presented petitions from the island of Jamaica, and from British Guiana (signed by 4,000 of the inhabitants), complaining of the distress under which they were suffering in consequence of the operation of the Sugar Duties Act of 1846.

presented a petition from the Bishop and clergy of the Established Church, and ministers of all the other religious denominations in Jamaica, complaining of the distressed condition of that island, and praying for justice to an aggrieved community, whose sufferings had been incident to a system of policy supposed essential to the welfare of the Empire. The petitioners set forth, that it was no ordinary exigency that had combined them, whatever the diversity or the agreement of their political opinions, in an unanimous appeal on this subject, but a feeling that in the threatened ruin of the agricultural and commercial interests of the Colony their own usefulness and ministrations were involved, and they, therefore, recorded their solemn conviction that unless some wise and well-directed efforts were made to reconcile as far as it was possible an act of justice to the West Indian proprietors and their dependants with such policy, and to allow either the differential duties between the produce of the free cultivator and slave-grown sugars to subsist as a special exception on moral grounds to a general political rule, or some other prompt and sufficient remedy to be devised for the evils under which the British West Indian colonies suffered, the privations already sustained by the planters, the labours of the ministers of religion, and the costly philanthropy of the mother country in effecting emancipation, would be abortive, the cultivation of estates and the religious and educational institutions in the island simultaneously abandoned, while the masses of the population would inevitably retrograde to a state of barbar- ism worse than that from which they had been rescued. The hon. Baronet having also presented a petition from the Chief Justice, other Judges, barristers, solicitors, and others, practising in the law in the island of Jamaica, then, pursuant to notice, asked the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government would be directed, in the course of the next Session, if not in the present Session of Parliament, to the distress in the island of Jamaica, and in other colonial dependencies of the Crown, with a view to relieving the same, either by a continuance of the differential duties on slave-grown sugar, or by a reduction of the duties on free-labour sugar, or by any other mode which they may recommend to the wisdom of Parliament, regarding such a subject as an exception, on moral grounds, to the general question of free trade.

I think, Sir, it will be in the recollection of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that, at an earlier period of the present Session, I had to answer a question of a somewhat similar character to the present. In answering that question, I stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament any measure on this subject during the present Session; and now, in answer to my hon. Friend, I must say, that so far as the present Session is concerned, my answer on the part of Her Majesty's Government must be the same. But I took that opportunity to state my own deep conviction of the severe and painful distress under which several of our West Indian Colonies are suffering, from causes to which my hon. Friend has referred. This impression undoubtedly must be confirmed, not only by the petitions which my hon. Friend has presented, but also by the two to the same effect which I have myself presented this evening from the island of Jamaica and from the colony of British Guiana; and I fear that there can be no doubt that up to this time those Colonies are suffering under very great and severe distress. The question of my hon. Friend, however, proceeds to ask what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take upon this subject in the next Session of Parliament. Now, I think he will see that it would not be proper, even if it were possible, for me to say what might be the precise course that Her Majesty's Government may think it right to take in a future Session of Parliament on this or any other subject. But if he asks me, as he does on this occasion, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government will be directed to this subject, it undoubtedly is my duty to say that the anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government will be, as it ought to be, directed to such allegations of suffering on the part of any of the Colonies of Her Majesty that may be laid before them.

begged his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Humphery) the Chairman of the Committee who superintended this portion of the arrangements of the House, to state under what circumstances the person who had had a stall in the central hall, had been forbidden to continue the sale of refreshments there?

said, that when he arrived at the House at twelve o'clock that day, the person who had been appointed by the Committee to sell refreshments in the central hall, informed him that he had, on Saturday last, received a letter from Mr. Burrell, the secretary of Lord Willough byd' Eresby, the Lord High Chamberlain, desiring him to cause his stall to be removed. The correspondence which had taken place on the subject was this. In the first place, Mr. Lucas, who had established the stall, received from the Lord Great Chamberlain this letter:—

"Lord Great Chamberlain's Office, Palace of Westminster, May 8

."Sir—Having been informed that you have established a stall for the sale of provisions, wine, spirituous liquors, (fee, in the central hall of the Palace at Westminster, I am directed by the Lord Great Chamberlain to desire that you will cause the same to be immediately removed.—I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

"R. BURRELL, Secretary.

"Mr. Henry Lucas, 20, Bridge-street."

Upon receipt of this letter, Captain Gosset had an interview with Mr. Burrell, the result of which was the following letter from the latter gentleman:—

"Palace of Westminster,

Lord Great Chamberlain's Office, May 10.

"My dear Sir—I have reported to the Lord Great Chamberlain the substance of our conversation yesterday, and I am directed by Lord Wil-loughby to inform you that he has assented to your wish as an act of courtesy towards Lord Charles Russell, to allow the refreshment stall to remain in the central hall until one o'clock this day, after which I have received the Lord Great Chamberlain's positive directions to see that it is forthwith removed.—I remain, my deal Sir, yours faithfully,

"R. BURRELL.

"To Captain Gosset."

On the same day the Lord Great Chamberlain directed an order, in the following-terms, to the superintendent on duty in the Palace:—

"Palace of Westminster,

Lord Great Chamberlain's Office, May 10.

"Sir—Lord Willoughby having been informed that refreshments have been supplied and sold in the central hall of the Palace of Westminster, I am directed by the Lord Great Chamberlain to request that you will give strict orders to the police constables on duty in the Palace of Westminster to prevent for the future any refreshments whatever from being supplied or sold in the central hall.—I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

"R. BURRELL, Secretary.

"To Mr. Superintendent May."

Subsequently Lord Willoughby had given permission for the stall to remain two days longer, but it was then to be finally removed. The Committee were anxious that Members attending the Committees, who were that day nearly 100 in number, should be able to obtain what refreshment they required. This stall had therefore been placed in the central hall, the charges having been fixed at a very moderate amount; and he believed that up to the present time every one had been satisfied. He believed that the House would not suffer the stall to be removed in this way.

would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the House was to put up with what they had just heard was the determination of that most important personage, the Lord High Chamberlain? Were they, after having determined that certain refreshments should be sold in that hall, upon the command, and upon the most impertinent interference of that functionary, to be prevented from having what he believed they had a perfect right to have, their own refreshment in their own House? He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to the matter, and what course he would hereafter pursue with respect to it?

said, that had he been aware of these grave circumstances he should have been prepared to deal with them in a fitting manner. He was not prepared to say whether the course which had been taken was a breach of the privileges of the House, but he was sure that it was a great inconvenience to every Gentleman in that House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield would allow him a few hours to consider the circumstances; and he could assure him that for his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) own sake, as well as for that of his companions in that House, he would endeavour that some satisfactory arrangement should be come to.

Sir, when, after re-election, I had the honour to resume my seat in this House, in answer to the interrogatories that were then addressed to me by an hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers), as to the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to their general policy, and as to the course which they intended to pursue, after giving the hon. Gentleman such explanations as were necessary with regard to the first point, I had to communicate to him the course which the Government intended to adopt with respect to the despatch of business before the House; and I stated then that although it was the intention of Government humbly to counsel Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament, they were not prepared to give that advice until those measures should be passed which the exigency of the public service required, and some other measures were also carried which they deem to be of paramount importance. Although on that occasion I did not absolutely define all the measures which under the circumstances Her Majesty's Ministers might think proper to submit to the consideration of the present Parliament—although the House was, indeed, too generous to demand a pledge so precise, and I hope that Her Majesty's Ministers were too discreet to enter into an engagement so precipitate—voluntarily and without disguise I did then—that being in the middle of the month of March, express to the House what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to some measures which could not be described as coming within the category of those absolutely necessary for the supply of Her Majesty's service. I said then there wore three measures that we deemed of paramount importance: one with respect to the internal defence of the country; another, a measure to carry into effect, if possible, those recommendations which were made for the reform of the Court of Chancery by Her Majesty's Commissioners; and, thirdly and lastly, I said that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in case the Bill which was then before the House for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans received the sanction of Parliament, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to ask the House of Commons to assist in completing the constitutional number which had hitherto formed the aggregate of representatives in the House of Commons. Sir, I am unwilling at all times to quote to this House anything which I may have said in previous debates; and if this were merely an expression of sentiment or opinion, I should, I hope, have the good taste to refrain from doing so now. If, therefore, I may presume to refer to an authoritative statement of what then fell from me, it is only because I wish to place before the House, in a manner the accuracy of which cannot be questioned, those details which are matter of fact. Sir, I find that what fell from me on that occasion is thus accurately represented. I said then—

"I will mention, if the House will permit me, some measures which I think ought to be introduced without delay. I do not allude merely to those votes for the public service which every Member will, I am sure, join in granting to us; neither do I allude merely to the Mutiny Bill, which nobody, I believe, yet—although I have heard some strange rumours upon the subject—is prepared to oppose. But there are three other measures with regard to which, on the part of the Government, the greatest efforts will be made to secure their speedy passing. Those measures I shall feel it my duty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, earnestly to press on the attention of the House. One of them is the disfranchisement of St. Albans, which has already been taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole). In connection with that measure, I beg to say that I shall take the earliest opportunity of expressing, on the part of the Government, what are their intentions with respect to the distribution of the four forfeited seats which we shall have to deal with if that Bill should receive the sanction of the House. That is a subject, in my opinion, of the greatest importance; it is, I think, highly expedient, that before Parliament is dissolved, the number of seats should be completed; and I trust that the proposal which the Government will have to make upon that subject will receive the general support of the House."—[3 Hansard, cxix. 1061.]

