. What did the noble Lord mean? Did the noble Lord consider that France was two powerful? He (Mr. Hume) considered that France, at this moment, was far weaker—far less likely to become the aggressor of England—than at any former period. Were we to have some now Holy Alliance against some one Continental State? He was astonished at such ideas—at such a policy—in the present Government. Was any man in that House so mad as to think that he would ever again see a British soldier on the continent of Europe as an aggressor? Such a sight would never be seen, would never be permitted again. To contemplate such a thing was to contemplate a renewal of that fatal foreign policy which had saddled the country with 800,000,000l. of debt, and which sum, as a permanent debt, ground down the whole people. The noble Lord could not be aware of the dissatisfaction which would be experienced at this proposal to force portions of the population into compulsory service. There was no suggestion that the men so forced from their homes were to be enfranchised. Oh, no! They were to be the defenders of the country; but they were not to have the rights of citizenship. Here, then, was a Whig Government adopting the principles and the practices so severely reprobated in the Tory Governments of former years; and if the noble Lord persevered in such courses, he (Mr. Hume) would tell him that the day was not distant when he would have to give way. The noble Lord seemed to have forgotten Lord Grey's declaration, and the approbation which that declaration elicited from the whole people. He (Mr. Hume) would take the sense of the Committee on the question, if he could find a seconder, and he would give the Committee the opportunity of dividing. He would ask what were the fleet of 250 vessels doing, that they could not be employed in the protection of our own coasts? After thirty-seven years of peace they were bound to hesitate before they adopted hastily exploded principles and proved had systems. He would demand that, before they arbitrarily interfered with the civil rights of the people, they should inquire if their existing naval and military forces could not be better and more efficiently applied. The noble Lord, no doubt, wished peace. But here, in this proposal, he directly and palpably insulted a neighbouring Power. This militia was an armament to prepare against the possibility of a French invasion. But they all knew that the interests of Prance were to be at peace with England; and in that House the noble Lord, and all of them, had repudiated the statements and the assaults against the present Government of Prance. Yet, now, the noble Lord said that they were in fear, and that they must not attach any credit to the declarations of the foreign Government. Half of the 30,000 men to be called out would be taken from agriculture; and they should be careful how they thus interfered with the natural arrangements of society. They were to be drilled for a week at a time. Now, no one could believe that that would make them soldiers. It would just suffice to make it extremely dangerous to let them have arms in their hands. At any rate, the noble Lord should have proposed to accompany this Bill with the concession of the elective franchise to every person serving in the militia; and if the Bill went forward, he (Mr. Hume) would take care to move such an Amendment. The noble Lord had referred to steam and to steam vessels as increasing the risks to this country. But he (Mr. Hume) was prepared to show, steam had been the greatest blessing to us, in point of national defence, and that the power of protecting ourselves had been increased tenfold by our steam vessels. Certainly, they were running risks at present. They had ten ships in the Tagus to assist the Government of Portugal. They had from twenty to thirty ships in the Mediterranean to keep the Ionian Islands in slavery and in subjugation. They had twenty-three ships on the coast of Africa for the purpose of plundering the natives, and, by way of freak, of putting down one man, and putting up another chief. Then they had an enormous army. It was called a small army. But the estimates showed that they supplied clothing to 185,000 troops, either in arms, or ready at a moment's notice to take arms; and why was this vast force (and it was quite exclusive of our sailors) not sufficient?

said, from all the information he could collect, the country would be too glad to see the Government doing anything in the direction of the present proposal, to be very critical as to the measures proposed. There was a general impression of the necessity for being prepared, not against what reasonable and sagacious men might do, but unreasonable and foolish. See what was the intelligence on which the public had to reflect. A journal of this very day, noted for its efforts in procuring intelligence from abroad, announced that the generals commanding corps in the French army were directed, by circular, to have their matériel and personnel in readiness on the 22nd. What was to be done on the 22nd? On the 23rd we shall know; but curiosity may be excused before. The surmise of the informants of the journal was, that on that day the ruler of France was to declare himself Emperor. It did not much concern this country if he declared himself "Mamamouchi;" but if the ruler of France knew his trade, which was to go on till he was stopped, there was a more likely object than this. What would the House say, if it was a point on Belgium? It is presumable we should know it to-morrow, by hearing that a steam force was assembling in the Downs. On all this we are likely to know more hereafter; but, in the meantime, the country will be grateful to the noble Lord's Government for all and everything it shall do in the way of precaution.

said, that a Session or two ago their ears were dinned with the words reform, retrenchment, peace—they were told of nothing but harmony, amity, and peaceful confederation to promote the welfare of mankind, and such stuff; and this humbug reached its climax in that Great Exhibition. Everything was then to be happy and prosperous. He never joined in that cant. Her Majesty's Government, and, he grieved to say, many of our gentry, were "hail, fellow! well met," with every foreign ragamuffin. Her Majesty's Government was foremost indeed—every foreigner was a brother and a friend—no matter what or who he was, the foreigner was taken by the hand, whilst our own poor people were neglected. But, not content with all this fuss about foreigners, nothing would suit the Government but that those amicable strangers should be allowed to pry into our dockyards, and inspect the Tower and our arsenals. The whole nakedness of the country was laid open to them, and now we were about to reap the fruits of our generosity. Higher and better people than the noble Lord and his Colleagues countenanced this delusion; but the absurdity had now passed away, and instead of the olive branch they were to have the trumpet. He objected to the scheme of the noble Lord, which he thought in a great measure designed to promote, what he never for a moment forgot on any occasion, great or small, namely, to increase the patronage of himself and his Colleagues. He was unable to hear much of what the noble Lord said, but what be did hear he disliked. The noble Lord spoke in so low a tone of voice, no doubt intentionally, that it was impossible to catch more than a sentence here and there. Even that circumstance tended to increase his suspicion of the nature of the measure. He was of opinion, if any additional force were required, that the old militia might be called out at much less expense and in a more efficient manner than this new conscription which was now proposed. He protested against all these dark and subtle designs, and thought the best that could be done with the Government, who bad brought the country to such a condition, and left her so defenceless, was to ship every one of them off to Botany Bay.

said, he must complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had spoken of the soldiers of the British Army. He (Sir H. Verney) would maintain that there was not a more honourable, well-conducted, and moral set of men in the country ever collected together in a body of 600 or 800 than those who composed a regiment of British soldiers. What was the fact? Every regiment had a library, consisting of 5,000 or 6,000 volumes, which were paid for by the men themselves, and the library was conducted by noncommissioned officers. In each regiment there was a school open for the soldiers morning and evening. On one evening in each week the commanding officer procured a lecture to be given; and on another evening in the week some scientific and intellectual entertainment was afforded to the soldiers. He could not avoid making these few remarks when be heard the character of the British soldier calumniated and spoken of in a way which it did not deserve. It was with some degree of regret that he had heard the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, for he could not believe that a force so collected, so organised, and so disciplined as was proposed, could be competent successfully to encounter an invasion of this country. If they were to have a militia force, let it be thoroughly efficient. He believed that nothing would be more easy than to raise one battalion or even two battalions in each county, who, instead of being demoralised by becoming soldiers, would prove to be the best class of labourers the country possessed, and who would be looked up to by their fellow-labourers. He hoped the present opportunity would be taken by the Government to bring all branches of the military service into a state of complete efficiency, and make those branches become more closely connected with one another. He should also have been glad if it had been proposed to make the state of the military service more agreeable and desirable to the peasantry and labourers of the country. He should have liked to see the local militia made more useful, and constituted as a link with the regular army; the local militia of each county being put in immediate connexion with the regiment that bore the name of that county. He believed that a system of that sort could be worked at an expense quite as small as that which the noble Lord now proposed. Sure he was that if the militia force of the country were connected with the different regiments of the Army, the national defence would be rendered extremely efficient. Let not the noble Lord suppose that fourteen or twenty-eight days' training of militia could form an adequate defence for the country. He considered it necessary at this juncture to organise an efficient force to resist aggression, but not to interfere with any portion of Europe; and no such force could be organised at a less expense than an efficient militia. That, in his opinion, would be the most judicious step that could be taken. He agreed with the noble Lord in the propriety of employing officers of the regular Army who were now on half-pay in the formation of the new force proposed by him. Before he concluded he would earnestly warn the noble Lord of the responsibility which devolved upon the Government on this momentous question. Should any disaster befall the country, he would tell the noble Lord that those men whom we now loved and honoured, and who had hitherto assisted in founding and confirming our liberties, would be handed down to the execration of after ages if, by their means, any disaster should fall on our country. But he did not anticipate that the Government would be so remiss. He felt confident that the people would most heartily support them in every necessary measure of defence. Could it be supposed that the people of England, who insured themselves in every other matter, would be so blind as not to insure to themselves their lives, their liberties, and their properties? It was necessary that the Government should quietly take the whole matter into their consideration, and, if they did, he felt convinced that the people would enable them to place the country in such a condition as should defy all foreign aggression, whether by a single nation or by a combination of hostile States.

hoped the noble Lord would consider whether the present measure should not be extended to Ireland. Taking as an instance the county of which he was a native, and the chief town of which he had the honour to represent—Kerry, the people of that county was preeminently loyal. That county was a range of coast extending from the Shannon to as far as Bantry Bay; and yet what was the force which that county possessed? They had one weak depôt, a small constabulary force, which the magistrates of the county were endeavouring to reduce, and a body of Coast Guard, mostly worn-out men, and many of them more fit for Greenwich Hospital than to be on service. Considering the condition of a country like Ireland, nothing could be more easy than for an enemy to effect a landing there. On two occasions such a circumstance had been accomplished. He trusted the noble Lord would not leave the miserable inhabitants of that country without the same defence as he was now providing for England. He was quite sure that if the measure were extended to Ireland, it would be received with thanks, and that the Government would find an organised force collected there that would withstand the efforts of any foreign enemy who should attempt to invade its shores.

Sir, the hon. Member for Bedford (Sir H. Verney) has stated that he hoped, as Englishmen were insured for everything else that they possessed, they would consent to pay for the insurance of their lives, their liberties, and their properties. I have no hesitation in saying that Englishmen are quite willing to pay an insurance for their lives, their liberties, and their property; but the question is, not whether they pay an insurance or not, but whether they pay enough insurance or not for those lives, those liberties, and that property. The question is, whether having already effected an insurance in the Royal Exchange, they should be called upon to insure in the Phœnix as well? The question is, whether they have not already amply insured this country from all hostile attacks by means of those votes—those scandalous votes, I will say, which the House has for so many years sanctioned for the support of the Army and Navy of this empire. This is the sole question for the Committee to consider. As a representative of the people in this House, I never expressed any other opinion than this, that the people of this country were perfectly willing to defend themselves against all unjust aggression. Now, the question again comes to this, whether we have or have not made a due defence against any such aggression? This brings me to consider what is the nature of the defence we now possess? What, in the first place, is it that we have voted for our Navy? Why, if I were to go back to the whole period of thirty-seven years that have elapsed since the war, it would be seen that we had voted no less than 250,000,000l. for our Navy; but I will confine myself to the last ten years of that period, because we have something to show for the money we have during those years expended. During the ten years, then, from 1841 to 1850, we have paid for wages to artificers employed in Her Majesty's dockyards at home 6,850,000l. In the same period we have paid for Naval stores, for the building and repairs of ships, &c, 13,400,000l.; and during the same period of ten years we have laid out in new works, improvements, and repairs in the dockyards, &c, 3,700,000l. Now, what would a private shipbuilder say if, after having laid out 23,950,000l. in shipbuilding, that is to say, in purchasing materials, in paying artificers' wages, in the repairing of ships, &c, he should find all those ships in an inefficient and destitute state, and unfit for carrying out any of the purposes whatever for which they were designed, and that he must apply to some foreign and extraneous source to make up for the absence of that power for which he had paid upwards of 23,000,000l. This is precisely the question which the Committee have to consider. The question put to us by the hon. Member for Bedford is, whether, as a country, we are to insure ourselves against foreign aggression? I say we are already abundantly insured. I ask what it is that we do with the vessels which we have constructed at such a vast cost—a cost which, even within the last ten years, would purchase nearly the whole mercantile marine of this kingdom? What is it that we do with our ships while we hear of this danger of invasion? Where are our ships? Where is our Navy? Up even to this moment we have a squadron in the Tagus, but which I am told has been ordered home. And, at the present moment, we have another squadron in the Mediterranean. I will read to the Committee, and to the people of England, who appear to be frightened out of their wits that something is coming to attack them in their own homes, the number of ships this country possesses, and where they are stationary. In the Mediterranean there are the Albion, of 90 guns; the Bellerophon, of 78; the Indefatigable, of 50; the Phœton, of 50; the Queen, of 110; the Trafalgar, of 120; the Vengeance, of 84; and the Superb, of 80. This does not include above a dozen small vessels of war. We have all this force in the Mediterranean at the very time that we hear this outcry about invasion. Why does not the Government order these vessels home? But, so far from this, what is their policy? Why, at this very moment they have just ordered the Britannia, a ship of 120 guns, to sail to Malta, 1,200 miles away from the coast where it might be of use to us. Besides this, the Lisbon squadron, or squadron of evolutions, as it is called, consists of the Arethusa, of 50 guns; the Arrogant, of 36; the Hogue, of 60; the Leander, of 50; and the Prince Regent, 90. Now, is such conduct as this rational while the people are raising a cry of invasion? Is it wise, or consistent with common sense, that you should have such a force as this—a force large enough for any naval purposes whatever that can possibly be required in the actual condition of the country and of Europe—that you should have such a force 1,200 miles away from your own shores, and that you should then raise the cry of invasion, and come down to this House and ask the people to leave their daily avocations to go out to be armed and drilled, and to give you an addition to your Army in order that you may protect them against somebody who is going to molest them? I am not going to do the Admiralty or the Government the injustice of assuming that we have no ships at home. These 23,000,000l. have not all been wasted. We are not without ships of war in the ports on our coasts. We are not liable to be bombarded by a few gunbrigs, or a thousand or two of buccaneers coming to our shores. We have in commission at Sheerness the London, of 90 guns, the Monarch, of 84, and the Waterloo, of 120; we have at Portsmouth the Neptune, of 120 guns, the Rodney, of 90 (advanced ship), the Blenheim, of 60, the Edinburgh, of 58, the Excellent, of 76, and the Victory, of 101; we have at Chatham the Boscawen, of 70 guns; at Woolwich, the Fisgard, of 42; at Devon-port, the Impregnable, of 104, and the St. George, of 120; and at Pembroke, the Saturn, of 72. Here are ten line-of-battle ships and four frigates. But we have also paid very largely for a force of steamers which are lying in our ports, and we have besides line-of-battle ships in the West and East Indies. Now I ask anybody in the world to say what possible use there is in our having a line-of-battle ship lying at Jamaica, or another line-of-battle ship lying in the East Indies? I challenge any one to show that a line-of-battle ship, either in the East or in the West Indies, could ever be called into service, whatever might be the occasion for them. And yet, we have heard of attacks on British vessels in the Eastern Archipelago, and where you have had to pay head-money for more than 5,000 men. But we never employ our line-of-battle ships in hunting down these pirates, as they were called, and destroying them in the rivers and narrow creeks. We might as well bring a field battery into the lanes and alleys of London to look after thieves and pickpockets. Therefore, to keep these line-of battle ships at Hongkong and Singapore, while we are afraid of an invasion here upon our coasts, is one of the most monstrous and ridiculous things that can be imagined. The argument was, that we were so near France, that we were in clanger of being invaded by French people. But our Colonies were some thousands of miles off France, and there could be no fear that the French were going on a buccaneering expedition against them. The whole argument was, that we were in danger for our own shores. If you are sincere in using it, the first thing you must do to satisfy me of that sincerity, is to order home those large vessels, which are comparatively useless where they are now placed, to your own shores, for the purpose of protecting you. Now, I must say the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in the speech he delivered this night, and in the arguments he used, has put himself very much in antagonism with what he told us the other day at the opening of Parliament. The noble Lord on that occasion informed us that the news- paper press of this country had taken great liberties with the President of France; but that that gentleman had lived in England, that he knew the habits of this country, that he knew the press was free, and that, though it might be licentious, it was not to be taken for granted that what the press said of the President of France was the opinion of the English people. Now, without offering a word of objection to what the noble Lord said on that occasion with regard to the press of this country, I must say I think he has contrived to take up a position which, while it is ten times more menacing to France than anything the newspapers can say, has not the excuse that he is not speaking in the name of the English people, for, if you agree to this proposal, to organise a militia of 80,000 men—to set up this force with an elastic organisation which may become 110,000 or 120,000 men—I say then the noble Lord will do far more than the press of this country, which he took on himself to lecture, to put us in a state of antagonism with the French people. But the noble Lord, when he called on us to do this, failed to give one proof that what he said at the opening of Parliament, and that which the Speech from the Throne declared, was not true, and that his assertions as to the pacific intentions of the French Government were unfounded—he failed to show that what the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in the other House stated was unfounded on the same point he had not done a single thing to show that what the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) said was wrong, when he declared he had left us in relations of amity and security with all the nations of the world. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had not given them an argument why they should depart from the security with which he gratified them at the beginning of the Session, and by which the funds went up. He feared they would go down again to-morrow. But, comparing the noble Lord's statement now with that which he made in 1848, we may find arguments to show why there is less danger at present than then of any attack from the French people. I remember when the noble Lord brought forward his proposal in 1848 to draw out the militia, he said the King of the French during his long and pacific reign had doubled the amount of expenditure on the navy. He has not pretended to show that the present Government of France has increased the navy at all. On the contrary, I have seen in some of those French newspapers which are allowed to be published, recommendations of the policy of laying up some of their large ships. The noble Lord gave us another argument in 1848 for calling out the militia, when he said the French had 2,000,000 of National Guards; but the present President has dissolved and disbanded the National Guards, and that argument can no longer apply, I think we are as safe from molestation now as then. I say as safe from molestation, because, judging from the very suggestive and somewhat alarming remarks of the noble Lord with respect to our arrangements on the Continent, and from the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Col. Thompson), who took upon himself to speak of the policy of Belgium as a matter which might affect our policy, I am afraid there is some danger of our getting into a war from meddling with affairs on the Continent, and that this proposal and talk of calling out the militia may be from the intention of employing our forces on the Continent. Now, I can only say, if the people of England, remembering the experience of the last year, and after having suffered from the desertion and treachery of every people on the Continent in turn, and after bringing a long and dreary war to a close, in which they did nothing permanent, and settled no principle on a fixed basis, but burdening the country with an enormous debt, again allow any Government, Whig or Tory, to attempt to drag them into a Continental war, they will richly deserve the catastrophe of a national bankruptcy which will inevitably befall a country so impervious to all the counsels of sense and experience. As to the present measure, I am persuaded it will be very unpopular in the country among all classes; but less so among the rich than the poor, because the rich can pay for substitutes, which the poor cannot do. I have no doubt, before this discussion is brought to a close, there will be public meetings like those in 1848, when I remember the largest meeting I ever saw collected, in Birmingham, to protest against the noble Lord's measure; and he will see the same expression of hostility—and, I think, very deservedly—to the course he is now proposing. What is it in effect? A mere fraction of the community are to be drawn away from their business and pur- suits to take on themselves the duty of soldiers, and to be put under martial law,—for what? I say, if you want 150,000 soldiers, take them, and pay them; pay them liberally. But, to call a man from his labours, to take a man from his work who can earn his 4s. a day, or from his small shop, where he is with difficulty supporting his family, and to put him into a soldier's jacket and drill him, subject him to martial law, and pay him 1s. a day, is a most flagrant hardship and injustice. But I will return to the point, that our Navy is our national guardian. I say that there is no necessity on national grounds for this measure. You have no business to contemplate any invasion of your shores, if the numerous fleets for which you pay so large a sum are properly kept up and disposed of. You have in that case no reason to dread invasion, whether by a few brigands or by a foreign army. I observe, a Swiss gentleman—one Baron Maurice, I believe, has been giving us a plan of invasion by an army of 120,000; but that has been disposed of, I believe, by military men, who say that it would be impossible to effect it, because to carry such an army would employ all the merchant men as well as all the ships of war belonging to France, and we should be a nation of soldiers before they could land on our shores. But there is another plan put forth by the Army and Navy journal of this month, which I will state for you in their words. It is from the United Service Journal for February, and is, I suppose, the opinion of military and scientific men. The editor says—

"What we have to dread is, not an invasion, but a hostile descent, throwing on some part of our coast a force of 10,000 or 12,000 men, who, although not strong enough to occupy the country, might do irreparable mischief before they are subdued. A buccaneering expedition might even make its way into the Thames, and demand a Canton ransom from the metropolis of the world."'

Now this is a very grave and serious matter put forth by the United Service Journal. But, in the first place, I take exception to it on this ground—it is a libel on the French army. I don't believe you could find a French officer to undertake a buccaneering expedition of this kind without a declaration of war; and if you did, then the expedition would be an act of piracy. If it be too high an appeal to make to French morality and French honour to suppose they would not act in this way, there is still this appeal—that they will be pirates. I am told one of the objects of such an invasion would be to avenge Waterloo; but how would it avenge that defeat, if they only came over here to be hanged? Again, I am told they will burn our ships in Liverpool and Bristol. If they did, they would not burn English ships only, but they would burn American ships, Dutch ships, vessels under every flag in the world; and the nation that warranted such an act, and the Government that permitted it, would be hunted at least from the face of the ocean by all the ships of every maritime nation of the globe. These are the most serious arguments I have met with for the increase of our defensive armaments. Nay, I have no belief in anything of the kind. I have no fear of anything of the kind, and the only thing we want is, that the ships you pay for to the extent of 8,000,000l. a year, including the various departments of the service, the dockyards and Ordnance, may be employed so that they may satisfy the timid that they have no fear of invasion from our opposite neighbours. We pay for this fleet twice as much as France pays for her navy, and three times as much as America does. Why do we pay so? Because, being an island, having extensive commercial operations over all the world, we require more ships than other nations; but, having them, we do not require to call out the militia to protect our shores against invasion. I trust the noble Lord will defer the question, so as to give the country an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. As to this cry of invasion, I believe the fear is much less general than many persons suppose. I have seen an attempt made to manufacture this panic before. I had in 1848 to contend against a far louder outcry, and I succeeded, along with a few hon. Members, in defeating the noble Lord's proposition, which he says he regretted. Why does he regret it? Has the country been less safe during the last three years, because we prevented the noble Lord from spending 500,000l.? On the contrary, I have heard it said by the press, that while the French people governed their own country, we never had been so free from fear of war. I hope the good sense of the people will resist this attempt, which, whenever it has been mentioned at public meetings has been treated with scorn. It is, in fact, a cry got up, newspapers having nothing better to talk about during the recess, which ought to have vanished at the meeting of Parliament; and give us but a few weeks more, and you will see that we shall be able to get rid of this fear, and of this cry of invasion, and then I hope it will never return again. If the noble Lord would only suffer a short delay to elapse, he would be enabled quietly to withdraw his measure, and thus to avoid the demoralising effects which the embodying of the militia could not fail to have upon all our social relations.