Now, Sir, I must confess that I am surprised—I would almost presume to say that I am, individually, somewhat pained —to hear it insinuated, and more than insinuated, that in asking for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose which is on the paper to-night, I have taken the House by surprise—that I have committed—I will not say a breach of trust, though even that expression has met the eye—but that I have tampered with the honourable understanding which subsists between the Government and the House. Sir, I am not conscious of having acted in this respect in any other than a perfectly clear and straightforward manner. The day after I heard that Her Majesty had given Her assent to the Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, in pursuance of the first declaration which I made to this House as a responsible Minister of the Crown, I gave notice of the intention which I hope to-night I may partly fulfil. Sir, I have made these observations because I wish to vindicate myself from a charge which has been so freely circulated, and I trust that the statement I have made, will, whatever may be the opinion of the House on the main subject, exonerate me from any charge of not having behaved towards the House in this matter in that candid, open, and straightforward manner which it becomes us to pursue in the conduct of the public business. Sir, it now becomes my duty to state that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is highly expedient that those seats should be filled up before the dissolution of Parliament takes place. Sir, I am well aware that if any hon. Gentleman opposite were to ask me what was the magic in that particular number of 658, or why the completeness of our legislation should be questioned without the concur-reuce of that aggregate number of Members—if I were asked to define or describe the cabalistic charm of these numerals, I freely admit that I should find myself extremely perplexed; but if I were equally asked from the same quarter to prove and demonstrate why twelve should be the number fixed for that tribunal which is the most popular in this country, I think that my perplexity would be not less considerable. It would be extremely difficult to show that twelve is a number more absolutely perfect for the administration of justice by such a tribunal as a jury, than an unequal number, such as thirteen; and arguments might be offered why this number should be increased, or why it should not be so considerable. Sir, the foundation of all these arguments is prescription; prescription, which consists of rules created by experience and sanctioned by custom. And, Sir, we must remember that prescription is, after all, the most important element of order, of liberty, and of progress; and although I myself am not, I am sure, inclined to yield to that principle any superstitious adherence, I am still of opinion that the time is not arrived when prescription can he lightly treated by a House of Commons. The inconvenience and the injury of outraging such a principle is more easy to comprehend, than it is to establish the peculiar arrangement in question. A violation of prescription is an element of disturbance— it leads to discontent—it offers a premium to extravagant projects—it invites men to immature schemes and hazardous suggestions; and were it for no other reason than this, I feel that it would be our duty to warn the House against that which has become a continuous and systematic deficiency in the aggregate numbers of the House of Commons. Deeply convinced, then, of the inconvenience and of the peril of indulging in this continuous and systematic deficiency in our numbers, Her Majesty's Ministers have felt it their duty to express this opinion to the House. In their opinion, and in their view of the case, it is essentially a case for the House of Commons to consider—in their view of the case it is the first duty of the House of Commons to fulfil; and if that be true, if it be for the House of Commons to see that its numbers are complete, it necessarily follows that the fulfilment of that duty should fall upon those who happen to be the Ministers of the day; because from the system of conducting public business in this House, and from the liberal concession of the time of the House to the existing Administration, it is quite clear that no question of this kind could with convenience be carried but by those who, by the generous confidence of the House, as an existing Administration, have conceded to them that command over the time of the House which the Government always possesses. Sir, if the Government were to follow their own inclinations—if they were; to consult merely their own personal interests and convenience—I hardly know any subject which they would more freely avoid than the settlement of questions like the present. They are essentially invidious. In old days, whenever questions concerning the appropriation of vacant seats were introduced, party passions were necessarily excited. In a country where the Government is carried on by the machinery of political party, it is scarcely possible to offer a suggestion for a settlement of a question of the kind, without, of course, the imputation of political motives, and perhaps without the possibility of political bias. But, Sir, at the present day, a Ministry that attempts to recommend to the House measures for the settlement of such questions, has not merely to encounter the ancient and traditional political sentiments of opposite parties. Of late years another element has entered into the discussion of these subjects, which tends peculiarly to embitter feelings, to create jealousies, and to increase difficulties; and that is, the unhappy misunderstanding between town and country, which I, for one, notwithstanding all that has passed, hope yet may be of shorter duration than some are disposed to believe. Well, then, these two considerations alone would have induced the Government, but for a paramount sense of duty, to have avoided interfering in the settlement of this question. Sir, I do remember that when, in the month of March, on the part of the present Administration, I expressed their intentions of introducing a measure on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) did on that occasion express his dissent from the sentiments I then conveyed to the House. I will do him the justice to acknowledge that. But allow me to remind the House of the circumstances under which that protest—that provisional protest, was offered by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was then labouring under a conviction, or a fear, that Her Majesty's Ministers wished to avoid a dissolution of the present Parliament, or, at least, that they wished to postpone that appeal to the people to a much later period than had ever entered into the imagination of Her Majesty's Ministers. Such was the feeling entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was avowedly upon that impression that the right hon. Gentleman founded his objection to the course I am now taking. But, Sir, there is now no apprehension in the mind of any Member of this House that the dissolution of Parliament can be postponed, or that any one wishes to postpone it. On the contrary, the only expressions of regret at the impending dissolution which have reached me have not been uttered, I must say, by Gentlemen who do the present Administration the honour of supporting them. Sir, the moment that a pledge was given that the new Parliament should meet in the present year, it was quite clear that it would not be the interest of Her Majesty's Ministers to postpone the dissolution of the existing Parliament; because, if Her Ma- jesty's Ministers have to meet the Now Parliament in this year, the natural desire which men with such responsible duties must have of obtaining at least sufficient time to prepare the measures which they may have to submit to the new Parliament, must make it, of all men, the interest of Ministers not to shrink from as speedy an appeal as possible to the constituencies. Therefore, the objection which the right hon. Gentleman raised to my bringing forward a measure of the kind I am now asking leave to introduce, namely, that it would tend to the postponement and procrastination of the dissolution, can no longer, I think, be urged, or enter into the mind of any Member, or in the present case influence in any degree his conduct. It is, then, not with any intention to influence the duration of this Parliament—which I think all must acknowledge who candidly consider the circumstances—but because we consider it to be of paramount importance that the constitutional number of Members of this House should be complete, and because we think, that of all times when that completion should take place, it is previous to a dissolution, we have felt it our duty, however unwillingly, to ask the leave of the House to bring in a Bill for the fulfilment of that object. Sir, the fact that a dissolution is impending, instead of being a reason against the House coming to some decision on the subject, appears to me, on the contrary, the strongest argument in favour of the course we are pursuing. If there are persons who are not represented, and who ought to be represented, what time more apposite for investing them with their legitimate privilege than when we are about to give the country at large the opportunity of exercising the franchise; and if it be the opinion of the House that there ought to be four more Members of Parliament than there are here at present, what time more fitting for supplying the deficiency than when you will be in a position constitutionally to call them together for the fulfilment of their duties. Sir, the very sense of the great inconveniences which have arisen in all discussions of this kind, from that unfortunate jealousy which exists between town and country, to which I have before alluded—the very feeling that it is highly impolitic on all occasions to be marshalling the rival claims of different parts of the community as regards their population or their property—has, I think, given rise to an anxiety in a very considerable portion of the country to see whether other elements wherewith to form a constituency may not be devised, than those which have hitherto supplied elements of the electoral body. Sir, I have seen many plans which, if they were carried into effect, would send Members to Parliament by means, I think, entitled in every way to our respect, but other than those which are generally had recourse to. To-night, for instance, before I rose to address you, Sir, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Lennard) gave notice, that if I succeeded in going into Committee with the Bill for which I now apply, he should propose that two of the Members for the vacant seats should be apportioned to the University of London. Sir, I believe that in making that suggestion the hon. Gentleman spoke in unison with the feelings of considerable classes entitled, I repeat it, in every way to the respectful consideration of this House; and I can truly say that that proposition has not been viewed by Her Majesty's Ministers with any sort of prejudice: it has, on the contrary, been observed with interest and with sympathy. Sir, I can admire the idea that would permit science and learning, by the immediate exercise of the popular suffrage, to take their place in this House, without the embarrassment of political connexion, and without the inconveniences of party passions. But, when this question is examined—and with the permission of the House I will slightly touch upon it—the difficulties, though I am far from saying that the House could not remove them—the difficulties are not inconsiderable. In all those suggestions which would lay down as a principle that the elements of our constituent body should be of a less absolutely material character than heretofore—that the intellectual and the moral qualities should be permitted to exercise their influence on this House without a necessary connexion with political party—in all those suggestions there is something so plausible to the reason, and, I would add, even so captivating to the imagination, that I can easily understand that they have excited a great public interest, and engaged the approbation of many individuals who are entitled to the highest respect. Now, Sir, suggestions have been made, for example, that it would be desirable that the learned Societies for which this metropolis is celebrated, should furnish a Member or Members to this House; and, at the first glance, remembering who would probably be among the Members thus deputed to this House, it must be admitted to be a proposition highly deserving of our examination. Take the Royal Society, for example. It is a very ancient society. It was founded by a monarch. It has been adorned from the days of Sir Isaac Newton by some of the greatest men whom England has produced. And at this moment it counts among its members some of our fellow-subjects of whom we are most proud. But the House must remember this, when we talk of the learned Societies, that in the nineteenth century learned Societies no longer necessarily consist of learned men. The necessity of having a large revenue, and of raising that revenue by public subscriptions, permits a great number of individuals to be numbered among learned Societies who have no other claim to that distinction than that which is conferred by their wealth and the general respectability of their character. You would not necessarily, therefore, because you delegated the privilege of sending a Member or Members to Parliament to the learned Societies, have a constituency formed of learned men. Another difficulty in the case is to draw the line, if once you admit a principle so fluctuating in its elements. If the Royal Society—I take that as the oldest and the most distinguished among them all—is entitled to have a representative in this House on the ground that that Society itself is a representative of science, there are many other Societies who may also assume to represent science. Why, if you admit the Royal Society, on what principle can you shut out the Geographical Society, or the Zoological Society, or the Astronomical Society? And if you were to take all these Societies, and say that by aggregating them together we should form a considerable constituency to whom collectively should be given a representative in Parliament, what will prevent new geographical societies, new zoological societies, and new astronomical societies being formed to-morrow, who might urge their claim to the possession of the franchise on the same plea? In fact it is evident—I say it with great respect to those Societies—in fact it is evident that, dealing with the materials before us, it would be in the power of any body of men—any club, for example—to give themselves a scientific designation, to affect scientific pursuits, and to make that a claim for the exercise of the franchise. Well, then, Sir, on examining the claims of the learned Societies to this privilege, I feel that the difficulties are too great for us to overcome, and we have, therefore, reluctantly dismissed them from consideration. It has been suggested, again, that there are Royal Corporations of great consideration in this country—Royal Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians, a Royal Academy of Arts, and other similar institutions that might be grouped together for the purpose of Parliamentary representation. Sir, I have no wish in any way to impugn the conduct of those corporations, or to trench in any degree on their privileges; but if we examine into the constitution of those societies we shall find that, generally speaking, they are self-elected; and though the influence of their career and the result of their operation may be satisfactory to the country, I do not think it would be judicious, nor indeed very constitutional, that we should look for the elements of a representation amongst self-elected corporations. Well, Sir, to come to the claim which has been partially advocated to-night by the notice of the hon. Member for Maldon — the claim of the Universities which are not represented. Now that appears at the first blush to be an extremely plausible plea. The ancient Universities of England are represented—the University of Dublin is represented—why then, for example, should not the Scotch Universities be represented? But any one who has investigated the question, who has looked into the condition of the Scotch Universities, with every wish to recommend such a measure to the House—and it was my own wish—will find that the elements of a popular constituency are totally wanting; that in the Scotch Universities, for instance, there is no body like the Convocation of our English Universities; that you have students who never, or rarely ever, become graduates; that there is no privilege annexed in Scotland to the taking out of an academic degree, and that therefore it is seldom that any individual takes a degree. If, then, you invested the united Universities of Scotland with the privilege of being represented in this House, the privilege would, in fact, be in possession of a few rectors, and about a hundred professors. The elements of a popular constituency are altogether wanting. Well, so much for the learned Societies, and so far for the Scottish Universities. But I have now to notice the claim of the London University. My Colleagues and myself have considered not only the case of the learn- ed Societies, and not only the case of the Scotch Universities, but also the claim of the London University; but I am bound to say, with every disposition to recommend such a measure as that which the hon Gentleman has shown his favour to, we do not find, in the present state of the London University, the conditions which are necessary for making a concession under the circumstances of such a nature as this. The constitution of that University is, at present, too immature, its development too imperfect, for Urging any well-founded claim of the nature now in question. At the utmost, a scattered constituency of a few hundreds only could be collected, and I must say that there appears to me to be others whose claims on the consideration of the House are stronger and more numerous than is at present the claim of the University of London. I think it right, however, to add, that in considering the claim of this institution, Her Majesty's Government have felt that the principle upon which it is urged is a principle entitled to respect and approbation; that there is nothing fantastic or unfitting in the claim; but that it is in perfect unison with principles which are already acted upon in this House, in the case of Oxford, of Cambridge, and of Dublin. Sir, there has been another proposition made, which, I confess, has been urged with great power, and which possesses many causes why it should be entertained with the deepest consideration. We have been urged to recommend to the House to concede, at least, one Member to the Inns of Court. Sir, the four Inns of Court would, no doubt, afford a considerable and most respectable constituency—a constituency of some thousands arising from corporations that have existed from immemorial ages, that have taken a distinguished part in the history of this country, and which have sent to this House some of its most eminent Members. We did think that it was no objection to this plan, that an eminent lawyer, by the confidence of the Inns of Court, might find his way into this House without the taint of political or party connexion. We thought that, in an age favourable to legal reform, for example, it was very possible that the appreciation of his fellow-lawyers might select some student who might otherwise shrink from the coarser collisions of public life on the hustings, and yet might take his place in the House of Commons as the representative of a constituency of some thousands of honourable and learned men, and afford by his erudition and his counsel a very great assistance to the deliberations of this House. But, Sir, after giving to the question the most deliberate and the most anxious consideration we found it impossible to avoid the conclusion that it would be a hopeless task to propose to the House of Commons the allocation of one or two Members to the Inns of Court, unless we were prepared to concede the same privilege to other similar constituencies. I know there is a prejudice—which I do not share—against the too considerable appearance of lawyers in this House. I beg to say, Sir, that I do not share it, because I remember how much of our liberty is owing to our law, and is founded upon our law, and that in the most critical periods of our history, lawyers have been the greatest and most fearless champions of the rights of the people of England. I confess I am surprised, therefore, at the existence of a prejudice such as this, to which, however, I must, most reluctantly, yield. It is one I have always deplored, one which I can never cease to lament, when I recollect that lawyers have been, not only the great assertors of English