Sir, I have heard with satisfaction the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this side of the House., the hon. Member for Bradford (Col. Thompson), who expressed his gratification that Her Majesty's Government were at last doing something, and were proposing a measure on the subject of the present discussion. My satisfaction, I can, however, assure the House, is not founded on any temporary panic, or on any opinion that there is now pressing on us any danger which has not existed at any former period. I trust our relations with all those countries from which, under any circumstances, danger might arise, are friendly, and that there is no question at present likely to arise which can expose this country to the danger of war. But the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government knows that so long ago as the year 1846 I took the liberty of pressing on him my opinion, that on general principles, and with a view to the permanent and lasting interests of the country, it was desirable that some such measure of precaution should be taken as that which is the object of the present proposal, and I have at various times renewed my instances; but there were difficulties which prevented my recommendations from being carried into effect. I am glad, Sir, those difficulties have disappeared, and that Her Majesty's Government are now enabled to propose measures lo provide more adequately for the defence of the country. There are hon. Gentlemen who say they hope we may not be again engaged in Continental warfare, or mix ourselves up unnecessarily with Continental quarrels. Sir, I agree with them entirely; but, as the noble Lord truly said, we have engagements, and some of them of long standing, which may involve us in discussions with other countries. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] We have political interests beyond our own shores; and there are changes which it would not suit either the safety of this country or its dignity, that we should sit quietly by, and see take place. We have interests scattered over all the surface of the globe, and there is no country in which we have not subjects, property, and commerce. Questions, moreover, often arise, and sometimes of the most dangerous character, from matters which in themselves are apparently of the most trivial characters. We had an instance of this in the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, when a question arose about Tahiti, of a very grave kind, not indeed involving any national interest, but involving the national dignity and honour. Hon. Gentlemen talk as if the only danger of rupture were from our immediate neighbour, France; but they should remember that France is not the only Power that possesses a large fleet and a large disposable army, and that there is no saying if we were involved in war with one Power, to what extent the flame might spread, or how far the jealousy of other Powers might prompt them to take advantage of the difficulties in which we were engaged. We are told that our position is insular, and that we have a fleet which is our defence; but that insular position, which constitutes, in some degree, our strength, constitutes also our danger. The Continental States are accessible only by certain roads and approaches, which they can watch and protect by fortifications, and they know where and how the attack will come. But the vast circumference of our shores is open all around, and it is impossible to foresee what place an invading force may choose to land at. The Channel is narrow which divides us from our immediate neighbours; but then, as Lord Howe said, the sea is a wide place." That Channel may be crossed in a few hours; and a few days may bring a considerable force to any portion that may be selected of the extended surface of our shores. I believe our Navy is, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) said it ought to be, considering the expense which has been incurred upon it, as efficient as it ever was at any former period in proportion to its extent. Nay, I believe it is more efficient than it ever was; I believe that we have a great amount of valuable stores in our dockyards, and that we have a large number of ships in ordinary. But is that a reason why we should permit an enemy to come and destroy those stores, to burn those ships, which are capable of receiving men, but which have no men on board? And here I must complain of the exaggeration of the hon. Gentleman in enumerating the force of our Navy, when he reckoned as part of our defence ships like the Excellent, which is only placed for target practice, and the Victory, which is only a guardship in Portsmouth harbour, and not, so far as I know, fit for sea at all. But what I say is this, it would be madness to rely entirely on our Navy for safety from invasion. It is perfectly impossible for any navy, however active, vigorous, and numerous, to prevent altogether the landing of a hostile force, when we consider the short interval of space between our own shores and the numerous points from which an enemy might come, and whence an expedition might sail to some spot of our wide-extending shores, and land, for instance, in Ireland, or any less guarded portion of the country. It is therefore necessary that we should have a land force—that we should have armed men to resist armed men; for, as to fortifications, it is useless to think of fortifying more than our arsenals and dockyards, and such places of vital importance: there is no fortification like brave men armed, organised, disciplined, and ready to meet an enemy. That is the best fortification, and such a fortification you will always find in the hearts and arms of Englishmen. But if it be necessary that we should have armed men to meet the unfortunate possibility of an invasion—I hope not the probability; and mind, the less probable it will be the more we are prepared for it: nothing so much tempts aggression as weakness and incapacity to resist, when to that is added enormous wealth and a great temptation for political objects—if it be necessary that this country should have a force capable of defending our homes against an invading army, and of protecting us from the incalculable calamity which would arise from the occupation of any portion of our country, even for a month, by an invading force, why then, I say, something like the mode proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government seems to me the best, if not the only possible, mode of accomplishing our purpose. It is mighty we'll for persons in this country to talk of the hardship of taking men away from their homes, their farms, or their shops, in order to teach them to defend themselves, their families, and their country. Fortunately, Sir, the people of England do not know what the calamities of war are; but those who have served abroad, and those who have read with common attention the accounts of the effects of war in foreign coun- tries, must know that a greater calamity could not well befall this country than the landing of a force of sufficient magnitude to occupy any portion of it for even the shortest conceivable period. If then there is to be a standing force, I think the mode in which the noble Lord proposes to raise it is, on the whole, the best that can be adopted. I am satisfied that the habits, the feelings, and the finances of the country would not permit us to have a regular force in time of peace sufficient to defend the country in the event of war. The only thing we can have, then, is what every other country of any magnitude and importance I has also, and that is a dormant force, trained, organised, and disciplined to a certain degree, in time of peace, and ready to appear under arms in time of war, I and to take a part with the regular I forces in operations against an invading enemy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) talks about the hardship of taking persons from their homes; but the people of the United States of America do not feel it as a hardship to be called upon to learn the use of arms to defend their homes and their country in the event of invasion. Why, it is said there are somewhere about 2,000,000 of militiamen in the United States. In most of the countries of Europe there is a similar force. Prussia has a large defensive force in her Landwehr; and Austria has a large amount of dormant force of this kind. The National Guards of France were a very numerous body, and, although they have been recently disbanded, they will no doubt be again partially reorganised. There is no !great country in the world that follows the example of this country—I should say the recent example of this country, for it is only of late years the militia has been discontinued. Considering the enormous wealth which we have to protect, there is no country so defenceless and so destitute of the means of protecting itself in case of attack. What we want is a trained, an organised, disciplined, force, and assembled for a short time in the year in order to be accustomed to the use of arms, and practised in those movements without a knowledge of which armed men are a mob, and not an army; which is not to be sent out of the kingdom, and which can be called together in a short period, and assembled under arms to defend the country. The militia is that force. The militia has been in existence for nearly two centuries; and I cannot understand the meaning of the distinction made by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) between the regular and the local militia, upon which the noble Lord grounds his preference for the local militia. The regular militia is, in time of peace, like the local militia, but in time of war it is within the limits of the United Kingdom, like the regular army. It is a body formed by ballot—those who were drawn providing a substitute, if they chose to do so; and this is an important distinction between the regular and the local militia. In the regular militia there may be substitutes; but in the local militia substitutes are not allowed, and balloted men must serve in person, with a few exceptions. The regular militia is the old and constitutional force of this country, formed by ballot and by substitutes, officered, trained, armed, and equipped, assembling every year for twenty-eight days, or a less period, and ready within a week or ten days, when war is imminent, or has broken out, to assemble under arms and join the regular army for the defence of the country. The regular militia, too, is liable to serve in the whole of the United Kingdom; and I really am astonished that in a plan for the defence of the realm, Ireland should be left without the protection said to be essential for the defence of this country. The local militia, which the noble Lord at the head of the Government purposes to organise, can only be called upon to serve in Great Britain; and why a defensive force is not to be raised for Ireland, I am at a loss to conceive. Do the Government doubt the loyalty of the Irish people? Why, Sir, I would pledge my existence that there is not a man in Ireland who, being called out, and having taken the oath of allegiance to his Sovereign, would not lose his life rather than not defend his country against invasion. I have the most complete confidence in the loyalty of the millions of Ireland. I am persuaded they would be true to the Queen and to their oath; and as to their courage, that is sufficiently well known to need no eulogium from any man. If, then, Sir, we are to have a militia—which, in my opinion, we ought to have—I do not understand why the noble Lord has adopted so complicated an arrangement as this experiment of his seems to be, when he has a simpler and more effective force in the regular and well-known militia, raised with less personal inconvenience, and more available for national defence; because, while the local militia does not permit of substitutes, the regular militia does, and it is a force which may be required to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, The local militia apparently is not to be trained by battalions, but the men are to come out by tens and twenties whenever they like to be trained by squads. Now squad drill will never make soldiers fit for service. To render troops flit for service in the field, they must have been practised in battalion movements. Then it seems, from the statement of the noble Lord, that this local militia, even when formed into battalions, is to remain each battalion in its respective county, and it would thus be eaten up by an enemy in detail just as in this House we dispose, one after the other, of the clauses of a Bill. The regular militia is founded upon Acts of Parliament which now exist, and is available on the first breaking out of a war; but the new force could not be called out until the enemy had landed, and until it was too late to be of any service. I submit to the Government that it would be desirable to leave out the word "local" from the title of the Bill, and to bring in a Bill to amend, if necessary, the Act of 1802, and the laws, in short, which regulate the regular militia. The Government might make some arrangements connected with the ballot by which the constitution of the force might be improved. I have no doubt, too, that it would be advisable to introduce some half-pay officers, acquainted with the practical duties of the service, into the regiments of militia, who would give a tone to the force, and improve its efficiency. The men might then have the advantage of being trained in battalions, and not in awkward squads, as they would be under this Bill. These, however, are details which may be discussed when the clauses of the Bill are considered in Committee. But the Government may depend upon it that no valuable and efficient service can be given by these troops, unless they are trained by battalions, and accustomed to those movements in the field which are essential to render them useful in the operations of an action against an enemy. In conclusion I can only say that I am glad that the Government have at length resolved to provide a defensive force. I think it the cheapest and most effective means which can be provided for the protection of the country, and the danger of invasion may be best averted by its betng known that we have the means of defending ourselves if we should be attacked. But while I agree in this general principle, I think the proposed Bill is susceptible of much improvement, and I would beg leave to point out the regular militia as the standard by which this House should be guided in framing the measure.

said, he had heard the speech of the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat, with great satisfaction, and he rejoiced that his noble Friend had coincided completely with the Government as to the necessity of being prepared with a force of the description of a militia body; but his noble Friend was mistaken in supposing the Government Bill could be amended by substituting in place of a local a permanent, or regular militia. That subject had undergone great consideration at the hands of the Government, and to their minds it appeared far better to confine themselves in the present instance to a militia of a local rather than of a permanent character. The regular militia was composed of men who were permitted to serve by substitute, and that arrangement created so much confusion that it was often impossible to put their hand on the militiaman when his services were required. Under the system by which substitutes were admitted, a man might serve as such in the county of York, and when the training was over there, he might resort to the county of Somerset, and serve as a substitute there. Thus 5,000, or 6,000 men might in this way be doing the duty of the whole militia force. That might not be discovered in time of peace; but in time of war, when the substitute was detained in the first corps in which he was enrolled, there would be a lamentable deficiency of trained men. Besides, the Government did not propose to go so far as the expense of a regular militia. All that was aimed at under present circumstances was a force which should be mustered, partly drilled, and rendered easy of enrolment whenever the necessity arose of having recourse to their services. By the old system it took many weeks before even the lists preparatory to a ballot could be made out, and many months before the men could he enrolled. It was not proposed by this Act to render every man between the ages of eighteen and forty-five liable to ballot, as by the old Militia Act, whereby married men were drawn, and great expense thrown on the country in providing for their wives and families. But it was proposed to ballot for men between the ages of twenty and twenty-three, by which they believed they would get a sufficient force, and a force composed of those on whom the engagement of service would fall with the greatest lightness. He could assure his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) that it was proposed to battalionise the force as soon as they were mustered. It was not proposed, as his noble Friend insinuated, to keep them in awkward squads permanently; but they must have them in awkward squads until they were ready for battalions. They would have officers and non-commissioned officers appointed, and, except in case of absolute invasion or threatened invasion, they would not be called for service out of their own localities. Now it appeared to him (Mr. Fox Maule) that this would be a very simple force, and easy to be got together; very economical, and perfectly effectual for all the purposes for which it was required. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had compared the proposed system to a different system in France, only in diluted form, which was known under the name of the conscription. He (Mr. Fox Maule) was one of those who held that it was a constitutional obligation on every man to rally round his hearth and altar; and to that obligation every man in the country ought to be bound. When the Government asked then for only one-fifth part of the adult male population, and that between the ages of twenty and twenty-three, to serve (or rather be liable to serve) their country for a period of four years, and during that period never to be taken from their own locality, except the country was invaded or in danger of invasion—to submit to fourteen, or as much as twenty-eight days' drill in the course of a year, for a period of about six hours of the day, he thought this the lightest duty which could be required of the youth of a great country like this; and he was very much mistaken if such a proposition would either be hooted at, or be as unpopular as a conscription, as the hon. Member for Montrose imagined. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) said he would prefer a regular army to any militia; but there were some people who, whenever there were two courses, somehow or other had objections to both; and he had very little doubt, when an addition of 4,000 men to the Array Estimates was proposed, the hon. Member for the West Riding and the hon. Member for Montrose would be the first to say, "We have troops enough." The hon. Member for the West Riding had also said, nothing could be so menacing to France as the proposition now made. He (Mr. Fox Maule) could understand no proposition as menacing which had for its object alone the defence of our own shores; it could only be menacing when France, or any other country, landed on those shores, or intended to attack and invade us; he apprehended no act of self-protection could be menacing to any nation. He was perfectly ready to take any share of blame for not having moved in this direction sooner; but he confessed he thought the time was come when Government would have been remiss in not taking the steps which they had done. Some said those steps had been delayed; but at all events they had the satisfaction of thinking the foundation was now laid for the establishment of a home force, never to be called on until their services were absolutely required, and consisting of that portion of the community whom he would not object to see trained to the use of arms. They would be men who had something to lose, and had a desire to protect that something, and not men who, being substitutes for others, were eventually drawn from the refuse of the population. As his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had stated, there were many country gentlemen in that House who had had many years' experience, and were well acquainted with the details of the militia in their several districts; and the Government did not object to this measure being considered in a Committee of the whole House, or, after a second reading, to be referred to a Select Committee upstairs. But there was one point to which he must for a moment allude. The hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds) had asked if Ireland was to be included in this Bill? His answer was, neither Ireland nor Scotland was included—England was the point most essential, to which, in the first instance, the Government applied themselves; but they omitted Scotland and Ireland, nothing doubting the loyalty of the Scotch and Irish, if they were in any danger of any foreign foe, for, come from where it may, there was not one subject of the Queen, be he in what portion of Her Majesty's dominions he may, be he of what religion he may, be he of what political opinion he may, who would not fly at once to arms in defence, and rally round the Sovereign with the same loyalty which had ever distinguished them.

was sure that, after the very able and patriotic speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton—a speech which evinced the truest English spirit—a spirit that noble Lord had on many important occasions manifested—it was not necessary for him to trouble the Committee with many observations. No one was in a position to give a more independent or a more competent opinion on the subject before the House than the noble Lord, having lately left the Government, and being perhaps more versed in the relations of this country with foreign States, and their present attitude, than any other person. Assured, as he was, that the circumstances of the country were not such as to warrant an overweening confidence in the perpetuation of peace, he hoped that England would not suffer herself to be misled by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) into that state of over-confidence with which he would inspire the House. The hon. Member for the West Riding had not been very successful as the prophet of peace, for last Session he and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) said there were no pirates in Sarawak. One of their witnesses was a Mr. Burns, who had since paid with his life the price of his temerity and overconfidence. He did not wish to enter into any discussion of the necessity for the measure which had been announced; but after careful inquiry of those who were most competent to give information on such subjects, he was convinced that he was doing his duty, as a Member of the Opposition, in supporting the proposal now made; in saying that, he was not of course pledging himself to the forthcoming measure in all its details. In 1848 he (Mr. Newdegate) opposed the embodiment of the militia; but in 1852 he would support a defensive measure such as the Government had proposed. He was confident he was doing his duty in giving to the proposal of the Government a general support.

said, he entirely concurred in the eulogium passed by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) on the loyalty and courage of the Irish people. But in what they were doing, bringing forward a Bill for the further self-defence of the country, would Government allow him to ask whether they were acting quite fairly or prudently towards a people described by the noble Lord as preeminently loyal? It was folly to think the acts of that House would not be canvassed in England, in Ire land, and on the Continent. They might be assured that Continental nations would say, "While England is arming herself for defence against hostility, is there not an important portion of the kingdom, either by neglect or design, left undefended?" Let Members speak boldly and plainly. He had seen with pain writings and publications in Irish newspapers, tending to invite a French invasion. He had seen with pain and disgust those publications. He deplored the fact of such things having been written—he deplored the effect and the act; but he also deplored the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in hesitating at arming the Irish people, for such a proceeding added a kind of colouring to the base and wicked attempts and arguments of misguided people. He did not agree with the views of the hon. Member for the West Riding. He believed the voluntary system was the best, cheapest, and most constitutional mode of defence. If that were so, in what position was Ireland placed? What the noble Lord said was true—the better defended and prepared a country was, the less was the chance of invasion. But if they took care that Ireland should not be armed, what was that but an advertisement to France, that "Soldiers may be landed here." Such would be the consequences of excluding Ireland from the Bill. There might be a small number of disaffected persons in Ireland, but the great body of the people were as loyal and as little disposed to fraternise with the French as the people of England. That was the ground on which he called upon Government, if they were well affected to Her Majesty's loyal and peaceful Irish subjects, to give them the same means of protecting their country as they had given to England. The Bill excluded Ireland and Scotland. He hoped, however, like the new Reform Bills, that they were to have separate Bills to effect the same object. If not, it would be nothing short of a declaration to Europe, that the people of Ireland were not to be depended upon. If they did this, they would commit a great mistake as statesmen, and practically they would also calumniate the Irish people.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down supposes, without any warrant or foundation whatever, that Ireland is not placed in this Bill in consequence of some distrust of the J loyalty of Irishmen. Sir, as I have already said, there is no sort of foundation for such a supposition. It would have created the greatest confusion if we had proposed to introduce into the same Bill different authorities with regard to Irish parishes and Irish unions; and, therefore, we took first a Militia Bill which affected England, and made that the foundation, not making it applicable either to Scotland any more than to Ireland. At the same time we imply no distrust of the loyalty of Scotchmen. We do not say the Scotch people are not loyal, but we say we wish, in the first instance, to introduce a Militia local Bill for England. There is another thing which I stated with regard to this Bill, namely, that a portion of the police force employed in the metropolis, and in the great towns of some larger counties, was regarded as a part of the quota to be furnished, and was so far an exemption from the obligations of the Bill. If the same principle is applied to Ireland, where there is a large force of constabulary formed entirely of Irishmen, who have always behaved well in every respect, and are, I believe, as fine a body of men—some 10,000 or 12,000 strong—as can be mustered; of course, that circumstance has to be considered, when we have to introduce a Bill for Ireland. It is a matter for consideration whether we shall follow this Bill up, when it has been approved by both Houses, by Bills with regard to Ireland and Scotland; and if no measure is introduced for Scotland or Ireland, it will be from other causes than a want of confidence in the people of Ireland or Scotland.

said, he approved of something being done, for he considered it quite disgraceful that people should be thrown so often into such a state of panic as they lately had been on the subject of invasion. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) had admitted to-night more than he had ever heard him previously admit—that our commercial relations were much larger than those of other countries, and for that reason required a larger navy. He wished to keep the hon. Member in that position, and taking the country which naturally suggested itself for the comparison—with which we were now at peace—they had as efficient a line-of-battle force as we had, both in number, guns, and men, for he (Capt. Harris) could not consider our advance ships in harbour as efficient ships. Within the last two or three months it had been tested, and found to require several months to get an advanced ship in efficient condition. Men ought to be provided, and he hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty would give them some plan for effecting that object. The militia ballot presented an argument for a measure which he (Capt. Harris) brought forward two years ago for manning the Navy. He presumed the seafaring portion of the community would be exempt from the militia ballot, and that would afford great facility to the Admiralty for balloting among merchant seamen to man our advanced ships, and carrying out the plan he had proposed. He had not brought forward that plan last year, in consequence of the seamen having been led away by agitators on the question of the Mercantile Marine Act; but he hoped the subject would now receive that attention which it most assuredly deserved.

thought he should be able on an early day to bring in a measure on the subject, and hoped the hon. and gallant Member would therefore postpone for the present any Motion he might contemplate with regard to it.

said, he could bear testimony to the fact stated by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), that the opinion which he had expressed to-night on the subject of the militia was no new opinion, for when he (Mr. S. Herbert) held the office of Secretary of War the noble Lord frequently questioned him on the subject in this House. Those questions had not been without effect, for the late Government were so fully persuaded of the necessity of taking some steps in the matter, that at the desire of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), then Secretary for the Home Department, and of the late Sir Robert Peel, he (Mr. S. Herbert) drew up a Bill for the revising of the militia laws, with the view of bringing the subject before Parliament; but the measure was not brought forward, in consequence of a change of Administration. He was glad, therefore, that the Government had now taken the matter in hand. It was most impolitic, and, moreover, it was very uneconomical, to allow this country to be perpetually oscillating between panic and parsimony. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken previously, that the military service of the country should be organised, so that the greatest efficiency should be had for the money expended. On this point be as stringent as you can. But, looking to the feelings—prejudices, if they pleased—existing in this country, it was obviously impossible to maintain a standing Army large enough for the purpose of national defence, at all times, and under any conditions. Under these circumstances it was necessary to have recourse to some inexpensive mode of training an armed body to which we might have recourse in cases of emergency. Some inconvenience, however, was likely to arise from the Government having chosen to deal with a local instead of the general militia. The local system was supplementary to the general, and differed from it in many respects; but the chief distinction between them was, that the local militia could not be removed out of their respective counties, except in case of invasion, or under the immediate apprehension of invasion, while the general militia could be moved at any time, without any such condition, on the notification of any such apprehension. The local militia, therefore, was less efficient than the general, and, therefore, less fit to be a model. Take this illustration of the objection to local as compared with general militia: It was exactly when invasion was apprehended that the negotiations between two countries became most delicate, and the greatest efforts were made to preserve the appearance of reciprocal confidence up to the last moment, in the hope of a happy solution of the difficulty. If, then, at such a critical moment our Government should remove the local militia to any point which they thought exposed to the danger of attack, the proceeding would he almost tantamount to a declaration of war, by implying the apprehension of hostilities, while a similar movement effected by a general militia need attract no observation. The right hon. President of the Board of Control (Mr. Fox Maule) spoke at the conclusion of his speech about sending the Bill to a Select Committee. This was eminently a subject which ought to be dealt with by Government on its own responsibility; and, therefore, he protested against its being thrown loose with the view of making the House, and not the Ministry, responsible for what might be done.

said, a distinction had been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman between the local and the general militia, and a preference expressed by him for the latter. The real difference was, that one was an offensive force, while the other was purely defensive. All they now wanted to provide was a defensive force—a force to guard this kingdom in the event of an invasion against the attack of a foreign country. They did not want, what was wanted at the conclusion of the Continental war, a militia which should set free every soldier of the regular army in the country, so that the latter might be employed, not for purposes of internal defence, but to carry on the war on the Continent of Europe. It was well known that at the period to which he referred, the militia all through the country did the duty which was originally performed by the soldiers of the line. More than that, the militia then afforded the most valuable means of recruiting the Army. They had no such intention at the present moment. They had no anticipation of a war on the Continent in which this country would have to take a part; but if unfortunately circumstances should occur to render such a force indispensable, it would then be for Parliament to determine what course should be taken to enable the country to maintain its honour and its interests. That, however, was not what was now contemplated. All the Government felt it their duty to do at present was to provide a force which might serve as a purely defensive force against foreign invasion. If a foreign invasion took place, the local militia would be available for that purpose; beyond that they did not think it right to go. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last thought that the removal of the local militia from one part of the kingdom to another pending a negotiation would amount to a declaration of war. So would the removal of the general militia.

No; the law provided for the removal of the general militia at any time. What he had referred to was the moving of the local militia from one county or part of the island to another.

said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate the embodiment of a regular militia, as an army in the country, capable of being moved to the coast in the event of an invasion. That was a course which at present they need not contemplate; and, should it be necessary to employ the militia as they were employed at the end of the Continental war, probably the better course would be to increase the Army by a certain amount. The object they had in view was purely defensive in itself; it was one of which no foreign country could complain, for it was not to provide a means of aggression against any other country.

said, he rose to set the right hon. Baronet right on a matter of fact. The right hon. Baronet had stated that, at the close of the last war, the regular militia did the whole of the military duty of the country, by which means the Government was enabled to send all the regular force abroad. Now, in January, 1814, the regular militia in the United Kingdom amounted to 82,000, and the regular troops at home to 56,000.

said, he had not stated that every individual soldier was sent out of the country; but had the militia not been embodied, there would have been a necessity for 82,000 more soldiers at home.

56,000 troops form a wide margin.

hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and not refer so important a matter as the present measure to a Select Committee. He differed entirely from the hon. Member for the West Riding as to the feeling of the people of England on the subject. He did not allude to the opinions of that portion of them who were members of peace societies, or to their platform orators; but to the great bulk of the people.

said, there was much inconvenience in discussing a measure that was not printed. He would express no opinion as to the policy of forming a militia, reserving that till the Bill was before the House; but he must express his dissent from some observations of a Gentleman for whom he had the greatest respect, and with whom he frequently voted (Mr. Cobden). He quite agreed with the observations of the hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech, that if danger was to be apprehended from any foreign country, the first thing to be done was to withdraw our fleet now lying in the Tagus. Till he heard of its return, on the authority of the Admiralty, he (Mr. B. Osborne) should conclude that that fleet still remained there; and before forming any militia, local or general, that fleet ought to be in its proper place in the Channel. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) was never more provoking or more aggressive than when he talked about peace. This was to be regretted, as the services of a highly-gifted and intelligent man were placed in abeyance by the unfortunate monomania to which he was subject. It brought him into the most glaring contrarieties. In the last half hour he had said he had such confidence in the morality of the French army, that he was certain they would not attack this country. [Mr. COBDEN: No, no!] he would ask what was the morality of any army when led? Had his hon. Friend confidence in the morality of the French army, when he had seen the late scenes in the capital of that country—when he had seen the successful fusillade by the troops of the Boulevards—when he had seen their bayonets pointed against their French brethren; or from the execution done by the artillery in other streets where the cannon was fired by Frenchmen on Frenchmen? Did he imagine that General Espinasse or General St. Arnaud would hesitate to attack this country, when they had not hesitated to break through all laws, human or divine, and place their own Legislature under arrest? If the hon. Gentleman felt that confidence in the French army, or in any army when led by officers, he (Mr. B. Osborne) did not concur with him. But he went with him in saying, "Send for your Tagus fleet." he was not an alarmist, nor an economist; but he held the Government responsible for the defence of the country, and they had a right to take the measures necessary for that purpose. Without defending the calling out of the militia, he would say this, that no foreign Power had a right to view it in the light in which it had been represented by his hon. Friend as a measure of aggression. Foreign Powers knew well that a militia was only for the purpose of defence. His hon. Friend, he must say, used an old economical argu- ment, when he said they were going to pay the militia too little. He complained that they were only to be paid 1s. a day. So far as that went, he (Mr. B. Osborne) was prepared to defend the measure, as he looked upon the militia as the cheapest force that could be employed. The complaint about justice to Ireland had been sufficiently answered by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; for every one connected with Ireland knew that the police was one of the most efficient forces in the country. They would probably come first into collision with any invading army that might have the misfortune to be thrown on those shores, and he was confident they would give a good account of them, and that the result would be much more unfortunate for the invading army than for the police. He did not think this was a question which ought to be referred to a Committee upstairs. He presumed the Government were in possession of much better information than any individual Members. He would throw the responsibility on the Government. If it were necessary to call out the militia, he would give them his vote; but he was not prepared to refer a measure of this vast importance to a Select Committee. He hoped the noble Lord would think well on the matter; and that, whatever was necessary to be done, he would do it well and economically. He hoped there were not many Members of that House so bitten with these peace principles as to be satisfied to peril for one moment the honour and defence of this country.

said, he had always observed, in his not very long experience of that House, that when a Gentleman who got up to speak upon any subject found either a want of logical power to give his reasons, or, still more, if he was not prepared to give any opinion on the measure at all, he very often fell off into a misrepresentation of what other people had said. His hon. Friend who had just spoken had charged him with having said that he believed our safety was, that the French army had too much morality to invade this country. Now, what he had said was, when told that 10,000 or 15,000 men would be thrown upon our shores as buccaneers, without any declaration of war, that he had that opinion of the French army that they would not find an officer to lead them. He had gone so far as to say that they would be hanged if they were taken alive. On a future occasion opportunities would be given of discussing this question further; and he hoped that then his hon. Friend would see that there was no necessity whatever to misrepresent his friends.

thought his hon. Friend had just substantiated all that he had said. His hon. Friend had great confidence in the present ruler of France. He did not know whether he had French railway shares or not; but he had such confidence in the President as to believe that the man who upset the French constitution without notice would not send an army against this country. His hon. Friend was completely run away with. He failed in his logical deductions whenever he talked of peace; but he was bound to say that in his explanation he had borne out all that he (Mr. B. Osborne) had said regarding him.

wished to observe, that he had no objection to send the Bill before a Select Committee to consider the details of the question; but if the House desired it, he was quite prepared to carry it through the various stages without that course.

thought foreign Governments would have no jealousy on this subject, as they might very naturally suppose the militia would become necessary to suppress those seditious proceedings of foreigners in this country of which they had complained. He demurred to the statement that, because the party he generally voted with chose to maintain the executive force of the country, therefore they were not entitled to be called radical reformers. Notwithstanding all the money that had been spent, he maintained that they were still very inadequately defended in the west of England. It was most essential that the Tagus fleet should be recalled. He believed this had been done, and that the Arethusa had already arrived. But he would carry the principle further, and have all our fleets at home, sending them abroad only when they were required. He gave his cordial support to the measure before the House.

would also support the measure, and was strongly in favour of a better equipment of the Army. Sir Charles Shaw had stated that 500 men, well equipped and armed, would be equal to 3,000 armed as at present; and the Examiner newspaper said one man properly equipped and armed would be equal to two men, if not to three, under the present system. The arms now given to our Army were worse than those of any army in Europe. They were inferior to the French, the Belgians, or even the Indians and the Algerines. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from an article which had appeared in the Quarterly Review, with reference to the Affghan war, under General Elphinstone, in which it was stated that the great disasters sustained in that war were caused by the circumstance that the arms with which the troops were supplied were no match for the unerring jezails of the enemy.] he contended that it was most essential to have the Army equipped in the very best manner. But it was not difficult to see why it was otherwise. They did not allow the firearms of any foreign country to be imported; and the consequence was, as in the case of every other monopoly, that they did not get from the gunmakers so good an article as otherwise they would do.

would not have risen again but for the very erroneous statements made by the hon. Member who had just spoken. The hon. Gentleman read to the House a paper written, he supposed, ten years ago, and did not seem to be aware that within these five years every arm of the British Army had been changed. Every gun used in the Affghan war had been changed, as was proved before a Committee of that House. He thought that the public mind ought to be disabused of the idea that the Army was inefficiently armed. Sir Hussey Vivian sent to every State in Europe a commission of officers to bring home the best muskets that could be found. These arms, when brought bore, were thoroughly tried both by officers and men. Reports of these trials were given in; and in consequence of those reports, Sir Hussey Vivian directed that the very best arms should be prepared for the British Army. Every one of them had been altered; the whole of the flint guns had been taken away, and those with percussion locks put in their place. Why, they had voted 150,000l. a year to make those changes, and he hoped, therefore, they would hear no more of inferior arms. If they were to have the militia at all, he hoped all the militia laws now existing would be consolidated into one. He must express his surprise at the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) speaking on the question without having heard the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The right hon. Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey) told them this measure was for defence only; but the noble Lord attributed it to the general state of Europe, and told them that the change which had taken place in one great country had disturbed the balance of power; therefore it was necessary to have an additional force, in order to be prepared to support foreign States. He said we were bound to support certain foreign States, and spoke of Portugal. Did the noble Lord mean to say we were bound to support Belgium if it were attacked? he regretted that there existed a panic so uncalled for as the present. But, if there was danger, let all men who had property to defend share in that danger; and do not select a few victims between the ages of twenty and twenty-three. Let all who were between eighteen and forty be called out, and not confine the selection to one class. If ever there was an act of oppression more severe than another it was this—it was a conscription without being either general, fair, or just; and its object was to defend the country against an evil that nobody knew anything of.