liberties, but also the greatest ornaments of the House of Commons; when I remember that Sir Edward Coke and Lord Bacon both sat in this House; when I remember that the revered names of Selden, and of Somers, both belonged to the House of Commons; that in an after age this House resounded with the golden eloquence of Mansfield, and was once adorned by the majestic virtues of Romilly; and that it is our happiness to remember that amongst our Members, the esteemed descendants of some of those great men are still to be found. But though I cannot agree in a prejudice which I think unwarranted by facts, I feel it would not do for Her Majesty's Government to propose, unless the proposition were attended by some identical or analogous projects, to allot one or more of the four vacant seats to the Inns of Court; therefore, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, after careful consideration, and with the most ample desire to introduce constituencies founded upon these elements, and believing that they might contribute to the increased reputation of this assembly, I must renounce at present any attempt to form a constituency out of those interesting, but, I fear, impracticable elements. Under these circumstances, Sir, I have how to place before the House the results of the next step in the investigations by the Government on this subject, and the course which, on the whole, they think it best for the House to follow, in order to accomplish that which they deem one of the highest duties of the House—namely, the completion of its constitutional numbers previous to the impending dissolution. In considering where we should seek for the elements of a new constituency to which to confide the possession of one of the noblest privileges that a freeman can exercise, we have had to regard the relative claims of the different portions of the community; for very much depends on the relative degree of representation which they at present enjoy, and we have thought that the relative degree of representation could scarcely be more fairly tested than by ascertaining the number of existing constituencies and the numerical strength of the populations by whom those existing constituencies are, as it were, fed, supplied, and sustained. And in looking over the different constituencies of this country, guided by this principle, there is one constituency the claims of which seem to Her Majesty's Government to be paramount, and that is the constituency of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Her Majesty's Government propose to recommend to the House that two of these seats should be apportioned to the West Riding of York shire. The constituency of the West Riding of Yorkshire is, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, about 37,000. Generally speaking, the representation of the county has been, as far as the great material interests are concerned, neutralised, in the opinions of its Members, in this House. The agricultural and manufacturing interests have generally sent Members for this riding of such opposite opinions in reference to these great interests, that they have sustained a nicely-balanced power upon the important subjects connected with these interests. But on remarkable occasions, when popular feeling has been much excited, that has happened which is not unusual under such circumstances — namely, although the parties in this great district are nicely balanced, popular opinion has just given the deciding impulse to the election, and two Members of the same opinion have been sent here as representatives—as in 1841, for example—and almost a moiety of this great constituency has been practically disfranchised. Sir, under these circumstances, if the two Members were to be given without providing for these difficulties, it is very probable that the same result would frequently occur under similar circumstances, and you would have four Members returned for the county by a very small casting majority, and of the same opinions; as in 1841 you had two Members returned to the House professing Conservative opinions, who were returned by a small majority. For instance, the constituency being 37,000, I think the two Conservative Members elected in 1841 were returned by a majority barely exceeding 1,000. Under such circumstances Her Majesty's Government think the best course to recommend is, that the West Riding of Yorkshire should be divided. And if the House would permit me to lay before them the reasons which have induced us to recommend that course, and the method by which we propose to carry out this division in order to effect that object, I will at once proceed to do so. Sir, when we had arrived at this conclusion of recommending to the House the division of the West Hiding of Yorkshire into two districts, each of which should be represented by two Members, we supposed that that division might be effected by availing ourselves of what I may call the natural divisions, that is the hundreds, or as they are called in the West Riding, the wapentakes. There are ten wapentakes, and by a division of these we naturally thought that our object could be effected. But when we examined these divisions, we find that they present difficulties that are insurmountable. For example, one wapentake, or hundred, out of the ten, possesses at this moment more than one-third of the whole constituency. It was, therefore, found impossible to recommend such a division. There are other reasons to prevent such a division, which at the present moment I do not think it necessary to trouble the House by detailing. We found it impossible under such circumstances to effect a proper division by availing ourselves of the natural districts of the county. That being the case, we thought the difficulties might be overcome by establishing a division of the West Riding by means of the polling-places. But as it is in the power of the justices in their court of quarter-sessions to change these districts at their will, the House will see that we were again baffled in effecting such an arrangement, because although at the present moment they might form the basis of a proper arrangement, a division of this character would not afford us any permanent boundary. We, therefore, thought it impossible to effect our object by the present system of electoral divisions. Under these circumstances a suggestion was made to us to meet the difficulty; it is one which I observe has transpired—I do not regret it; but it has led to some of the most unfounded and ludicrous representations that have ever been circulated. It was represented to us that the county magistrates of the West Riding, for county purposes, at this very time and for some period back, finding the necessity of dividing the West Riding, have constructed a division of the Riding; and we were recommended to consider that division. It appears that they have not yet formally adopted this arrangement; but they have frequently discussed it among themselves, and it has been received with great favour by gentlemen of different opinions in the county. I have this plan now before me. It proposes to take the simple and intelligible boundary of the Midland Railway, which I think I can show to the House is one entitled to their consideration. The Midland Railway enters the West Riding from the county of Derby; it then leads to Skipton; then, turning towards Colne, it proceeds until it meets the boundary of the county of Lancaster. This division would thus affect the constituency. All that part of the county lying south and west of the line, we propose to call the southern division of the county; and all that part lying north and east, we propose to call the northern division of the West Riding. Wherever a township intersects this line, we propose that it shall belong to the northern division, in order that no such township should be divided or overlooked in this arrangement. The effect on the constituency in each of these divisions as to numbers will then be this: the constituency of the northern division will amount to 17,965, and that of the southern division to 18,785. Now, Sir, I have considered with some attention a criticism that has met my eye, and which, I confess, in the liveliness of its remarks, reminded me of some observations which I have heard elsewhere. I find the great accusation brought against this proposition is founded upon this objection—that the northern division we have thus marked out is com- posed of an agricultural constituency. Now, I must say for myself—and I offer this as a remark rather than as an argument—if the 17,000 or 18,000 constituents in this division be composed of persons most interested in agriculture, I see no reason why they should not be represented in this House as well as any other constituency within the kingdom; nay, more, I cannot understand why an objection should be made to 17,900 persons forming a constituency in this northern division being represented by a person connected with the agricultural interest, any more than the 18,900 in the southern division being represented by a person intimately connected with manufactures. I really think that 17,000 or 18,000 independent electors in the county have a right to choose those Members they think most entitled to their confidence. But it should be observed that if this division have the effect of making one portion of the West Riding almost purely agricultural—if that be true, in the same way we leave the other division, the southern division, entirely manufacturing; and, therefore, it might be equally objected to us that we take a contracted view of this question in reference to this latter division, for it might be said that by such an arrangement the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) will be its representative for life; for we are giving him a constituency that is entirely devoted to him—in fact, that the hon. Member for the West Riding will be the representative of a constituency in which no element of opposition exists. Well, if the result of this arrangement be that the hon. Member for the West Riding shall have a permanent seat in this House, I cannot say that I shall regret it. I confess that I should be sorry to see the hon. Gentleman absent from this House. Where a man has the power of influencing public opinion, it is, in my mind, much better that be should be responsible for his conduct in an assembly like this, than that he should exercise his great talents in other scenes, independently of his responsibility as a Member of the British House of Commons. But, Sir, in the map of the county magistrates which expresses their plan, I perceive that the division therein marked out is made in connexion with a simple and intelligible line of railway, by which Leeds, although a manufacturing town, is thrown into the Southern Division. We propose to follow that intelligible line of railway, but to leave Leeds in its natural position—the Northern Division. I have seen that denounced as an arrangement which would prevent the manufacturing interest of Leeds exercising its fair and due authority in connexion with the interests of the southern division. Why, the southern division is entirely manufacturing; it, therefore, wants no assistance whatever from Leeds, and by allowing it to remain in the northern or agricultural division we shall be permitting the enterprise and energy of a great manufacturing town to work in a large agricultural district. We propose that Leeds, as it ought to be, shall be the town of election for the northern division of the Riding: and we shall leave to Wakefield, its former rival, to be the election town for the southern division. I mention these details because I wish to show that we have really no selfish nor sinister design in making this recommendation. Sir, we thought it but respectful to Parliament and the country that we should ourselves, and personally, examine into and consider well all the plans that could be devised to effect the object which we have in view. We thought it due to this House to bring forward our plan so matured that we could confidently recommend that plan for your adoption which we consider more advantageous to the community at large. But this, after all, is a question of detail, belonging properly for the Committee of this House. Although I shall endeavour to support the views of the Government, and although I shall be prepared to express to the House, on another occasion, the minute details of this plan, and all those reasons which I think can be urged for the adoption of this line of demarcation, if the House shall admit the principle, we have no other object in view but that there shall be carried into effect that plan which is most agreeable to the House, as well as most advantageous to the country; and if any Gentleman can show to the House that there can be a line of demarcation more advantageous to the community, more just in its conception—one more fair in its application, and more beneficial in its results— Her Majesty's Government will be only too well pleased to support it. Sir, it remains for me to express to the House the views which Her Majesty's Government have adopted in regard to the two other seats that are vacant. With regard to the two other seats, we have considered that on the whole we cannot be guided in the present instance by a better principle than that I have attempted to express. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the question we have to consider now is not the large question of Parliamentary Reform—it is the important question of completing the proper number of Members in this House, with a due deference to all existing arrangements in respect to the franchise. We must, then, apportion these seats with a due regard to our existing Parliamentary arrangements. I hope that when this subject is discussed, it will be viewed with a conviction of the truth of that observation. There may be Gentlemen who disapprove of the present system upon which the constituencies of the country are based. Different opinions upon such a question may be legitimately maintained and powerfully advocated. But these questions do not enter into this discussion; which arises from the necessity of having to apportion those vacant seats with due regard to all existing arrangements in respect to the franchise, and with a due regard to the number of voters throughout the country, which, of course, must form a most material element in our inquiry when we are called upon to decide upon the apportionment of those seats. Taking these as a test of the relative claims of the different places to increased representation— taking as a test the degree of representation which they at present possess—taking, I say, their relative claims, and making such claims depend upon their present relative representation—I find among a considerable number of constituencies of counties and boroughs the city of Westminster, with a constituency of 14,800—the town of Liverpool, with a constituency of 17,400— the borough of Lambeth of 18,000. I further find these three places supported by the following amount of population, namely, in Westminster, 241,000; in Lambeth,"251,000; in Liverpool, 376,000— each of these places represented by two Members. There is, also, Finsbury, with a constituency of 20,000—supported by a population of 323,000; Marylebone, with a constituency of 19,700—supported by a population of 370,000; the Tower Hamlets, with a constituency of 23,000—supported by a population exceeding 500,000; Middlesex, with a constituency of 14,600; Manchester, with a constituency of 13,900 —supported by a population of 316,000; South Lancashire, with a constituency of 21,650, with a population of between 500,000 and 600,000. Taking all this into consideration—the number of the con- stituency, weighing also the fact that the constituencies of the counties consist of occupying tenants of an amount greater than that required for borough constituencies; when the number of constituency is equal, we thought that we ought to decide in their favour, rather than in that of the borough constituencies, which are only of a lower qualification. [In answer to an Hon. MEMBER] Where constituencies are formed of occupying tenants, say of 501. —or what you like—it shows, as regards the material of the constituencies, there is equally a population which, irrespective of them, may also rank with the 10l. franchise in the boroughs. Taking also into consideration what I call in the counties the surplus population, irrespective of that population which is located in the limits of the boroughs, and taking also into consideration—which must not be omitted— what may be fairly called the permanent element of national wealth, which must not be omitted from consideration. Her Majesty's Government have resolved to recommend to the House to apportion the two remaining seats to the southern division of the County of Lancashire. Sir, I have been told that the votes have been lost to the towns, and that they ought to be given to the towns. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware that this is an objection that is easy to make; but it is most difficult to sustain. No one more admires the energy of the great towns than myself. I do not wish, however to mix up either their present proud position or their future fortunes with the degraded memories of St. Albans or Sudbury. Sir, I cannot think that the Members taken from those boroughs could either sustain their energies or add to their value. Let the House, however, recollect that in recommending the apportionment of those four seats to the West Eiding of Yorkshire and the Southern Division of Lancashire, we are including in these two county constituencies scores of towns four times larger than either Sudbury or St. Albans. If you take the surplus population of South Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire—if you take that portion of the population which is not admitted within the pale of any borough constituency—you have upwards of 1,400,000 persons who are directly or indirectly represented now by only four Members. We propose that they shall be in future represented by eight Members— that is our proposition. And if you look at the population of any of our greatest boroughs and constituencies brought under our consideration, you will not-find one of them that equals the surplus political population of the West Riding, or South Lancashire; and you will not find any two, or any three, or any four of those great constituencies, equal to that united population to which I have referred. We propose then, in regard to South Lancashire, for the same reasons, in order that the minority, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, whether it be agricultural or manufacturing, may be truly represented, that South Lancashire shall be also divided. South Lancashire consists of two hundreds—the hundred of Salford, and the hundred of West Derby. The hundred of Salford includes the flourishing city of Manchester, and the hundred of West Derby the famous port of Liverpool; therefore there is a natural and well-understood line of demarcation. The result upon the constituency will be, that the hundred of Salford will contain about 12,000 of a constituency, and the hundred of West Derby about 9,500. Sir, there are some details with respect to this division which I might mention if the House would sanction them; but I think the House will excuse them at present. I have thus endeavoured to place before the House the intentions of the Government; and to show the various considerations which have induced Her Majesty's Ministers, with the utmost impartiality, to recommend this plan to the House. There is no popular suggestion that has been supported by an amount of opinion entitled to respect, which we have not gravely considered. It will be most gratifying to us if we have succeeded in recommending to the House such a proposition as may create a constituency that will command the respect of this House, and of the country at large. Desirous to do that which we think most advantageous to the community, we have thought proper, in deference to the pledge which we previously gave, and in pursuance of that duty to the So-vereign, which we acknowledge, to bring this proposition before Parliament; and, Sir, whatever may be its fate, in making this proposition, we are convinced we have only done that which was incumbent upon us as Ministers of the Crown to bring this proposition before Parliament. Whatever may be the result of it, we are confident that we have only done our duty as Ministers of the Crown in submitting it to the consideration of this House. It is obviously a question of the greatest importance that the constitutional number of the House of Commons should be completed, and that that continuous and systematic deficiency of our number, which is perilous to the welfare of the country and to the honour of this House, should be removed. If these propositions are adopted, we believe that public opinion will sanction them, that they will contribute to the welfare of the community, and tend to increase the strength and the lustre of the House of Commons.