would reserve his opinion of the Militia Bill till it was before the House; but he hoped they would always remember that our first and best defence was the British Channel. He thought they had no cause to be at all alarmed about steam vessels. However much the intention of an enemy to attack this country might be forwarded by steam, the power of prevention on our part was quite as great. He had no doubt whatever, that with the power that steam had of getting to any given spot in almost any weather, it would be morally impossible for an enemy to come over without being attacked by our naval force. But then he concurred in what had been said by previous speakers about drawing more of their navy home. They had them scattered everywhere, and very needlessly in some places, as to numbers; but if they wanted defence let them be drawn home, for that was their right defence. If they only took due precautions with their Navy, they would never have an enemy land upon these shores. They might have an irruption—a kind of piratical expedition—but no real invasion. They had double the population that existed when the war ceased; they had ships also equal in size to those of any enemy, and steamers able to cope with any that were afloat. In time of peace their consuls abroad would be sure to inform them if any hostile preparations were going forward. In the case of France, Cherbourg was the only port capable of floating a line-of-battle ship; whereas in this country they had several ports of sufficient depth for the purpose. Let them keep but one-fifth of their Navy at home, and England would be perfectly safe.

thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman should remember that if the population had increased to the extent which he stated, that population had at the same time been disarmed, and become unwarlike. Parliament had constantly followed the pernicious system of suspending, by the annual Militia Bill, those old wholesome measures of our forefathers by which a constitutional force was created, disciplined, and kept up, sufficient to encounter all the terrors of invasion with which they had been amused, and yet not sufficient to inspire any of that alarm which justly attached to an increase of the standing Army. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that this conscription should be general and equal, and not confined to those who were between the ages of twenty and twenty-three, otherwise it would not be just; and it should be similar to that prevailing in the Channel Islands, where every male person more than six months resident was liable to serve in person or deputy in a regiment the depôt of which was not more than two miles from his place of residence. That was the law which he wished to see adopted in this country, because he believed that was the only way in which they could obtain a reduction in the standing Army, of which they had already seen the dangers in a neighbouring country, where a standing army had overturned the constitution, and that among a population which was not, as ours was, unused to arms. Therefore, though he did not share the alarm regarding an invasion, yet he thought such a measure as the present was well adapted to check that which the ability, the honesty, and the courage of the President of France were only adequate to—a piratical invasion of the coast, where booty was to be gained without the risk of fighting. But at the same time he wished to see no limitation with respect to age; and he hoped the noble Lord would listen to the strong objections of the hon. Member for Montrose and other Members in this respect, for he saw no reason for the population of this country being saddled with taxes to support a standing army for doing that which they could, and which they ought to do for themselves. A standing Army he knew they must still continue to have; but if this measure were carried out to its full extent, he believed that the amount, and consequently, the cost of that Army might be considerably reduced.

rose to ask the noble Lord whether he did not think the old laws relating to the militia should be repealed, and a new enactment made? They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Herbert), that he had it in contemplation to consolidate those laws, and doubtless his measure would be found ready in the War Office; but at any rate it, would be much easier to begin anew than to refer to old enactments which nobody understood.

saie, they had had the Bill of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke before them; but he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) bad better wait till he saw the present Bill.

said, this was an important Bill, and one to which he believed the highest authority in the Court of Chancery could have no objection, because it conferred upon him additional, and, as some might think, too much power. It was proposed by this Bill to abolish all fees—a proposal in which he (Sir H. Willoughby) entirely concurred; but then it was also proposed that the money which was to be paid in lieu of fees should be raised by stamps to be issued with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. Now he wished to ask whether this power of the Lord Chancellor to issue stamps was to be limited, and, if so, to what amount? for in this case the House would remember that they were parting with the important power of taxing Her Majesty's subjects through the Stamp Office. There was another point on which he wished for some information. One class of officers in the Chancery Court was to be paid from this fund arising out of fees and stamps, while another class was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Now he thought that a great advantage would arise from having all the officers paid out of one fund, and then they would know exactly what was the cost of the Court of Chancery.

said, the system intended to be introduced by the present measure was exactly that which the hon. Baronet wished, namely, to substitute a simple measure instead of one of great complication. By the existing system there were 90 different officers, who received 330,000 different payments, and the amount of these payments was between 112,000l. and 113,000l. a year. Now it was proposed to abolish this system, and to pay the fees by means of stamps. The hon. Baronet asked whether the number of those stamps would be limited. Now, there would not be the least difficulty in fixing a general maximum—say the present sum of 113,000l.—but that there was some little difficulty in fixing the precise point of the cause at which the payments should be made. It was most desirable to concentrate all the different payments upon some epoch in the cause, but the exact moment could only be finally fixed by experiment, and therefore the power to which the hon. Baronet had referred was given to the Lord Chancellor. Then the hon. Baronet had complained that one class of officers was to be paid from the fee fund, and another from the Consolidated Fund. Now, he had no doubt that the suitors in the Court of Chancery would be very well pleased to have the whole expense of the Court thrown upon the Consolidated Fund; but he did not think that it would be right to do so, for reasons which he explained on introducing the Bill. As he then stated, that portion of money which was paid for obtaining a decision on conflicting rights ought to be paid by the Government; and accordingly the Judges who were appointed to decide conflicting rights were paid by the country. But there was another branch of the proceedings of the Court which was purely administrative, where parties thought proper to make the Court of Chancery the trustee for their property, as offering a greater security for the protection of their infant wards. Now, he did not think it was at all improper that parties who made the Court of Chancery their bankers or their trustees should make some contribution to the fund, and therefore it was proposed by the Committee, of which he thought the hon. Baronet himself was a Member, that a small tax should be placed upon them. But this would not apply to proceedings in lunacy. At the same time hoped the period was not distant when, by the further reductions that were contemplated, suitors would be relieved from fees nearly altogether.

Sir, I do not rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill: on the contrary, having in former Sessions complained of the delay which has taken place in giving effect to the recommendations of the two Reports of the Select Committee on which this measure is founded, I have now great pleasure in expressing my satisfaction at this Bill being introduced. This is not the moment to go into the details of the Bill. I think that in general the details are satisfactory, and such as are calculated to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee—though there are certain points on which their recommendations have not been adopted; and when this measure is in Committee it will be my duty to call attention to some of those particular points. But at present I rise to ask a question of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General with respect to a matter that is germane to the subject of this Bill. The House will recollect that on the 27th of last June the House agreed to a unanimous Address to Her Majesty, praying that to the Members composing the Chancery Commission, two Gentlemen not of the legal profession might be added:

—"and also praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to cause instructions to be given to the said Commissioners to direct their immediate attention to the course of business before the Masters in Ordinary of the said Court, so as to report as speedily as may be their opinion as to the proper steps for regulating the business in those offices in such manner as to diminish the delay and expense to the suitors."

Her Majesty, in answer to that Address, was graciously pleased to nominate the hon. Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) and myself as the lay Members of that Commission. During the recess that Commission, in obedience to the wish expressed by this House, directed its patient and earnest attention, not only to the mode of administration of justice in the courts of equity, but more especially to that portion of the subject to which this House had particularly wished their attention to be directed. That Commission, I need hardly remind the House, was composed of very eminent persons—the Master of the Rolls, two Vice-Chancellors, three leaders of the Chancery Bar, Mr. Bethell, Mr. James, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; and my hon. and learned Friend—who, though last, was not the least distinguished among them—Mr. Justice Crompton; to these were added, as lay Members, my hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and myself. It may appear at first sight that the materials of which this Commission was composed were of a somewhat heterogenous nature; but I can truly say that we acted together in this inquiry with the most perfect harmony, and we had the satisfaction of presenting to Her Majesty a Report which was adopted unanimously, and signed by all of us. Now what was our recommendation in respect to that special point to which the House of Commons directed our attention? We reported as our opinion that no addition to the existing Masters in Chancery ought to be made. We farther reported our opinion that the Masters now employed should occupy their time exclusively in winding up the business now before them; that henceforth the Judges in chambers, with certain appliances, should perform all the functions now discharged by the Masters in Chancery; and we decidedly and unanimously recommended that the other duties of the Masters should no longer be performed by the Masters but by the Judges themselves. Nothing could be more satisfactory to me, and I can answer for my colleagues, than that passage in Her Majesty's Speech relating to the proceedings of the Commission, in which Her Majesty informed the Parliament that She had directed Bills to be prepared in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission. I was more than delighted—I was surprised at the speed with which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General hastened, on the very first day of the Session, to give notice of his intention to introduce a Bill founded on our Report. I am aware that there are circumstances which may have led to some delay on this subject, and I would not have risen to address the House on the question but for the surprise with which I heard that in another place the Lord Chancellor, the head of the law, has expressed doubts as to whether a certain portion of the Report ought to be adopted. I, for one—and I believe I speak the opinion of others—hold that the recommendation as to the Masters' Office is the very keystone of our Report. If this be not followed out, I believe all our recommendations will fail. If this be adopted, I have a sanguine hope that an important benefit will be given to the people of this country with regard to the administration of justice. I rise, therefore, for the special purpose of putting a question to my hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General), and of asking him whether we are really to understand that Her Majesty's statement that such a Bill is to be introduced, must be taken with the reservation that the Lord Chancellor has not yet made up his mind whether or not this portion of our recommendations be worthy of the sanction of Her Majesty's Government? I do not deny that something may depend upon the details, though our Report is very elaborate, and goes fully into details upon this subject; and therefore I am quite sure that if there be a will there will be no difficulty in the way of bringing in a Bill to give effect to our recommendations. But the question of what shall be the retiring allowance to the Masters—the question whether they shall retire upon their full salaries, or only upon a portion of them—the question whether they shall be employed in the execution of other duties—these are questions beyond the scope of the Commission; they must be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government and by Parliament; and I, for one, am of opinion that any hardship cast upon individuals when carrying great legal reforms into effect, is a direct obstacle to all future legal reforms; and I would, therefore, be the last to see those gentlemen treated with any hardship when the public good is the object in view. That is my opinion and the opinion of my Brethren on the Commission; but if there be any doubt or hesitation in carrying into execution the recommendation of the Commission on this point, which is its main substance, it will give rise to disappointment, which I believe will only issue in absolute despair.

said, he was glad to have the opportunity of stating how completely, as it appeared to him, the observations made by a noble and learned Lord elsewhere (the Lord Chancellor), and to which reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, had been misunderstood. Unquestionably that noble and learned Lord was placed in a very unusual position in being interrogated on a number of questions of detail with reference to measures which were not only not then under discussion in the place where the questions were put, but which had not then been even introduced before either branch of the Legis- lature for its consideration. He believed it was not usual for those questions to be put at a time when a measure was actually in preparation embodying the views of the person who was questioned, and when there would be ample opportunity of ascertaining what those views were on the introduction of the measure; but at the same time he was bound to say that if any impression had gone abroad from any statement that was made by that noble and learned Lord either that there had been any delay on the part of the Government in giving instructions for the preparation of a Bill, carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners, or any hesitation, doubt, or difficulty in bringing forward that Bill, beyond the mere ordinary difficulty which always attended the placing in precise legal language resolutions that been had come to, and which were not yet put into precise form—that impression was most erroneous. All he believed that the noble and learned Lord intended to state was this—that whereas he was asked whether he had finally and conclusively made up his mind with reference to certain parts of the Report, the whole of which Report was to be carried into effect by an Act of Parliament, and the clauses of that Act—he in answer had to say that it was extremely inconvenient to be asked whether he had made up his mind as to the Act of Parliament before it was brought before the Legislature, and that he declined to say he had made up his mind, one way or the other, as to the various provisions of the Bill until it was before Parliament for consideration. Further, with reference to that noble and learned Lord, he begged to say that the noble and learned Lord did prepare the present Bill now before the House with the Report of the House of Commons before him, and with the most anxious wish to carry every detail of their resolutions into execution as far as he thought reasonable; and he (the Solicitor General) believed that in almost all points the noble and learned Lord had done so, and that the noble and learned Lord was prepared to take the same course with respect to the recommendations of the Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. The Report of the Commission had been placed in the hands of the noble and learned Lord only four or five days before the meeting of Parliament; but he (the Solicitor General) had been allowed by the Commissioners, at the request of the noble and learned Lord, to communicate to him some of the main features of that Report before it was formally and finally signed; and, so great was the anxiety of the noble and learned Lord not to take any step that would interfere with the recommendations of the Commissioners, that on a vacancy occurring in the office of Master in Chancery, he specially requested him (the Solicitor General) to attend his Lordship in order that he might inquire before he made any communication to the noble Lord the Prime Minister on the subject of filling up the office, whether by so doing he should in any way interfere with the views entertained by the Commissioners as to the office of Master in Chancery; and although he (the Solicitor General) was not authorised at that period to communicate to his Lordship the definite conclusions of the Commissioners, inasmuch as at that period that point was not finally determined, still, on his informing his Lordship that the question was under the consideration of the Commissioners, his Lordship said that if that were so, he would not take any step that would interfere with their recommendation. As soon, however, as his Lordship was in possession of the recommendations of the Commission, he immediately did that which was noticed in the Speech from the Throne—gave instructions to have a Bill prepared to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission; and he gave those instructions to the very able gentleman who had served the Commissioners as Secretary, and who was most distinguished both as a conveyancer and an equity draughtsman, and he gave, in his letter to that gentleman, the reason why he had requested him to prepare the Bill, namely, that, being in possession of the views of the Commissioners, he could prepare it with greater expedition, and also with more attention to the minuter details that might have been discussed by the Commissioners, although they were not embodied in the Report. Hon. Members, in fairness, must admit that very often, however mature their deliberations, and how much so-ever they might have considered a subject, when they came to frame a Bill founded upon it, that proved itself to be the real test by which to ascertain the exact value of every detail of their conclusions, and the necessity of any modification, not of principle, but of such details. He believed the remark of the noble and learned Lord to have applied to that—namely, that, un- til he saw the Bill in its actual shape, he could not say how far he did or did not approve of the special clauses of the measure, which was then really only in a state of preparation; but that that measure, when prepared, would fully and effectually carry out the substantial recommendations of the Commissioners, including that to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Of that he entertained no manner of doubt whatever. He himself did give notice—or, rather, notice was given on his behalf, as he himself was not present—for the introduction of that Bill at an early period; and he was in hopes—although he scarcely expected it could have been prepared for the day for which he had given notice—that it might have been ready on Thursday week. He could not say positively that it would be ready by that day, but he could say there would be no delay in the preparation of the Bill—that it was in the hands of the gentleman most competent to prepare it, and nothing but his want of leisure would prevent its being prepared immediately, and when prepared, it would be a Bill to carry into effect in their integrity the recommendations of the Commissioners.