Sir, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I do not feel either entitled or disposed to impute to Her Majesty's Government any sinister object in the introduction of the present measure; neither shall I impute to the right hon. Gentleman that he has taken the House by surprise, nor that he has tampered with an honourable understanding; because the right hon. Gentleman has with perfect correctness cited the announcement which he himself made to us on a former occasion. He has also done me the justice to refer to an objection which, at the first moment of that announcement, and without communication with any others, I was prompted to make. But the right hon. Gentleman did not state accurately the grounds upon which I rested that objection. I did not suggest to the House that it would be wrong on the part of the Government to introduce a measure of the kind because they were suspected of a clandestine intention of procrastinating the dissolution of Parliament. What I ventured to say was this, that it was part of the constitutional duty of the House of Commons to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a pledge that no measures other than those of immediate urgency should be introduced, and that a measure for the appropriation of the four-seats vacant by the disfranchisement of St. Albans and of Sudbury could not, by any latitude of construction, be brought fairly within the description of measures of that kind. I shall not join issue with the right hon. Gentleman in any degree upon the merits of the proposition which he has just submitted; but I shall endeavour strictly to confine myself to the consideration of the question, whether the subject to which he has directed the attention of the House is one into which at the present moment the House ought to consent to inquire. I shall, therefore, instead of meeting the proposal by a direct negative, suggest that the House should pass, in the usual phrase, I believe, "to the Orders of the Day." The right hon. Gentleman states that he proposes this measure to the House upon constitutional grounds; and I am entirely in agreement with him so far as the opinion goes, that it is a question of constitutional principle, either one way or the other. If the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in showing the constitutional urgency or the necessity for the settlement of the question, I grant that the House of Commons ought to give him leave to introduce the Bill; but if he has failed in showing that constitutional necessity for now bringing forward these constitutional arrangements, I shall endeavour to urge, upon the other hand, that this is no trivial or optional matter that we are engaged in considering; but that a strong constitutional principle demands of us to refuse to the Minister the leave which he has asked of us for the introduction of his Bill. I came down to the House with some degree of curiosity with respect to the nature of the arguments which might be adduced, upon constitutional grounds, in favour of the present proposition. This is a proposition which, at the present moment, with a House of Commons which, in the emphatic and imaginative language of a noble Friend opposite, has been designated a "moribund" House of Commons—with this "moribund" House of Commons, with an Administration which does not plead the title of possessing confidence, but is about to ask for a title of confidence by an appeal to the people, it is urged upon us that we should proceed to dispose of those unappropriated seats in order to fill up the constitutional number of Members of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has an especial affection for the phrase, "constitutional number,"—master of diction as he is in all its forms, he has reverted to that phrase over and over again in the course of his speech. He has evidently some idea in his own mind associated with the phrase of the gravest importance; but I am bound to say that, so far as I may take my own perceptions as a test, he has but very imperfectly, or rather not at all, developed that idea to the House. The right hon. Gentleman makes the admission, that there is no "magic" and no "cabalistic" virtue in the number "658." He is quite right: there is neither magic nor eabalistic virtue in it. But is there any virtue of law in the principle of the Constitution—is there any solemn decision of the House of Commons—is there anything in fact beyond mere accident and the duration of about forty years, which the right hon. Gentleman decorates with the title of "prescriptive," that should recommend the number "658" to our notice? There is a popular error on this subject—there is, I believe, an idea in the popular mind that the number "658" represents the great balance of interests in this country; and that it is the number ascertained by the study of our statesmen and legislators, and that it is our duty to guard that sacred number with fidelity, and watch it with jealousy. I believe that to be entirely a misapprehension on the part of the public—I do not believe there is any "magic" in the number, and I will dispense with any claim upon the right hon. Gentleman to show it, if he will only show us that there is any law on the subject. I do not believe that he will be able to find that number distinctly stated in any one single Act of Parliament relating to the representation of the people in this House. What we do find is this—that at the time of the passing of the Act of Union with Scotland, in order—as it was a junction formed between parties of very unequal power—to secure the weaker of these two parties, a certain number of representatives was stipulated, below which number it was not to be called to send Members to the House of Commons. The stipulation on behalf of Scotland was, that it should send forty-five Members, while for Ireland, at the time of the Union, the number stipulated was 100. But these Acts of Union state no limit whatever to the total number of Members of the House of Commons; and when you consider that the Act of Union with Scotland was passed at a time when within the memory of man the power of enfranchisement had been exercised by the prerogative of the Crown, we see plainly that the Legislature of that day had no intention whatever of fixing upon any maximum number, but intended to reserve it entirely for discussion and the teachings of practical experience to reduce or extend, as might seem convenient, the total number of Members of the House of Commons. Such was the case at the time of the Union with Scotland; and in the case of the Union with Ireland you have a distinct proportion of Members allotted; but in neither of these great constitutional acts are there any indications whatever of any intention to fix and determine a maximum number. The number 658 is, I will not say a magical or cabalistic number, but it was never intended to be the legal and constitutional number which composes the British House of Commons. We come, then, to this very awkward fact—one which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, notwithstanding all the dignity which he has bestowed on this title of prescription, and the warning which he gave of the danger of disregarding and undermining their time-honoured and venerable constitutional number—that we have to recollect that up to the present time, as a matter of fact, circumstances have existed at variance with this presumed prescription; for the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke of the danger of remaining in a state of "continuous" and "systematic" deficiency in this respect. But if the deficiency has been "continuous" and "systematic," where then is the prescription? A portion of the deficiency which is now sought to be made good, has existed for several years; for the House will recollect that the Act disfranchising Sudbury was passed in 1844. Since that time eight years have elapsed—since that time we have had three Ministries of all parties in the State—since that time all parties have been successively in opposition—and no Member of that Opposition, including the party now opposite, has ever called upon the House to vindicate this sacred prescription, or has pleaded these constitutional numbers, or has said one single word upon the necessity of raising this number to the usual standard; and thus, although we have had the very same occasion as we have now—although we have passed through the ordeal of a general election during that time, and although we have 656 Members returned to Parliament instead of 658, the right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech, appealing to our fears, has stated that he thought a condition of things like this was a condition that was dangerous to the country, and menaced the honour of the House. I must confess, Sir, it is the very first time at which I have heard a regret expressed at the reduction of the number which has been consequent on an accident, as the original fixing of the standard was conse- quent on an accident before. It appears to me that it is a pure question of convenience and policy, and nothing else, what the number of Members of this House shall be. But, setting aside private opinion, whether that private opinion may be my own, or the opinion of the Minister of the Crown, the point I put to the House is this, that the right hon. Gentleman was bound, in order to make good his case, to show that there was something of constitutional sacredness or real and venerable prescription, attaching to those numbers. On the contrary I think I have shown by reference to our great legislative instruments that the number does not even exist in them—that the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to show that it is the constitutional number has entirely failed, and that he cannot make any claim upon the confidence of the House consequent upon his having established such proof of their being the constitutional number. But if such be the case as regards the argument to show that this question ought to be entertained, upon the other hand, I hope that hon. Members will recollect that those who take the view I now humbly endeavour to recommend, are not now taking and now arguing that view upon any ground of mere etiquette or punctilio. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would have been unconstitutional if the Government on coming into office had pledged itself absolutely to the introduction of any given number of measures, and no more, and bad pledged itself then to advise a dissolution. But it was constitutional, it was right, for us to expect from them what they should give, and to ask— what they conceded—not the fixing of a certain number of measures—three or four, or whatever the number might be— but it was the laying down a principle, it was the laying down what I may fairly call an engagement; because, although I may contest the construction which the right hon. Gentleman puts upon that engagement, the latitude of its scope, I at once concede to him there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to endeavour to escape therefrom. But, Sir, the principle was this, and the understanding was this—that no measures except those of immediate urgency were to be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons during the present Parliament. This was variously stated on various occasions. Sometimes it was said that none except necessary measures were to be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons before the dissolution. On one occasion, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman carried his language so high as to say that the Government would not introduce to Parliament any measures except those of absolute and indispensable necessity. I do not wish to stand on one particular expression or another, because I feel the substance of the understanding was clear in the mind of every one who hears me, and that I am not stating it too highly or strongly when I say that the understanding which was made and obtained from the Government was an understanding that no measures but those of immediate urgency should be submitted to Parliament before the dissolution. And I must remind the House that neither did that understanding rest upon any narrow ground. On the contrary, it was sought and it was obtained in vindication of principles of the highest importance and for practical objects of the greatest moment—it was in vindication of the constitutional principle, that a Government which found itself at issue with the existing Parliament on a cardinal point of its policy, was bound to take one of two alternatives, namely, either to resign office— a course which no one recommended under the circumstances—or else to make its appeal to the people. This was the constitutional principle which it was sought to vindicate. But there was another object which Parliament had in view; and that was to discharge its solemn duty to those great principles of commercial policy which we are bound, I think, to see well brought into haven, and that at the earliest possible moment. I am sure, Sir, it is a fallacy against which every man ought to guard, if we suppose that because a Government are in power, and the principles of our law in regard to commerce have not been altered by positive measures, therefore we are to- rest satisfied. It would be, I think, no fulfilment, but an abandonment, of duty, to be contented that the matter should so remain. It has been admitted on that side of the House that it is a solemn duty upon us all to bring this question to a formal and a final issue. That can only be done, as the leader of the Government has stated, and as the other Members of the Government have allowed—that can only be done by an appeal to the people by a dissolution; and, therefore, in asking for a dissolution it is not for any partial or party object; but it is because, if there be one duty more clearly incumbent than another at the present time upon that large majority of the House of Commons who have upon repeated occasions testified their own cordial adhesion to the principles of free trade, it is this—that they should not be content, whatever may be said of the existence of the minority— that they should not be content to leave those principles to exist on sufferance; that they should not be content to leave those principles to the mercy of the chapter of accidents; that they should not be content, I frankly own, to leave those principles, as matters now stand, in the guardianship of Gentlemen whose own inclinations, without doubt or disguise, are opposed to them; but that we should expedite that process which the Prime Minister has justly and fairly proposed, namely, the process of obtaining a deliberate judgment of the constituencies in regard to the principles of our commercial legislation; and that, having obtained that deliberate judgment of the constituencies, we should then find the present Administration in a condition to lay down the course of policy by which they intend to be guided; and if they find the opinion of the public is adverse to a change of the policy which has recently been pursued, then that they should frankly confess and submit to that state of facts, so that at length this great controversy may be ended, and the machinery of the Constitution may fall into its usual course and order. Now, Sir this is a question not relevant to the merits of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as compared with other proposals, and not involving any invidious or acrimonious conduct; it is a question strictly relative to the introduction of a Bill, and the inquiry whether it ought to be entertained at all, which I wish mainly to press upon the notice of the House. And yet, Sir, before I sit down, I cannot avoid pointing out, that inasmuch as it is clearly shown that there is no constitutional ground of claim for the introduction of such a question at such a period, there is, on the other hand, a great inconvenience attending its introduction. In the first place, surely it is a sound canon of Parliamentary proceedings, that of all measures whatever, except those of immediate urgency—under all circumstances, and without the slightest reference to this at the present time—the eve of a dissolution of Parliament is the worst possible moment for their introduction, because it is plain it is a moment at which local partialities and personal interests are most alive, and at which there is the most difficulty for a Member of the House of Commons to give a deliberate and dispassionate judgment. But, beyond that, I will say this is a question with regard to which two essential conditions for consideration entirely fail at the present moment. The first of those conditions is this—although the scale of the subject be a small one—although it may appear to be no great matter what may be done with so small and insignificant a fraction of the representation as four seats, in the number which formerly amounted to 658—yet it is plain that this is a question of high policy, deserving of the most serious consideration; and, of all others, it is a question that ought to be approached once for all—it ought to be approached when it can be settled. Those seats ought not to be held up to the country as a prize for every man to snatch at. The matter ought to be discussed and settled, not in an unsettled and provisional state of things like the present, but when you have an Administration in possession of definite and decided political power. The right hon. Gentleman has already seen some indications, and has already mentioned some indications, of the disposition of all parties who are not represented, or who think they are not sufficiently represented, to catch at the possession of the vacant seats. Well, but surely these are claims which ought to be settled, not at haphazard, not by accidental divisions amongst parties nearly balanced, in a disorganized state of the House of Commons; but any proposal made for disposing of the claims to these vacant seats, whether they be one or a thousand, ought to be a proposal backed by the whole authority of a strong Executive, and a proposal which, when once seriously entertained, ought not to leave the table of the House until a definitive conclusion has been arrived at. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are great difficulties in this case to which he has hardly adverted, and which he, perhaps, found it necessary to pass over. I have said that it is essential to the interests of the country that when you decide a question, you should decide it under the advice and guidance of a Government in full possession of power. All questions touching the representation of the people are of so vital a character that they can only be settled on that condition. But, besides that I say, when you consider the multitude of parties who all think they can make a fair and plausible claim to the possession of these seats, you are bound to consider what is due to them, and to the feelings which they entertain. I do not say you can please them all; but you are bound to satisfy all that they have had a fair hearing and a full consideration of their case. Nay, I may put it to the right hon. Gentleman and the House whether he thinks this House of Commons, this "moribund" Parliament, is in a condition at this moment to give a fair hearing and full consideration to all those different claims. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to some of those claims. He alluded to the claims of the Universities, and he says, in the case of the Universities of Scotland, the claim is based upon a title to respect and approbation, and if I rightly understood that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the upshot of it was this—that it was in consequence of the want of machinery that he had forgone the idea of entertaining the question of representation so far as regards the Scotch Universities. But suppose time were given, and that the representatives of the Universities of Scotland should find that substantially a degree means nothing but a certificate of attendance, and that they can certify that attendance by other means—that there are records of it on the books—that they can fix upon something by which that condition may be satisfied, and you can constitute a proper register— I do not prejudge the question; but I say it a question on which all parties ought to be fairly heard, and you cannot hear the Universities simply because you do not find a registry in existence, and between this time and the dissolution it is impossible to organise the machinery to create one. If such be the case of the Scotch Universities, I may say the same of the Inns of Court, whose claims ought to be heard and considered. And there is also another class of claimants—the class connected with unenfranchised towns. I do not enter into the question whether the Scotch Universities, or the Inns of Courts, or the unenfranchised towns, or the old constituencies ought to receive these seats; but I say it is our duty carefully and thoroughly to examine and investigate the question—it is our duty to enter upon the question when, at any rate, we have a free and unembarassed choice, and not to narrow the field of our own choice by choosing precipitately at a time when we are precluded on this side and on that from conferring the franchise on new constituencies. For instance, I will say frankly that when the late Government proposed to confer the franchise on two large towns now unenfranchised— Burnley and Birkenhead—I had not had the opportunity of examining their claims, and I express no opinion upon them; but I say it would be rather hard if we were to pass by the claims of those parties by legislating at a period when it is impossible for the House to entertain them. The House cannot now legislate in their favour, because they have no registry. That is an absolute bar which cnnnot be surmounted. What I ask is this—can you expect the people of Burnley and Birkenhead, or other places similarly circumstanced, to be satisfied with the verdict the House of Commons shall give, if you are determined, without any constitutional sacredness or necessity whatever, to go to issue upon those questions at a time when it is matter of physical impossibility to bring them within the sphere of representation? Now, Sir, these are the reasons on which I hope the House will decline to entertain the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be sorry, indeed, if I had omitted to notice any argument of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the number of Members composing this House. I feel there is something in his own mind which he has not opened out and explained. I feel there is something in the phrase "constitutional number" which I have not been able to fathom. All I have been able to do is to observe what has taken place in history, and to consult the laws which are upon our Statute-book. From all these it appears upon the clearest evidence that the idea of any legal title or constitutional virtue attaching to the number 658 is as pure a fiction as ever entered the mind of man. It appears as a matter of fact, patent and notorious to all the world, that for the last eight years, during three Ministries, and with a general election intervening, we have fallen short of that constitutional number." such being the case, I put it to the House that there is no title of a constitutional character to be made for the measure; that, on the other hand, we are under high constitutional and political obligations to go straightforward to a dissolution, and to deal with nothing between us and the dissolution except matters of immediate and temporary urgency; and that even when we turn to considerations of detail, so far from this being the time when there is a peculiar convenience in the entertainment of the present question, it is, of all periods, the worst and most inconvenient that could be selected, and a period at which—if we precipitately hurry a decision—it is impossible for us to expect that that decision shall give satisfaction to the many claimants upon those franchises whom we are bound to hear, or to the people at large, who view necessarily with the utmost interest the decision and disposal of a question appertaining to the representative system of this country. Sir, I now beg to move that the House do now proceed to dispose of the Orders of the Day.

said, this clause contained the essence of the Bill, which was to create an army of reserve of 80,000 men. If the Government must appeal to the country upon the question of distributing the vacant seats, he hoped they would also appeal to the country upon a matter of such grave importance as this, and not proceed further with the measure at present. He could conceive nothing more important to the Government in a financial point of view, or as it regarded the content or discontent of the people. Every sitting of the House brought petitions against this Bill; and if the cogent reasons for postponement offered by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) applied to the last question, they applied, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, with much greater force to the present Motion. Seeing the situation of the country, be trusted Her Majesty's Government would say this was a fit subject to be postponed; and if it should be brought forward in a new Parliament, and he should be returned to that Parliament, he should meet it with that moderation which a question of this great importance demanded. He was as anxious as any man to make our defences effective, hut, having seen so much money squandered in useless establishments, and believing that the expenditure contemplated under this Bill would also be useless, he should move that the Chairman do now report progress, asking the Government to appeal to the country upon a question for which, it was admitted on all hands, there was no urgent demand. The noble Lord at the head of the late Government introduced the question as one of urgency. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department mooted the question as one of great urgency. But both sides now agreed that it was not a question of urgency, but of permanent establishment. He submitted, therefore, he was not unreasonable in asking that it might be referred to the country in the appeal which was about to take place.