had heard with great pleasure the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, if he rightly understood the observations he had addressed to the House; because, viewing his hon. and learned Friend as a fair and proper exponent of the mind of the Lord Chancellor in that House, if he (Mr. Henley) rightly caught his meaning, it was this, that the supposed or presumed doubt of the Lord Chancellor in another place had reference not to the subject-matter of the report, or that particular and important part of it to which the light hon. Gentleman had referred, but to the details of the measure which might be prepared to carry out that subject-matter. He trusted he had rightly understood his hon. and learned Friend, because, if it were so, it did to a great degree relieve his mind, and he thought it would relieve the minds of other persons, of the fear they might have entertained of the Government not sanctioning the carrying out that part of the recommendations of the Commissioners. After the announcement made in the early part of the Queen's Speech as to the intention of the Government, followed up by the statement of the Prime Minister as to the introduction of this Bill, it was not surprising that that feeling should have been somewhat damped by the misunderstanding which he was glad to hear now had existed in the public mind as to the doubt the Lord Chancellor was supposed to have had on that part of the Report.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had understood with perfect correctness the statement made by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. The Report had been presented only a few days before the meeting of Parliament: it was immediately brought under the consideration of the Government, and a passage was introduced in the Queen's Speech relating to the measure to be founded on that Report; and his noble Friend at the head of the Government thought that the most distinct and authoritative manner in which the intention of the Government could be expressed would be by giving notice of an early day for the introduction of a Bill founded on that Report. He could not sit down, however, without stating that from all he had heard, the legal part of the Commission had derived the greatest possible benefit from the cordial assistance they had received from the association of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir James Graham), and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley); and the Report, which was unanimously agreed to by the Commission, was one for which the public must feel deeply indebted to them.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of St. Albans, said, the House would remember the proceedings connected with the last election for the borough of St. Albans, and were aware that in consequence of the obstacles that were thrown in the way of a complete inquiry into those proceedings, the House passed an Act last Session in the preamble of which it was stated—

"There is reason to believe that the practice of bribery at elections of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of St. Albans hath long prevailed in the said borough, and that bribery to a great extent hath been systematically committed there at the last election of a Member of Parliament;"

and that Act appointed three Commissioners to conduct an inquiry on the spot, giving them large and extensive powers, and compelling all persons concerned in that election to give evidence before the Commission. He must now congratulate the House on the complete success of that Act, and the Commission appointed j under it, shown as it was by the blue book then before him containing the evidence of the details and the Report the Commissioners had presented to Her Majesty founded upon the evidence. The Commissioners stated that they began

—"with an investigation into the facts connected with the last election, in order to ascertain whether the corrupt practices alleged to have prevailed were confined to that election, or whether they were the result of a system or practice of bribery which there was reason to believe had long prevailed in the borough. This course of proceeding soon disclosed that the practices referred to were the result of a system which was the ordinary accompaniment of every contest." [Parliamentary Papers, No. 67.]

He would not trouble the House by reading long extracts from the Report, and would only allude to some of the more striking facts they had detailed, and which he believed were fully supported by the evidence. They stated that the number of electors, including 10l. householders, scot and lot voters, and freemen, was 483, and that the number who usually took bribes was 308; and they stated that the money expended at eight elections since 1831 was 37,000l., of which two-thirds, or upwards of 24,000l., were spent in bribery. Polities, they said, appeared to have no influence in these elections, the agents being ready to transfer their own services and the votes they commanded by the means of bribery, to every candidate who would find the money. At page 20 of the Report, the Commissioners said—

"Mr. Bell made his entry into St. Albans on Monday, the 2nd of December, 1850, when the apparent canvass commenced, but Edwards had already begun to see the electors at the committee-room in Sovereign-alley, The course adopted then, and pursued up to the day of election, was one of systematic, unblushing bribery, which, but for the failure of evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, we should have thought could not have escaped detection. The house in Sovereign-alley was taken by Edwards. It consisted of throe rooms below, and two above; in one of the rooms below there was always refreshment, and there the voters attended from time to time in great numbers, in the evening, and waited until they were introduced to Edwards. A doorkeeper was stationed at the head of the stairs, whose duty it was to introduce the voters who inquired for Edwards, singly, to his presence, in a room where be sat alone. His brother-in-law had at former elections acted as doorkeeper; but on this occasion the office was filled by one of Edwards' sons. Edwards began to see the electors in this room on the 29th or 30th of November, and on the evening of that day he saw and secured from 40 to 50 voters, to each of whom he gave a sum varying to from 5l. to 8l., but generally 5l. These voters being thus secured were afterward canvassed at their own houses or elsewhere by the candidate and his party, when they formally promised their votes….The same system of seeing and bribing voters by Edwards in the room in Sovereign-alley continued up to the day of the election, the great majority of the persons bribed by him receiving their money in the manner stated, although in a few instances Edwards saw and bribed a voter in his own house, or left the money with the voter's wife."

As to the rival candidate, Alderman Carden, it was only fair for him to state, that the Commissioners reported that, while practices the reverse of pure were resorted to by some of those who brought him forward, and that very improper payments were made to voters by his agent, Mr. Lowe, which in their judgment amounted to bribery, they acquitted him of all participation in the bribery committed by those who brought him forward; he persevered to the last in his expressed determination to stand wholly upon what was termed the "purity principle;" and from the first he firmly discountenanced any idea of obtaining a seat in Parliament by anything like corruption. Nothing would tend more to show the extent to which corruption prevailed in this borough, than the fact that when a gentleman of Alderman Carden's position was desired to stand, it was found impossible to secure to him even that small minority of votes which might have been expected, without having recourse to the practice which he had described. The Commissioners, at page 27, summed up the evidence upon which they gave their final opinion, and said—

"Having now presented to Your Majesty the facts of the two elections in 1847 and 1850, and detailed the system of bribery adopted, we think it right to add that the habit of taking bribes was not confined to those who might plead the state of their circumstances as a temptation, but was usual with many who from their position might have been supposed least likely to accept them. Professional men and tradesmen of a superior class admitted that they received money for their votes, and were active in bribing others, and persons holding subordinate offices connected with the administration of justice in the borough were deeply implicated in these disgraceful transactions. The system had so long prevailed, and corruption was so widely extended, that the moral sense of the inhabitants was deadened, and they evinced no shame when they avowed their participation in these practices. From this sweeping charge we are happy to be able to exempt the clergy of all denominations, and some of the principal inhabitants of the town, who united their efforts to put an end to so degrading a system."

As to the individuals themselves who had given evidence before that Commission, as they were indemnified by the Act of Parliament, he said nothing; but as to the borough itself, they finally reported—

"That the practice of bribery at elections for Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of St. Albans hath long prevailed in the said borough, and that bribery to a great extent was systematically committed there at the last election of a Member to serve in Parliament."

The perusal of that Report must carry conviction to the mind of every man that corruption, to an extent almost unprecedented, had prevailed for a long time in St. Albans, and that the evil was so ingrained in the constituency that the borough ought to be disfranchised. This was no new course; it was the remedy which Parliament had contemplated in the appointment of the Commission, in the event of the result of that Commission being such as it had been. He supposed, therefore, there would be no objection to the Motion. He would not say one word on the Motion of which notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, as he understood that the hon. and gallant Member did not intend to press it on this stage of the Bill.

said, with respect to the Amendment of which he had given notice—to include Harwich in the Bill—he believed there were ample and substantial grounds why such a Motion should be agreed to. But he was aware that technical objections might be proposed. A Commission had not sat with respect to this borough. There had, however, been a Committee to inquire into the corruption that had taken place in Harwich; and it was his impression that if a Commission were appointed to inquire into the practices that prevailed there, instead of a lesser case than at St. Albans, greater corruption would be found in Harwich, and more ingrained in the constituency. The Committee over which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had presided, had done all that a Commission appointed by the Crown could do, and therefore, instead of proposing as an Amendment on that occasion the Motion of which he had given notice, he should to-morrow move that no new writ should be issued for Harwich without ten days' notice, which would afford an opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon the propriety of that borough being disfranchised.

said, that the borough of Harwich being unrepresented in that House—[Cries of "No, no!"]—and he having been the chairman of a Committee that had sat to inquire into the votes given on the election for that borough, he must say that of bribery and corruption there was only a very slight trace, he could not say more; there was one case in which some thought that the election was influenced by corrupt practices, but that was the only case, and that was very doubtful. He did not say that the electors were immaculate; but at all events they wore prudent, and that prudence ought to serve them in good stead. There was no proof of corruption, and, that being so, he thought that, having no representative in that House, the borough ought to have some consideration.

said, that no one doubted that up to 1841 the greatest possible corruption did exist at the elections for the borough of Harwich; but he emphatically denied that anything of the sort had taken place since that time. Could anything show it more than the circumstance of Sir John Cam Hobhouse's having been nominated for the borough, and being returned for it without having ever seen the place? But unquestionably, from that time to the present, nothing in the shape of corruption had existed in the borough; and he was delighted to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster would move for a Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices alleged to prevail there, as the bad odour and bad character of the borough would be at once obliterated, and it would come out pure and shining from the ordeal.

had been nominated to serve on the last Harwich Election Committee; that election was voided not on the proof of any corrupt practice, but because the polling booths had been carried away while an election was polling, before four o'clock.

said, he was anxious to do away with a sham. There could not be a doubt of the downright corruption of the House. There could not be a shadow of doubt in any man's mind—in his own heart he could not hesitate to decide that such was the case. The question he wished to put to the House was this: Wherein lay the difference between this corruption which they were about to punish in the many, and that which they were in the habit of seeing in a single rich man with his powerful borough influence; or did they differ at all? he very much wished to ask what difference there was between the man who sold his vote for 5l. and the man who sold his borough for 2,000l.? he wished to know that. [Ironical cheers.] Yes, it was a question worth their attention in these days, when a new theory was afloat with respect to the representation of the people, namely, that a nomination borough was an ease to the Ministry, and a corrupt borough an evil to the community, he hoped that in the Bill the Government were proposing to bring in to reform the representation of the people, there would be a clause excluding all pretences, all schemes, all admirable contrivances for bringing the influence of the private man to bear upon the public interests of the constituency. In a free representation a poor man sold his vote for 5l., and he was branded in that House with the name of a corrupt voter, Yet, at the same time, a rich man was in the habit of selling what he called influence, and he was allowed to do so with impunity. That was unblameable in a rich man which they punished in the poor. One man might with impunity practise the same amount of corruption, but under a sham and a pretence they came forward to disfranchise St. Albans, because 200 people in that case had done no worse than one rich man did in another borough. Let them no longer practise shams. Let them get rid of nomination boroughs. He should vote for the disfranchisement of this borough and of every corrupt borough; but, at the same time, he should lose no opportunity to get rid of the nomination boroughs.

said, the hon Member for Harwich (Mr. Bagshaw) had spoken in defence of his constituents, but he did not know whether what he had said would do them a great deal of good, or arrest the wish of the House to get rid both of corrupt and nomination boroughs. He hoped the House would yet adopt such measures as would make the representation a reality, and not a mockery. The hon. Gentleman, however, to prove the purity of his constituents, cited the case of Sir John Cam Hobhouse, who was elected for Harwich without going near it; and he thought that a defence. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not think a man's being unknown to a community was any proof of the purity of his election. He knew an instance of a man who now sat in the House of Lords, who, before Parliament was reformed, for two successive Parliaments represented a borough, and all the time he never saw his constituents, and never put his foot within the House. He hoped the Government would lend their aid, by their present measure, to make the House what it pretended to be, a representation of the people, and not of landed property.

said, I rise, Sir, to say that I shall prefer reserving myself for the second reading of the Bill.

begged to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department whether the attention of the Government had been directed to that part of the St. Albans evidence which stated that Government places had been the reward of persons who had committed corruption on behalf of Reform candidates?

was ignorant of any such rewards having been given by the Government to which he belonged for any such corrupt practices; but the evidence referred to having been given on oath, it was not for him, of course, to question it.

wished to put this test to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) who had spoken of the corruption of the House, whether, being a member of a certain political club, he ever tried to get rid of a man who bore the character of having corrupted more electors than any man of his age? he asked the hon. Gentleman whether he ever heard of the name of Mr. Coppock, that remarkably active member of the Reform Club; and whether, if he were a member of the Reform Club, he had ever tried to purge that society of his company? No sooner had a vacancy occurred in the representation, than that gentleman was busy, first with the members of the Reform Club, then with the constituency on the scene of action. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman ever tried to put a stop to that gentleman's conduct, which had been notorious for the last twenty years? he thought when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of shams, he, like others, was but making a pretence, well knowing a dissolution was near at hand, and sincerely hoping such a debate would not be without its weight at the poll.

said, he wished the House would allow him to answer the question put to him by the noble Lord. He said he was now Member for Sheffield. He meant simply to answer the question. He was solicited to go down to that borough; he went down by train; he was elected without opposition; he asked what were the expenses of the election, and the answer he received was, "Mr. Roebuck, that is no business of yours." [Laughter.] Let not the House sneer at that observation; it could not misunderstand it. He asked what were the expenses of the framework from which he had spoken, of calling together the electors, indeed what was called, and properly so, the legitimate expenses of the election; and for these he was told he was not in any way a debtor. That was the last election. Of the two former, the earlier, being the first in which he had ever appeared, cost him not a farthing; and the second was the same; but of Mr. Coppock, his name, or his influence, he had never known anything. That person dared not come where he was a Member, and pretend to be on his side of the question. He said he stood in the country upon his character, and he told the noble Lord that he had put forth flimsy imputations that were based entirely on the fancies of his own mind.

said, he had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman a question, and his answer had no bearing on it whatever. Was not the hon. and learned Gentlemen a Member of the Reform Club?

I am, but I never go there.

That is an answer.

considered the subject then before the House one of grave importance, and which required an answer on the part of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary different from that which he had just given to the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside). On turning to the evidence the House would see that Mr. Coppock was asked—

"Have you, as a matter of feet—we do not ask any details or any names—exerted yourself to obtain places for those who have served you on those occasions, either under Government or elsewhere?—I have exerted myself on every occasion to serve those to whom I considered myself indebted.

"But in that particular way of obtaining a place?—Not more in that way than in any other.

"Have you in that way?—I have taken people into my own office; I have placed them in other people's offices; I have got them situations on railways, and I have got them situations anywhere.

"Have you got them situations under Government in any one case?—I certainly have been the means of recommending people to situations under Government.

"And they have obtained them ultimately?—I have had clerks in my own office who have had situations from Government.

"Have you, as a matter of fact—I do not ask any details or any names—exerted yourself to obtain places for those who have served you on those occasions, either under Government or elsewhere?—Certainly, I have exerted myself to serve parties who have served me."

Now, he (Mr. Spooner) thought no person could read these questions and answers without seeing that at some time or the other Government places were obtained on the recommendation of Mr. Coppock. That was a serious charge to be made, and required a serious answer from the right hon. Baronet opposite. He would, therefore, put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, after that statement, he did not feel himself called upon to examine these cases and see if there was ground for the charge; and if not, vindicate the Government from the obloquy. But if be should decline, then the country would believe that whilst measures were being brought forward to put down bribery and corruption, the Government themselves were the principal promoters of both in the elections of the country. He made no charge, but there was the evidence on oath which he had just read, and therefore it was incumbent in the Government to put themselves right with the country.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), asked me if I was aware that it was stated that places had been given by Government upon the application of certain parties. I told him that if it was so I was ignorant of it; that I had no cognisance of it; but if it was stated upon oath before the Commission, I had no reason to doubt it. I can only say that, judging from the cheers with which the observations of the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was greeted, no Member now in this House has been guilty of such a course of proceeding.

said, upon several occasions during this unfortunate transaction he had been placed under a kind of restraint by the urgent desire of some of his friends that he should not take any part in these proceedings. The consequence was, that for about fifteen months he had had a kind of incubus hanging over him, and he had not had the slightest opportunity of making any remark in explanation of the facts which had been brought forward against him. That course, which he had taken at the request of his friends, had been misinterpreted, and it had been supposed that he (Mr. Bell) was indifferent upon the subject, or that he was unable to say anything in his own behalf. On the present occasion he was about to utter a few words, when he was particularly requested, as he had been many times before, to sit down. He had so often regretted not having acted upon his own judgment in cases of that sort, that he was determined now to do so. He had admitted the expediency of his abstaining from addressing the House on the subject while a judicial inquiry was pending, and while a number of other persons besides himself, engaged in this unlucky transaction, were capable of being compromised by any observations he might make in defence of himself or the borough; but no such reasons now existed for withholding the explanation which he desired to make to the House. Before he said anything about the borough of St. Albans, he wished, in some degree at all events, to clear himself from the extreme severity of the accusations which had been pressed upon him, and from the imputation that it was with his eyes open he had plunged into this affair, and knowing all the circumstances of the case before him. It was very easy for Gentlemen, taking a retrospective view of a transaction, all the details of which had been mapped out before them, to point out what should have been avoided, and where the difficulties and dangers lay; but he had had no such advantage when he set out in the matter. He had discovered long ago that he bad committed one grave error, and that was in going down to St. Albans at all. He committed that error under a belief, which turned out to be entirely fallacious, that there would be no opposition to his return. Was there not ground for him to suppose that in going down he should not be opposed, seeing that the three parties in the borough had each, through its representatives, requested him to go down? In his ignorance of the borough, and of the politics of the people there, when he found all three parties saying they were willing to support him, surely it was not for him to suppose that any disputes about secondary matters would set any of these parties against him when he had got down amongst them. Having once embarked on the field, having pledged himself to go to the poll, having canvassed the electors vigorously in order to secure a position as soon as possible, it was too late for him to retreat; there was no opportunity of retracing his steps, or of extricating himself from the dilemma in which he found himself. And when an opponent appeared in the field, when rumours arose respecting improper practices in the borough, although he saw no evidence of them, or of anything illegal going on, at the same time he had his suspicions; but then he had not conceived it to be his duty to ferret out all the details of the proceedings. He understood that it was not usual for candidates to dive into every act of every agent who might be employed, but that it was simply the business of the candidate to canvass the constituency, in order to secure his election; and this was the course which he took. He had since found himself to have been greatly deceived in various respects. For instance, there were electors who had questioned him and cross-questioned him for half an hour together, and when the electors so questioning him had gone away as his supporters, he had imagined that he had gained them by his arguments, whereas it had transpired in evidence that these parties had been corrupted beforehand, and had merely interrogated him and argued with him in order to keep him in the dark as to their proceedings. There was one particular consideration which had made him not a free agent, though he might have had strong suspicions that something improper was going on—that he was in the field and occupying a place that would otherwise have been occupied by another individual belonging to his party, the Liberal party; he felt that he was responsible for the principles on which he went down, and he could not, therefore, have withdrawn, even had he been so disposed. He might mention that when he spoke of going down to St. Albans on the principles of "a party," he was not alluding to the Government, for the report that he had gone down as the Government candidate had no foundation in fact, and it was right that he should take that opportunity of contradicting it. He fully exonerated the Government from any participation whatever in the transaction; and, in fact, it was the Government that had been pursuing him from the period of the election to the present time. Moreover, it was they who were bringing in a Bill to disfranchise the borough; and from that and every other circumstance, he exon- erated them from having any participation whatever in his election. He had nothing further to say respecting himself in this matter; but with regard to the borough, he felt in a rather responsible and delicate position—first, as the representative of the borough; and, secondly, as having a cause to defend, for which it was impossible to offer a defence. But still, that being the case, he thought that the only course which he ought to pursue, was to point out the injustice of carrying to such an extreme a measure with reference to one single borough, when it had been proved before the Commission at St. Albans that the system was not confined to St. Albans, but prevailed in many other boroughs throughout the kingdom. The object of the Commission had been to investigate the system of corruption, and to take means for putting an end to it; and he must say that the Act of Parliament which had been passed for that purpose was the most sensible and efficacious measure which had ever been passed in reference to bribery and corruption; and he believed that if a similar Act were applied to every other borough in the kingdom, it would do more towards putting an end to those practices than any thing that had ever been done. He must say, however, if that House, instead of taking that general, fair, and consistent course, were to be content with making St. Albans the scapegoat, and grafting upon it the sins of every Member of that House, upon the supposition that by exterminating that one borough the House would be left perfectly pure, that such a course would be a complete delusion, and not only a delusion, but an injustice. A few days ago he had gone over the House of Correction, and he saw there about 150 prisoners. He knew at the same time there were 40,000 outside as bad as those who were in, but rather more cunning. Now, if those 40,000 were to hold a meeting, and to pass a resolution, that, for the sake of making themselves stand well with the public, and for the sake of proving themselves innocent of all that was corrupt, they should hang those 150 who happened to be in the prison, then, he conceived, that those 40,000 would be taking a course similar to that which the House was taking in disfranchising St. Albans, and leaving all the other boroughs of the kingdom as they were. He considered that under these circumstances, as representative of the borough, and being sure that unless he advocated its cause, other people would not, it was quite proper that he should come forward and oppose the proposed Bill to the best of his ability; and he put it to the consciences of other hon. Members who knew what elections wore better than he, whether it were right to single out St. Albans in this manner? he was told that the extravagance which he had indulged in, was such as ought to have left no doubt upon his mind of the nature of the transactions that were going on. He begged to say, that at the time of the election he was not aware of the amount that was being expended; and even if he had, comparing it with the amounts which he constantly heard spoken of, there was nothing extraordinary in it. He had heard it said, "Here is an hon. Member who paid 60,000l. for his election," and "Here is another who paid 50,000l.," and another he had himself heard state that his election had cost him 40,000l., while they all knew that elections costing from 5,000l. to 10,000l. were as plentiful as blackberries. Now, he had had the excitement of an election, the luxury of a petition, and the further indulgence of a Commission, and the sum total of his expenses had not exceeded 4,300l. Under these circumstances, he thought it was unfair to taunt him with any extraordinary extravagance. Hon. Members who knew what elections were ought to know better than to be so exceedingly severe on St. Albans. It was true that the system did appear to be exceedingly corrupt when every detail was made clear; but how would it be, if the same principles were applied to cases where 50,000l. or 60,000l. had been expended? he was not desirous of making any personal remarks; but he thought it only fair, having been singled out in this way, in consequence of the inexperience of himself and the imprudence of those who had conducted his election (which constituted the chief distinction between himself and many other hon. Members), that he should represent the circumstances of the ease, and do all he could to place it in a fair position. It certainly appeared remarkably corrupt for a person to pay a sum of money for his election; but they found others, who instead of paying a sum down, spread it over seven years, and at the end of that time walked over the course and entered the House perfect patterns of purity. He wanted to know what difference there was between an hon. Gentleman putting down 2,000l. or 3,000l. in several sums, in a manner most conve- nient to himself, and having it dragged out of him after an election all at once? Again, if an agent at an election treated an elector with a mutton chop and a glass of ale, he was liable to a penalty, and the Member might be unseated; but if a Member of Parliament, during the period of the Exhibition for instance, invited crowds of electors to his mansion to enjoy his hospitality, even in anticipation of an election, it was considered perfect purity and mere hospitality. A great number of instances of a similar kind might be brought forward in which appearances were avoided, although the principle was precisely the same.

had been charged with corruption because he had exercised Christian charity towards a Christian people. He had been charged with giving away coals in the winter. He had done so, and he would do it again. But what was the situation of the Government? He talked of Greenwich. Had the Government had nothing to do with that election? Would the noble Lord at the head of the Government say that he had not sanctioned many acts which amounted to bribery, and that he had not unduly influenced boroughs and counties,—aye, and a city, too? The fact was, that the Government found fault with humble individuals for acts of charity, and if they would not vote for the noble Lord's party, they soon got a broad hint that they were not wanted. He was astonished that the Government, who needed reform themselves, should dare to make a victim of a small borough like St. Albans. He had never influenced a tenant of his own to give a vote, nor would he do so; but he would not be restrained from visiting the poor man in his cottage, and relieving his wants. It was unfair to visit poor parties in the manner proposed, when their superiors were tenfold more guilty.

would remind the House that there were two Members for St. Albans sitting in the House. One sat upon the Government side, the other upon the Opposition side. The Member who sat upon the Government side of the House, who was the junior and the least experienced, had been heard that night at considerable length; but though the other Member had been frequently called upon, he had not as yet favoured them with his explanation upon the matter. Having heard the one Member, he thought that it was but fair his Colleague should state his views upon the subject. He took this occasion to notice the disinterested exertions and munificence of Mr. Alderman Carden in this matter, to whom they were indebted for the disclosures which had forced the attention of Parliament to the wholesale system of corruption which had prevailed, not only in St. Albans, but in other boroughs throughout the country.

said, that having been called upon by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, he would trouble the House with a very few words. He would be very short and very brief. He regretted that he did not possess the power of carrying the House with him, evening after evening, as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was so capable of doing. This House had last year appointed certain Commissioners to inquire into the conduct pursued at the St. Albans election. They pursued their inquiry—they made their Report. He bowed to that Report, which he thought a perfectly just one. With regard to himself he had no share in any such transactions when he was a candidate there in 1841. He stood a second time as a candidate for St. Albans at the last election in 1847. He went there with a firm desire to resist everything like bribery and corruption. He said that he would not advance any money for such improper purposes. He told his agent that he would sooner lose the election over and over again than lend himself to such practices. He went to the poll; but from what he saw on that day he felt convinced, by the manner in which the poll was carried, that bribery was in some shape or another resorted to. The Commissioners put the question to him; and he answered, unhesitatingly and frankly, that he believed bribery had been carried on. About ten days after the election a number of bills were brought to him to pay. Although his legal adviser told him that he was not bound to pay, he felt, upon the point of honour, that he was called upon to pay them, and he did so. He then declared, both publicly and privately, that he would never again be a candidate for St. Albans. He had been called upon by the House to make a statement. He had nothing more to say, except that, upon the word of a gentleman, what he had stated was the truth.

wished to offer a few remarks with regard to what had been said relating to the Reform Club. He did not think they would be doing strict justice if they were to censure Mr. Coppock, out of consideration for many other individuals, who had been for years engaged in practices precisely similar to those of which Mr. Coppock, by his own confession, had been guilty. Having been a member of the Reform Club for many years, and knowing a large number of those who were also members of it, he wished to say that a large proportion of the members of that association were totally unconnected with Mr. Coppock and his proceedings, and that the revelations made by Mr. Coppock at St. Albans were perfectly new to many members of that club. But, admitting that there was a party in it that owed much to the assistance of Mr. Coppock, he thought there could be no question that other political associations at that end of the metropolis were quite as much implicated in such proceedings as that political club. He had been informed, and he believed that it was not at all an unusual thing, for a gentleman in that House to confer with some other gentleman connected with a club immediately adjacent, on such transactions. He should like to call the attention of the House, as he had done before, to the fact that, since the last Reform Bill, there had been an absolute necessity to employ such persons as Mr. Coppock, with the view of obtaining seats for places in different parts of the kingdom. If there were any truth in the statement of Mr. Coppock, that, beginning with Andover and ending with Yarmouth, he could tell the price of the majority of the small boroughs, it was not fair to single out St. Albans, which had the misfortune to be discovered in such practices, and to inflict on that borough a condign punishment, when, if Commissioners were appointed, so many other boroughs would be found in a similar predicament. He was anxious to see the accomplishment of some scheme of reform which would render unnecessary the intervention of such gentlemen as Mr. Coppock. He asked Her Majesty's Government to introduce some such scheme, so that a seat in Parliament might be obtained without such practices as had been equally resorted to on both sides of the House.