said, the proposition of the hon. Member was not a very reasonable one. There was a great distinction between this question and that on which the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had spoken. In the latter case the question was whether the House considered it ought to go on with a proposal for filling up the vacant seats; and the House had refused to entertain that proposal. But with regard to this Bill, the House, instead of refusing to entertain it, hod affirmed it by repeated majorities. Under these circumstances, they (the Government) should bow most readily and cheerfully to the decision of the House in the one instance, and he thought the opinion of the House upon the other question ought to influence hon. Gentlemen.

said, he should withdraw his Amendment, and take the opinion of the House upon the clause, which he hoped a majority would reject.

said, he was distinctly of opinion that the Bill would not have received such consideration and favour from the House, had it been introduced under the very different circumstances in which it now stood. He said that circumstances had greatly changed since they last discussed this measure. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London said, that he did not think there was any urgency for the Bill, and that he had no fear of immediate danger; and the noble Lord at the head of the present Government had made on Saturday night a speech which was essentially a peace speech. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, by withdrawing the ballot for a year, had given the militia force all the character of an army of reserve, who were therefore to be regarded as troops of the line, only that they received a larger bounty and were only to spend a certain time in training, instead of being permanently embodied. A circumstance had likewise happened tonight which he thought most important. There could be no doubt whatever, and he thought no one on the opposite side of the House would dispute it, that the division to-night was not unexpected by the Government, and he was not sure that it was not sought by the Government. He believed that the object of the Government was now to fulfil the engagement into which they had entered—that Parliament should be speedily dissolved with a view to meeting in the autumn, when the present dislocated state of the House would not interfere with the fair consideration of public business. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to-night to introduce a measure of the most important character. He (Mr. Bright) thought there were points in it which were not noticed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) quite as important as those to which he had alluded in the speech he had just made. The House came to a division immediately after one speech on each side. Such a thing was scarcely known with regard to a question introduced by the leader of the House of Commons. He doubted whether the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), or any hon. Gentleman who had sat in that House as long as the hon. Member, could recollect such an instance. And a majority of not less than eighty-six had emphatically and at once voted against even entertaining a proposition which the leader of the House of Commons and a distinguished Member of that House had introduced. That showed that the Government did not enjoy that which was understood as meaning the confidence of the House of Commons. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department said, this military question was different, because it had been received by the House with large majorities. He (Mr. Bright) denied altogether that any majority of that House had expressed an opinion beyond this—that the question of the public defences was one which required consideration, and that there was ground for believing that the defences of the country were not in a satisfactory condition. But he denied that a majority in that House had expressed any opinion in favour of a militia proposition, and if hon. Gentlemen took their own (the Ministerial) side of the House, they would find nearly every military man objected to it. Every one of them on that (the Opposition) side objected to it; and the press told them that all military men out of the House took exception to it. The votes of the majorities which the right hon. Gentleman claimed were given in favour of greater attention being paid to the question of defences. That was something, and was probably necessary; but he submitted that, in the present condition of Parliament, it was much better that this question should not be huddled up without being a question of immediate necessity, and that it should be left over to that, which was the highest tribunal to which appeal could be made in this country. This question involved the ex- penditure of 750,000l. in the next two or three years; it involved the raising of 80,000 men for martial occupation, who were now engaged in industry; and at the close of this year it would involve, in all probability, the calling out of the people by ballot, which was but an organised and arranged system of pressgang, from various classes, to become members of the force they were about to embody. He begged to direct the attention of the Committee to the speeches at the Mansion-house on Saturday night. He would not describe the fare provided by the distinguished people who had the arrangement of these entertainments; but his attention was drawn to the speeches, and to those speeches he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. The speech of the noble Earl at the head of the Government was essentially a peace speech. The noble Earl gave the strongest reasons for believing that between this and every other country, especially between this country and France, there was no question in dispute or in agitation which could require or justify the raising of an additional force in this country. And if they turned to the speech of the French Ambassador, then present, and who spoke, not only for his own Government and for his own country, hut for all the corps diplomatique who permitted him to represent them on that occasion, they would see that—unless these distinguished men, the noble Lord the Prime Minister and the French Ambassador, were men whose words were not to be trusted upon any question, they gave the most satisfactory assurances—the most explicit and reiterated assurances—not only that there was no question in dispute, but that feelings of the most perfect amity and the most perfect confidence existed between this country and France, and between this country and all the other important countries in the world. And if that were so—and he did not read speeches of Prime Ministers and French Ambassadors as speeches of persons who were stating what they did not believe—lie read them with a consciousness that they were stating what was true—if that were so, those speeches had been read by this time by scores of thousands of intelligent persons: and he would ask what would those intelligent persons say, if they believed the Prime Minister and the distinguished men at that dinner—if they believed those facts to be facts—vv!;at would they think if Parliament and the Govern- ment insisted upon urging through, under the circumstances of the present Session, a measure which he ventured to say was more important, and, on many points, more to be dreaded, than any measure of a military character offered to the House of Commons since the year 1815? Then if that were the state of things, and if there were no symptom, no expression, of public opinion in favour of this Bill—if they could not point to a single paper in London which advocated the measure—if the provincial press, almost without a single exception, was against it—unless the Government could upset their own case, for it was Lord Derby's case with which he was now dealing, they could not expect to be allowed to proceed with this Bill until something more had been said by the Government, and till the House of Commons were informed that the speeches at the Mansion-house, and the statements of the distinguished persons present, were not the real truth, but were intended to conceal the truth, and that there was a danger against which we ought to be prepared. He was of opinion that the course they were taking was calculated more than anything else to produce the result they were proposing to avoid. He saw that morning, in a respectable provincial paper, an extract from a letter received by a gentleman in a town in the north of England, from a friend of his, for many years resident in Paris, in which he said that to his certain knowledge one of the Ministers of the French President had stated to an English gentleman at Paris that he knew of nothing so calculated to create unfortunate feelings between France and England as the discussions going on in this House and in this country; and he stated further, that he had himself prevented, in the plenitude of that power which the Government of France, unfortunately as he thought, now enjoyed, all extracts from English papers calculated to excite ill feeling in France against this country being inserted in the French journals. If they had been inserted, nothing could have prevented the stimulation of a feeling of antagonism and suspicion, like that attempted to be created here; and if the Government of France had had any designs against England, what was more easy than to have allowed extracts from English papers and extracts from speeches in that House to have been published all over France, whereby feelings of anger might have been excited, akin to, if not worse than, those which in this country had been aroused? He had now shown the Committee that, judging from the press, from meetings and from petitions, there was not the slightest demand for this measure, but general apprehension of its passing. He had shown them also that, taking the speeches of the noble Lord at the head of the Government and of the French Ambassador, speaking in the names of the ambassadors of the chief countries in Europe, every ground upon which they had endeavoured to persuade Parliament to consent to this measure had no foundation whatever, and had sunk entirely from under their feet. He had shown them that which he need not have shown them, for it was patent to every one —Government had proposed a measure, and had been outvoted by a majority of nearly 100. He had argued that such a vote must precipitate a dissolution of Parliament, which the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night was not remote but imminent. He argued that it was more imminent from what had taken place to-night, and that he was fairly entitled to ask the Committee not at once to divide on this clause, but to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the Government would not even now consent to postpone this Bill for their own better consideration in the recess, and the more impartial consideration of Parliament after a general election. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department should say that was an unreasonable proposition, what could be more reasonable than that he should postpone the Bill to some other day this week, Thursday or Friday, that the subject might be again considered by a Cabinet which it would be an insult to their common sense and to their common patriotism were he to assume that a single Member of it was wishful this measure should pass into a law? It was one of those unpleasant legacies left them by their predecessors. They were not to blame for the original idea. They were not to blame that a Militia Bill should have been introduced into the House. They were not to blame for asking for 80,000, when the first proposition was for 120,000 men. But they were to blame if, seeing the arguments which had been brought against it, and the general opinion of the country, and looking at the condition of Parliament, they persisted in doing that which every an felt, even on their own side, they were unable to defend by arguments, though supported by majorities. Upon these grounds, if the right hon. Gentleman would not postpone the Bill till next Session, he called upon him for the reasons he had given to defer it until Thursday or Friday. If he persisted, they who acted with him (Mr. Bright) could not prevent the measure being passed; but, having strong convictions on the subject, it would be their bounden duty, though an impotent minority, to resist to the utmost of their power the further progress of the Bill.

submitted that if there had been any desire on the part of France to interfere with us, she could not have had a better opportunity than the interval during which we were left without any government, or the possibility of taking measures for the national defence. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester, that the' circumstances were now entirely changed, and he trusted the Government would accede to the hon. Member's proposition.

thought there were other reasons which should induce the Government to pause in proceeding with the measure besides the division to-night, to which he would not refer. One reason was the remarkable change which had taken place since this Bill was first introduced. It was then strongly impressed upon the House that two successive Governments had each declared that it was a measure of urgency. The inference was, that certain facts were known to those Governments in their official position which it would be imprudent to disclose, but that those facts were sufficient to ask the House, upon their authority, to proceed with the measure. No longer ago than the last night the House sat, the noble Lord at the head of the late Administration (Lord John Russell) distinctly stated that there was no urgency, no fears of immediate danger, no suspicion of designs by a 'person who presides over a neighbouring country. If there were any immediate danger, the noble Lord must have been acquainted with it. The succeeding Government had postponed the only feature of the Bill connected with the question of urgency—the right of raising men by ballot—until the end of the present year. Thus by the express words of one Government, and, what was stronger than words, by the acts of another Government, they had a contradiction of the impressions under which many had previously voted. They had now the conjoint assurance of the two Governments that it was not a measure of urgency—that there was no occasion for any precipitation whatever in its passing through the House. The inevitable conclusion was that there was no immediate apprehension—that no peril whatever would be incurred until the new Parliament assembled. This was not a measure of national defences against impending dangers. It was really a step towards a change in the policy of this country—a step towards making it more a military country, and giving it a different position among European nations, who measured their strength and importance by their arms. It was not strange that official persons should desire to change the policy of this country. It was, no doubt, a very gratifying thing for those who conducted the diplomacy of this country to be able to confer upon the supposition that there were certain great armies at their back to enforce their arguments. He would not say whether such a policy was or was not desirable. The present was not a time to enter upon that question. It might be that, in the opinion of a great majority of the people of this country, it was glory enough for any nation to be the greatest of naval and commercial empires that the world had ever seen. But if the question raised was whether the House of Commons was content to make England a more military power, that was a question for a new Parliament calmly and deliberately to consider, and certainly not a question hastily to be carried through what was very properly called a merely moribund Parliament. The statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer led many to suppose that free trade was at last a settled matter. Since that time various expressions had been used in that House and elsewhere which produced a contrary opinion, and led the people to apprehend that in some form or another an attempt would be made to reverse it. Now, Her Majesty's Government could not urge on a matter for forming an army of reserve under more inauspicious circumstances than by connecting it in the minds of the people of this country with an attempt to re-establish the corn laws, or something equivalent to the corn laws. They would regard as a most ominous conjunction the revival of protection, or an equivalent to protection, and the revival of a militia force. He was urging this in no hostile spirit, but upon the ground that it would be politic and prudent for Her Ma- jesty's Government to postpone this question to a period not far distant—namely, upon the assembling of a new Parliament.