said, he wished to say a few words upon this Motion, for the Government were affected by it. As far as they had evidence upon the subject, this Mr. Coppock was in the immediate confidence of the Government. He was informed that the noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton), who had put a question to him, had not intended to imply that he (Mr. Roebuck) was at all implicated with Mr. Coppock, or that Mr. Coppock had dared to interfere with him, but merely that he was connected with a club of which Mr. Coppock also was a member; and upon that he had asked—"Have you, who are a purist, done anything, after the declaration that was made by Mr. Coppock, to get rid of him as a member of the Reform Club?" His answer to that question was, that in social life he was a member of the Reform Club. He went there once or perhaps twice a year; but of the internal working of that club, or of anything connected with it, beyond taking a chop at the table, he knew nothing; and he asked hon. Gentlemen present whether the appeal which had been made to him was a fair one? he knew nothing of what went on there; but he was now going to put Mr. Coppock to the test, and the Government also. Mr. Coppock said that he was employed by somebody. Mr. Edwards said that there was an insinuation of a Government employment to be given to his son. He wanted Mr. Coppock to be there [pointing to the bar of the House]. He had not had the satisfaction of examining Mr. Coppock. He should like to have that satisfaction if the House would grant it, for he did not believe in the purity of the Government. He believed that they were working a sham, and that they were making St. Albans a sort of scapegoat to be sent into the wilderness to take off the sins of the Administration. He wanted to know if the House would support him in bringing Mr. Coppock to that bar, in order that they might have a different sort of revelation from that which bad been elicited by the Commissioners, capital as that was; but still they might reap some advantage from it. He wished the House to support him in that Amendment; and he felt sure the Government would not oppose it, because, if they did, it might be insinuated that they knew themselves to be guilty, and he was sure that they would not allow such an insinuation to pass. He wished to bring Mr. Coppock to the bar, in order to learn from him what his communications with the Government were, and who it was that told him that he had the power to dispense the favours of Government. Mr. Coppock would no doubt be able to enlighten them upon those points. Hon. Members were at present in the dark on the subject. Would they allow the House to go into a discussion upon this Bill in the dark? Would it not, besides, be an advantage, before proceeding with the Bill for the prevention of corruption, to have the secret springs of corruption laid bare?—to have the instruments of corruption before them to explain the whole system of wires by which bribery had been so long carried on in the borough of St. Albans. He was sure the Government would be the first to second his Motion for bringing Mr. Coppock to the bar to explain the proceedings with respect to St. Albans, in so far as his evidence had impugned the Government; for the Government, under that evidence, were actually impugned, for employing him as an agent of corruption. Let the House, then, have him at their bar, to explain to them whether the inference which had been drawn from his evidence was a correct one, and whether he had actually been employed by the Government.

, in seconding the Amendment, begged to say that in alluding to the corrupt practices of St. Albans, he had not had the slightest intention of imputing to the hon and learned Member for Sheffield any share in those transactions. But the hon. and learned Member was generally very free in the imputation of motives to hon. Members on that side of the House; and since the word "sham" had been used, he (Lord C. Hamilton) merely wished to ask the hon. and learned Member, whether as a private individual he had used his influence to remove from that society which was supposed to be the nucleus of liberal policy a person who was supposed to be an instrument of corruption. If the hon. and learned Member was as sincere as he (Lord C. Hamilton) was, in wishing to put down bribery and corruption—and he believed that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly sincere—he would persevere in using his best exertions to expose and put a stop to such practices as had been carried on at St. Albans.

said, that the course which had just been pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was the most extraordinary and unprecedented he ever remembered to have seen in that House. He (Sir G. Grey) had risen about an hour and a half ago, in pursuance of a notice given on the very first day of the Session, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans. There was also on the paper a notice of an Amendment by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), which, for the reasons which the House had heard, had not been pressed upon their consideration that evening. There was not the slightest hint that any other Amendment was likely to be moved, although the Report of the Commissioners, and the evidence which was taken before them, had been in the hands of Members for nearly two weeks. During the discussion which had taken place that evening, the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the noble Lord (Lord C. Hamilton), who had seconded his Amendment, had both, by the courtesy of the House, been permitted to make two distinct speeches; and yet neither of them had hinted in their speeches that they had any objection to make to the introduction of the Bill. It was only after the House had given leave to introduce the Bill, and upon the formal question which had been put from the chair, that the name of the Attorney General should be associated with his (Sir G. Grey) in bringing in the Bill, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, nettled at some observations that had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton), rose to explain, and concluded by moving that Mr. Coppock be called to the bar, and that without reading one word of Mr. Coppock's evidence in support of his Motion—without, indeed, stating any grounds whatever for it, except his own belief, which he (Sir G. Grey) begged the House to receive with due caution, that Mr. Coppock had been employed as an agent of the Government in corrupting the electors of St. Albans. Now, speaking for himself, he (Sir G. Grey) could only express his firm belief that there was not the shadow of a foundation for the assumption of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the House ought to pause before it called Mr. Coppock to the bar upon the mere suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, unfortified by any evidence which could support such a Motion. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion, he would not prejudge the question as to what should be its fate, provided he brought it forward after due notice, and without taking the House by surprise with regard to it. He would only say that Mr. Coppock had already been examined under an Act of Parliament by the Commissioners appointed for the purpose. He (Sir G. Grey) had already stated that he had no reson to doubt the veracity of Mr. Coppock, more than of any other witness that had been examined before the Commission. The evidence of that gentleman was before the House; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) thought that a further inquiry was necessary, and should, after due notice, state to the House his grounds for thinking so, the House would then be able to decide—not hastily, as the hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed, but after due deliberation, whether any further inquiry should take place. In the meantime, he hoped the House would agree to the formal Motion which had been submitted to them.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Motion for the present. He begged to give notice, however, that after the second reading of the Bill, and on the Motion that the Bill should be committed, he should move that Mr. Coppock be called to the bar. He withdrew the Motion now on the full understanding that when he brought it forward at the proper time there would be no opposition on the part of the Government to his Motion.

would appeal to the House whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was using the Government fairly in insinuating, as he had just done, that he (Sir G. Grey) had given a pledge on the part of the Government that they would accede to his Motion before they had heard the grounds for it stated. He had given no such pledge.

Then I will not withdraw my Amendment.

would appeal to the House whether it could assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member with a due regard to its own character, and acting in that deliberative manner to which, he thought, they were bound to adhere. What he had stated Was, that if any hon. Member should think there were sufficient grounds for hearing Mr. Coppock at the bar, the proper mode of proceeding would be to give notice of a Motion to that effect, and then the House could decide whether that Motion should be granted. He asked if it was fair in the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to insinuate that he (Sir G. Grey) had pledged the Government to accede to such a Motion before he knew the grounds on which it was made.

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had thrown out gentle insinuations that the Government had acted corruptly in making promises, or that some Government had made some promises; but those allegations wore of too general a nature to allow him to give them what he then proposed to give them, an unqualified denial. He could only deny, so far as he was concerned, that there was any ground for any such insinuations. But the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield became more specific in his charges, and stated that Mr. Coppock was a dispenser of the places of the Government. But where in the evidence did hon. Gentlemen find anything to warrant such an assertion? So far as he (Mr. Hayter) knew, Mr. Coppock had no connexion with the Government with respect to St. Albans, except that he had happened to be present when the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Bell) had shown him (Mr. Hayter) his address. That was all that he had had to do with him directly or indirectly. He thought the address was; such a one as was consistent with the views of the hon. Member. Mr. Coppock had never in his life asked him (Mr. Hayter) a favour. It was also insinuated that some promises had been made by Mr. Coppock to Mr. Edwards, who relied on them; but he (Mr. Hayter) begged to deny in the most explicit manner, as far as he was concerned, that any promise or expectation had ever been held out by the Government with respect to the election at St. Albans.

Sir, I rise to suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that he should avail himself of the proper opportunity, if the present is not considered a fair one by the Government, for pressing his Motion, which I think is a very proper Motion. I also wish to make one observation upon the charge made by the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hayter) against my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend insinuated a charge against the Government. Now my hon. Friend merely read evidence. He did not state his own opinion. He simply read a portion of the evidence from the blue hook of the admission on the part of Mr. Coppock that he had got places for his friends. That was the only statement made by my hon. Friend. It was a statement, not a charge. It was quite unnecessary for my hon. Friend to make a charge on such a subject. But, Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to recall the attention of the House to a certain document upon the table, of a very interesting character, and peculiarly apposite to the subject now before us. And here I may say that I am not one of those liable to the imputation of the right hon. Secretary of State, namely, that I came prepared for this discussion, as I was totally unaware that it was on the paper. What I wish to do is to call attention to a passage in the Report of the Commissioners appointed by a Tory Government to inquire into the existence of bribery at Sudbury, with reference to the election which took place at the general election of 1841, when the late Mr. Dyce Sombre was returned, although he never took his seat in this House. [An Hon. MEMBER: Oh, yes, he did.] I mean that he was unseated on petition. But I find this passage in the Report of the Commissioners appointed to make the inquiry in 1843. [The hon. Member then read an extract from the Report, to the effect that the Commissioners in the course of their inquiry found that Mr. Dyce Sombre borrowed a sum of 3,000l., which was placed by the bankers, Messrs. Coutts, to a separate account; that this sum was immediately drawn out by cheque payable to bearer, and that Bernard was the name of the bearer. The money was paid in three 1,000l. notes, two of which were cashed in gold on the same day. The person was required to write his name upon the back, and the name given was "Samuel Moore and Company, King William Street." Samuel Moore said that the signature was not his, and was consequently a forgery. Bernard, the party who signed his name, was at the time in question a clerk in the office of Mr. Coppock, but had since been appointed to a clerkship in the Custom House.] So it appears by this Report that the late clerk in Mr. Coppock's office was the person who received the 3,000l., who committed the forgery by signing the name of Moore and Company, and who ceased to be a clerk in Mr. Coppock's office to become a clerk in the Custom House. I think this passage is extremely illustrative of the occurrences that may be brought before us. It seems to me to prove that the system was going on so far back as the election of 1841, and to afford an additional reason why the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should be supported by the House. Whether notice is given or not, I think, after what has transpired to-night, it will not be in the power of any Minister to prevent that Motion being carried.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and should move on the second reading of the Bill, that Mr. Coppock be called to the Bar of the House.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend certain provisions in the Laws relating to the number and election of Magistrates and Councillors in the Burghs in Scotland.

begged to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to a defect which existed in the present Municipal Law of Scotland. When the Municipal Corporations Bill was before the House, there were nine boroughs in the schedule which were stated to require reform, but they were omitted from the Bill on the understanding that they would be dealt with by a separate Bill; but this was never done, and there was one borough which was connected with the district he (Mr. Ewart) had the honour to represent, in which the magistrates were self-elected, and disposed of the funds of the corporation without being responsible to any constituency. It was also the case with a borough forming part of the district of Montrose. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deal with this question. He would at present leave it in his hands; but if the right hon. and learned Lord did not turn his attention to the matter, he (Mr. Ewart) would bring forward a Motion on the subject.

said, any communication made to him by the hon. Member would meet with his immediate attention.

moved—

"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider of abolishing Tests in the Universities of Scotland."

thought the Bill was a good one, so far as it went; but the fact was, that the law was, to all intents and purposes, obsolete at the present moment, and there were many persons holding offices in the Scotch Universities who were not members of the Church of Scotland. One very desirable point omitted in the present Bill wrs the abolition of Tests now imposed on parish schoolmasters, who were now subject to the same Tests as were now proposed to be repealed in the case of University Professors. He could not see why the Government should select only one of the classes of educators, Professors in Universities, as the objects of their legislation, and exclude from the benefits of the present measure all those who were included in the operation of the old Acts. If the Government did not take up this subject, he would endeavour, by every means in his power, to prevail on the House to abolish the laws which were a disgrace to the Statute-book.

said, there was a clear distinction between the two cases mentioned by the noble Lord who had just spoken; he did not desire to mix up the two matters in the present discussion. The consideration of the question mooted by the noble Lord would be better disposed of in another Bill.

was glad that the two subjects were not mixed up in the present Bill, which, as he understood it, applied only to lay professors, he should not now oppose. If the people of Scotland were prepared to let those tests be abolished, and took no steps to strengthen their hands in that House, he would not, single-handed, take upon himself to fight their battle. If, on the contrary, they detitioned against the abolition of those Tests, they would find him ready to take up their cause.

said, the people of Scotland, even those belonging to the Established Church, were beginning to see the impropriety of imposing on the lay professors Tests which it was perfectly well known had been to some extent taken by people who were notoriously not of the; faith which they professed. Now, nothing could possibly be so damaging to the characters of the instructors of youth as to tender to them any test which did not appear to bind, and which was not of bonâ fide utility, and he saw no object whatever in the Tests at present imposed. As to I theological professors, he was willing that the Tests in their case should be maintained; but in regard to the instructors of youth in the dead languages and the positive sciences, he must say that the Tests had long operated to prevent the Universities from obtaining the services of the best men; and the sooner therefore they were done away with the better. He agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Melgund) in much of what he had said as to the Tests for parochial schoolmasters; but that was a subject for another Bill and another discussion. He hoped that at present the two points would be kept separate.

said, that any measure brought forward to abolish Tests for parochial schoolmasters in Scotland would meet with his most uncompromising opposition.

would give the Committee an instance of the absurdity of the present law regarding Tests in the University of Edinburgh. The Greek Professorship, one of the most important chairs there, being vacant, was applied for by upwards of twenty candidates, among whom were some of the most eminent men the country could produce; but out of those twenty only four were legally qualified to be inducted. It was in the power of the Town Council to prevent the induction to the chair of the most accomplished scholar. He hoped this Bill would meet with the hearty support of both sides of the House.

wished to know whether the Government intended to introduce a clause in the Education Bill which they had promised, for the repeal of the Test imposed on parochial schoolmasters; but

said, that when the Bill was introduced, its provisions would be explained to the House; but it was rather too much to expect that its provisions should be explained on a Motion for the introduction of another Bill.