said, it was not very reasonable to be called on to go into repeated discussions on the principle of the Bill, and it was not out of any disrespect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if he declined to enter into the general arguments. But there was one point, to which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) had alluded, which he begged to explain, with reference to the assertion that the noble Lord at the head of the late Administration had changed his views of the urgency of the measure. The noble Lord, when appealed to by the hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Wakley), gave his reasons for preferring his own proposition, but still expressed his opinion that some measure of this kind was necessary for the permanent safety of the country. With regard to the observation, upon the postponement of the ballot, from which the hon. Member inferred that this measure was considered by the present Government to be no longer an urgent one, he begged the hon. Member would recollect that urgency did not depend so much upon the ballot as upon voluntary enlistment. By the ballot they could not obtain the force necessary in less than three or four months; by voluntary enlistment they might obtain it certainly in as many weeks, probably in as many days. Supposing that the Government had argued that urgency was necessary, to say that they had postponed the ballot was no reason to induce the House to suppose that the urgency was not the same. This clause had already been discussed two evenings; three divisions bad been taken upon it, and everything that could be said had been said for it. He now hoped the Committee would go on with the remaining clauses.

said, he thought that in a Parliament which was about to expire, they ought not to commence an expenditure which might lead to, he did not know the amount, but immediately to 500,000l. for bounty, and to a permanent army of reserve of 80,000 men. He said the Committee could not, and ought not, to support that proposition without having its necessity clearly pointed out. All that he wanted was to have it postponed for the decision of a new Parliament, and he hoped Government would agree to do so.

said, he could not see what an addition to the Parliamentary representation had to do with the defences of the country. He might be wrong as to the nature of the danger; hut he certainly did think there was all the less of it when the country was prepared. He could not understand the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Militia, when he considered their antagonism to standing armies. The militia was constituted on a far better footing than the National Guard of France, or the militia of America. He would far rather pay taxes than have contributions levied on him, either directly by foreign bayonets, or indirectly in the form of a forced loan. He would not be a party to defeating the Bill in any shape whatever, because he believed it to be absolutely necessary.

said, that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department had said they had been discussing the principle of the Bill for several evenings. He admitted that; and it appeared to him that they ought to discuss it again, and persist in discussing it until they had satisfied Her Majesty's Government that they ought not to persist in attempting to carry such a measure. Then the Government position was very much changed by the vote of this evening. They had been revelling lately in majorities, apparently very subservient majorities, and so subservient that they thought they would never miss them. There was a whip on their side of the House, and there might have been some lashing on his side. But they had now experienced a most mortifying and signal defeat, and experienced it, too, upon a strictly Government question—upon a Ministerial proposition— a proposition, respecting the character of which there could be no mistake. He would ask any lover of constitutional government on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, whether such a thing was to be found in the history of this country as that an Administration, being in a minority of 86 in a House of 382 Members, should demand to have conceded to them the power of raising a militia force of 50,000 men? He strongly suspected that if Parliament were dissolved next month, the Government would not be very anxious that a new Parliament should be assembled before November, and possibly not before December, so that the raising of the militia would most probably be confided to a minority of that House. Instead of being demanded, this Bill was detested and dreaded by the whole community, and the minority ought to avail themselves of the forms of the House in their resistance to it. He did not care at all about being called factious, believing that he was but performing his duty in conscientiously and constitutionally resisting the further progress of this Bill. He saw no grounds for such a measure. It seemed to have been produced by some whim or caprice. As to the French, they appeared satisfied with their President, and he with them; and he (Mr. Wakley) declared that within the last twenty years he had never seen so little probability of a commotion in France as at that moment. The Motion for reporting progress had been withdrawn by the hon. Member for Montrose, but it was in his (Mr. Wakley's) power to renew it, and he should do so. He thought it but fair to the Government, after what had passed that evening, that they should have the opportunity of calmly considering for two or three days the nature of their position. He believed he should be rendering them a very great service by enabling them to abandon with a good grace a measure which was uncalled for and unpopular, and he should, therefore, conclude by moving that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by saying that Government were in a minority, and a Government in a minority ought not to advise the Crown to raise 50,000 men for defensive purposes; and he concluded his speech by telling Government they ought not to go on with a tyrannical majority against the wishes of the people, who, he believed, were decidedly against the Bill. Now, if it be a fact that Government were in a majority, and that that House, by a majority, had confirmed the principle of the Bill, was it not right that the Bill should be proceeded with? The House were agreed upon the principle of the Bill, and they were now called upon to consider the details. The hon. Member might show that the principle of the Bill was bad, but that principle having been affirmed, he would not discuss it then. If the hon. Member was right in his argument, the proper time would be to discuss the principle at the third reading.

said, that, representing a constituency of no small magnitude, he wished to express on their behalf strong opposition to this measure. Having lis- tened to all the debates, he must say he had not heard a single argument which tended to convince him of the necessity for it. If carried out, it would, he believed, have a most demoralising effect on the population. He was old enough to recollect the embodiment of the local militia; and he knew what the men were when they left their homes, and what they were when they returned. Believing the measure to be a most mischievous one, he should make no apology for endeavouring by every means in his power to throw it out.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Wakley) had spoken of the division against the Government. The persons, he believed, who were most surprised at that division were those who supported the Amendment. A great number of Members who would have voted for the question had left the House, under the impression that the division would not have taken place at so early an hour. It was with the greatest difficulty he got into the House in time to give his vote, and there were several Members in the lobby in a state of consternation because they could not get in. He deeply lamented the division. He thought the proposition of Government was perfectly fair and liberal; and he would tell hon. Members who had professed liberal politics that they could not have taken a more unpopular mode than that of voting against the Government measure. It was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they must not pass measures of importance in a moribund Parliament; but some measures the country would expect the Government to propose, as necessary to the public service; and a Bill to provide for the completion of the next House of Commons might fairly be considered a measure essential to the Parliamentary and constitutional government of this country. The opponents of this measure by their acts desired to provide that after the dissolution, an imperfect and incomplete Parliament should consider important measures. Hon. Members opposite often argued that the votes of Members representing large constituencies ought to tell for more than one vote each, because they represented more persons and property than other Members. All their argument turned against them—because by the recent division they declared that the representation should not be more equally distributed. Now with respect to the militia measure, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ellis) said he objected to it be- cause of the grievous moral injury it would inflict on the population. The hon. Member said he remembered the consequences which resulted from the last local militia. This Bill, however, was not intended to be a Local Militia Bill. But there were special circumstances connected with the religious opinions of the hon. Member, which made him abhor both a militia and an army. To state those opinions was doubtless very creditable to the hon. Gentleman; he deprecated a resort to arms, he deprecated military power, altogether, and of course, he deprecated a militia. But on account of these special circumstances, the hon. Member was not at liberty to give an unbiassed opinion. The hon. Member came to the discussion with a forgone conclusion; and though the hon. Member was justly entitled to give an opinion, still that opinion must stand singly; at all events, merely as the opinion of the Society of Friends, to which the hon. Member was attached. With respect to dividing the House, he trusted they would not have another snapped division like that which had just taken place. He trusted the House would not permit the principle of this Militia Bill to be mutilated in Committee, since they had already sanctioned it. The principle had over and over again been confirmed by large majorities; it was vain, therefore, to expect to defeat the measure—it could only be uselessly obstructed. It was all very well for the hon. Gentlemen over the way to disclaim being actuated by factious motives. They were, nevertheless, acting factiously, however, and the country, he was sure, would think so.

said, with reference to what had been termed a snapped division, that he had himself been shut out from it, and he understood that the division was called for by the hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate), however, talked of a snapped division, he bogged to refer him to the recent division. The numbers were for the Motion 148, against it 234, tellers 4, pairs 80, these making a total of 466 Members. Now 466 Members was a large portion of that House, though it had been said many went away not expecting a division; that argument might operate on both sides—so there was an end of the hon. Member's snapped division. The fact was, that the hon. Gentleman knew the majority of that House was against Government on that question. The opinion of the House was, and is, that the present Government ought simply to pass only those measures necessary for the good government of the country; to defer all other measures, and to bring the Parliament to an end. He readily acknowledged that on the Militia Bill a majority of the House was in favour of it. But he understood how that was. First, the Administration which preceded the present Government introduced a similar Bill, and a large portion of their supporters was hound by the votes they gave. But the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had since broken loose from his bond, and was against a Militia Bill, or at least this Militia Bill. There was a large portion of that House, representing a very large section of the population, who were strongly opposed to all Militia Bills. They were now addressing Government in consequence of the recent vote, by which their minority was remarkably brought to view. And they said, "Why not do what you intend to do? Do just enough to carry on the public business until you can go fairly before the constituencies, and when you get another Parliament, do what a constitutional Government ought to do." Supposing Government were in a majority on this Bill, they would still be crippled; for they who were in a minority would turn round and say, "Any Government beaten as you are, as a constitutional Government ought to resign." It was clear Government could not escape from the difficulty, except on the principle that they would appeal to the country. If Government told them that, then he yielded. But Government said, "It is true we are beaten, but it is in a House of Commons that is not ours, and that we believe does not properly represent the people of the country." To that he replied, "If you pass the Bill, you are shattered and shaken by your position: you will be unable to do that which is right in the next Parliament in consequence of your false position." The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was hampered by his position —he was bound by one set of opinions, while he was doing all he could to maintain the opinions of Gentlemen behind him. The right hon. Gentleman was not at the present moment in a straightforward course: and he (Mr. Roebuck) could tell the Government they could not on that account govern the country. The right hon. Gentleman might be in a majority on the Bill, but he was in a minority as far as the House was concerned; he could not, therefore, maintain right principles— he could not govern the country on fixed principles. He did not care who came forward and told him Government were right on this question, and that they had a majority in that House: still it was dear Government were playing a false game, their authority was shaken, and they could not do what was right. In a constitutional point of view he contended Government ought to withdraw not only this Bill, but every Bill except the Mutiny Bill and the Bills requisite for the Army and Navy services. The House had passed in confidence the greater portion of those measures, and therefore the best thing the right hon. Gentleman could do for himself and the country was to bring the matter to a close—to withdraw this Bill—and then if the country was willing to have it, they would enable Government then, but not till then, not only to carry that Bill, but all other Bills for supporting the peculiar views of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made a good deal of the division, but he (Mr. New-degate) could only say that he knew that a great number of the supporters of the Government were shut out. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was shut out too, and, therefore, the question remained a moot point. As far as the measure was concerned, he again stated that the House, by a large majority, had already determined that some such measure of defence should pass, and he, therefore, trusted Her Majesty's Government would persevere; for if hon. Gentlemen had wished the Session to be brought to a close, why did they not select some opportunity before of defeating the Government?

said, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had explained very satisfactorily the flimsiness of the pretence that the division was early and unexpected. He would now account for the opposition he intended to offer to the Bill. He had been told if the 7th Clause were rejected, it would endanger the Bill —that was a strong inducement for him to endeavour to get that clause rejected. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) had been very eloquent in the laudation of ft militia. Why, then, did the hon. and learned Gentleman not extend the benefit to Ireland? Why should England have a militia, and not Ireland? He had always heard, at least from cooks, that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander; hut here all the sauce was given to the goose, and none to the gander. Ireland, however, though left out of the Bill, was included in the more important part of it—for Ireland would have to pay her share of the burden. He could not help connecting this 7th Clause with the 11th Clause of the Bill, which empowered the Secretary at War to make regulations for the payment of money to volunteers by way of bounty, not exceeding 6l. at the utmost, and not exceeding 2s. 6d. per month during the term of service for which the volunteers were enrolled. Now there was not a man in England who would not prefer to have the money down rather than receive it at the rate of 2s. 6d. per month. For one reason, the man might not live for five years—he might be shot in those dangerous movements which would wait upon those feather-bed soldiers. But if the money were paid down at once, it would only serve as a premium upon emigration to America. Suppose a parish in which there was what politicians called a congestion of population. The male population in that parish would gladly accept the bounty, which would pay their passage to Quebec or New York, and leave them something in hand when they got there. Then he did not see the necessity of this Bill, as they were at present at peace with the whole world except the Kafirs. Some hon. Gentleman observed in an under tone, when that observation was made before, that they were not at peace with the Irish. Well, he did not know that there was very cordial peace between them, but at any rate there was no actual war. There was an item in the Budget of 600,000l for the expenses of the Kafir war. He bad lately asked a friend who had just returned from Kafirland, what notions the Kafirs entertained of Christianity? His reply was, that one part of the Kafirs considered Christianity meant brandy and tobacco, for it was through the agency of brandy and tobacco that conversions were attempted to be made. Another part of the Kafirs considered that Christianity meant burning of corn, stealing of cattle, abusing women, and slaughtering one another. Now he would ask the Committee was it not time to put an end to all this bloodshed and expense? He contended that a Militia Bill was not needed, and that Go- vernment were not justified in inflicting it on the country. The men were to be drilled for twenty-one days, and then to be set at liberty to go where they liked. That was called providing for the defence of the country. He might refer the Committee to the authority of Paley for the reasons why that celebrated philosopher thought a regular military force preferable to a militia for the defence of the country. He had not heard a single argument from hon. Members opposite in favour of the Bill. If the public prints were to be believed, no one could apprehend any danger from France. The President seemed to be occupied in consolidating his power, in promoting schemes for the improvement of France by railroads, drainage, education, and other peaceful works, and in breaking down that terrible band of men, the leaders of the Red Republicans. It was quite true that the present Bill had been supported by large majorities, but majorities were not always in the right; and it ought not to be forgotten that there were many lieutenants of counties in that House who would have a great deal of patronage under the Bill, if it became law. He thought the Bill unwarranted and uncalled for.

rose to state, that he should give his vote for this clause, namely, the raising a militia force of 80,000 men for the defences of the country. He had voted for the second reading of this Bill, not that he approved fully of its details, but that as both sides of the House had agreed that our national defences were defective, and that it was necessary without further delay to place them in a state of efficiency, the natural question which presented itself was the best mode of effecting this object. Now, he admitted his opinions at first had been in favour of increasing the regular Army, and encouraging the formation of volunteer rifle corps; but the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had convinced him that the establishment of a general militia force of the nature proposed by the present Bill, was, all things considered, the most effective and most permanent way of accomplishing this object. He did not wish to see a mere temporary measure carried, but he wished to place our defences in a permanent state of security. Now, the noble Lord had very justly remarked if Parliament now consented to a vote for the increase of the regular Army, as soon as the apparent danger had subsided, probably next year or the one following, the House would refuse the necessary supplies, and the force would be abandoned—thus having put the country to a serious expense without effecting any adequate or permanent advantage. A militia would be a permanent and continuous force, and further; what had not been sufficiently dwelt upon, it Would be a school and a reserve for the supply of troops to our Army. But he (Mr. Sandars) had said, that though he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, thus admitting its principle, yet he did not agree with one important feature, namely, compulsory conscription. He felt sure in that part of the country in which he resided, the West Riding of Yorkshire, the feeling was so strong against the compulsory enlistment clause, that it would be next to impossible to carry it out; and he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department would not persist in maintaining the 16th Clause in the Bill: if he did, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. The right hon. Gentleman had said "the present Bill was, in fact, in-tended to render voluntary enlistment a substitute for compulsory conscription;" he, therefore, asked the right hon. Secretary at once to carry out his intention, by striking out that clause. The Government had declared they would not put the ballot in force till after the 31st of December. Now, as Parliament would meet again in autumn, when, if necessary, fresh powers might be sought for, he would call upon the Government not to incur, when there Was no pressing necessity, the odium of carrying this unpopular clause. He saw really no cause for it; for if the volunteer principle failed in providing the full complement of men, and if an emergency should arise, there was still the Act of '42 Geo. III. to fall back upon. He had ft further objection to the compulsory clause, and that was, the militia being subject to the Mutiny Act, they would be liable to the degrading punishments of that Act. But if these enlistments were entered into voluntarily, with their eyes open to the facts, then he did not see that they or the public had a right to complain. As the division which had just taken place had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, he might be allowed to say that he knew well the counties of the West Riding and South Lancashire, and he believed that the vote which hon. Gentlemen opposite had given would prove an unpopular vote in those counties. The country would see that it was a party measure to embarrass the Government and place them in a minority; a fairer proposition for the disposal of the four vacant seats it was next to impossible to imagine.

would admit that our defences were not in a satisfactory state, nor were they so well protected against probable or even possible danger as they might be. He had for years thought that the country was exposed to risk of an aggressive character, to which it ought not to be left. But, notwithstanding, he was opposed to this Bill, because it was to be remembered that, in addition to the annual sum of 28,000,000l. sterling they already paid for interest on the expenses of former wars, they had this very year voted the sum of 16,000,000l. for military purposes; and he did not believe that any military authority would say that this sum, if judiciously expended, was not sufficient for all purposes of military defence. But the truth was, they sent their army to the Colonies when they were wanted at home. What business was there for troops at the Ionian Islands, or Canada, when they were apprehensive of being attacked at home? Besides, it was admitted that this force was not calculated to cope with the only enemy they had to dread, and he believed they would not be forthcoming when they were wanted. In addition to all this, he contended that even if such a measure as the present were necessary, the present Government were not the parties to press the question, especially after the vote that had been come to that night.

would content himself with stating that his constituents were unanimously opposed to this Bill.

said, that he thought it would be much more equitable, and less oppressive to the country, assuming that we really wanted an additional force of 50,000 men, and that 40,000 volunteered, and the additional 10,000 to be balloted for, they should be taken from the counties pro rata in proportion to the number of their inhabitants, without reference to where the volunteers came from: the effect of this would be, that those counties which had least employment for labour, would probably furnish the greatest number of volunteers; and those where labour was-profitably employed, the least. This would interfere less with the industry of the country than the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers. There was no doubt that a militia force was more or less demoralising, and all military authorities who had spoken on the subject, admitted the plan contemplated would be inefficient; and an increase to the standing army was disliked by the country. He therefore wished them to consider whether an increase of our constabulary and police force would not be better: although it might cost a little more, it would be efficient; all that were embodied to be paid as now by the counties and boroughs, but the additional numbers to be paid for by the State: one-third or one-fourth of them to be sent into barracks every year for three months, and thoroughly drilled; and when not in barracks, to assist the civil power, without arms, to protect persons and property. Thus being constantly employed, and under discipline, they would never be lost sight of, and always at hand to meet any emergency.

said, he must express his decided and unqualified disapproval of the measures both of the late and of the present Government. He was perfectly impartial, as he belonged to no political party; and he had come to the deliberate conclusion that no argument had been used on either side of the House to justify the measure. In addition to the expense of the force, he would remind the Committee of the loss that would be sustained in these men's labour, which, if they were to estimate the 80,000 men as earning on an average 15s. a week each, and if they were kept out on drill thirty days in each year, would amount to 240,000l.

said, he should move the omission of the clause. He could not help complaining of the contrast which the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of his party on that occasion presented to the course which they had pursued on the Opposition benches.

said, the hon. Gentleman had stated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had on former occasions always been ready to oppose every proposition for the expenditure of public money. But that was not so; for wherever the credit, the honour, and the security of the country were involved, he had never opposed propositions for expenditure. As he was not prepared to oppose grants of public money to pay the dividends to the public creditor, so he was not prepared to oppose any disbursement of public money for the defence of the country. He would say nothing more on the clause, which had been under discussion during two nights. He believed that what the public then required was a declaration of opinion by the votes of their representatives.

said, that the honour and the interests of the country were not at stake on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had utterly failed to establish any such position; and it was on that ground that he (Mr. Hume) opposed the measure. He would be one of the first to support any proposal which was based on the necessity of maintaining the public credit. But the measure before them was only a means of endangering that credit. All profligate Governments exhausted the public resources by unnecessary expenditure. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite went on in that way, he should be obliged to move again that the Chairman should leave the chair, because he was not to bullied. He threw back the imputation that he was anxious to destroy the public credit. He had done as much as any body to preserve it. If it had not been for what he had done, the public credit would not have been in so good a position as it now was in. He wanted to keep the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer full, in order that he might be able to reduce taxation. The right hon. Gentleman was now going to expend the public money uselessly. Not a single constituency, except, perhaps a county one, would be in favour of it; and the military officers all differed as to the best mode of defending the country. He was sorry to find those people who had called themselves the farmers' friends trying to impose this additional burden of taxation upon them. He was determined to go to a division upon this clause, even though no one should go into the lobby with him.

hoped, the right hon. Secretary of State would detail to the Committee the steps to be taken for fixing the quotas in counties, and the persons who were to be liable. They should, at all events, have a list of the exemptions before them.

said, every person would be liable to serve in the militia, except those exempted by the 42nd of Geo. III.

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) was quite aware that the 42 Geo. III. was to be brought into operation; but what he asked was, that the Government should state who were liable under that Act. He wanted the right hon. Secretary of State to explain the conditions implied in this clause; but if the right hon. Gentleman did not do so, and state what were the conditions laid down in the 42 Geo. III., how could they be expected to proceed? They were, for practical purposes, re-enaeting the provisions of the 42 Geo. III.

wished the Committee to remember that the present clause merely gave powers, in order to provide for any contingency that might arise, to fix the quotas of men in the respective districts in a way that would be fair and reasonable. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) asked him to explain the whole of the conditions laid down in the 42 Geo. III.; but he thought that a somewhat unreasonable request. Supposing the ballot to be in operation, every person of a certain age would be liable to serve, with the exceptions enumerated in that Act. They had in no respect altered that Statute as to exemptions; and all they were now doing by this clause was to arrange the mode of fixing the quotas.

said, if the ballot had been given up, as he understood it was, till the new Parliament met, there was no need of this clause. But in case this clause should pass, the Government would, in the terms of it, forthwith put the country to the immediate inconvenience of making up lists of those liable to serve. Every householder would be required to make up a list of those liable within his house, and that list would appear on the church doors, with a surplus of time for entering claims to be exempted. If they put off the ballot to a certain day for the further opinion of Parliament, why should they enact this clause? If he was correct in that, he must move the postponement of this clause till after the consideration of the compulsory clauses.

said, there was nothing in this clause requiring lists to be made up, for the Queen in Council would fix the proportion of men required for each district, chiefly from the returns made under the last Act.

But what is that liability?

said, it seemed to him the difference arose upon the word "forthwith." Now, if the ballot clause were struck out of the Bill, this clause would not be required at all, while, as regarded the ballot clause itself, it was not proposed to have the ballot until the 1st of January, and, therefore, that one would be totally unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman, he must say, was leading them into a quagmire, in giving them a clause which had been introduced in a Bill made fifty years ago, with many provisions in it, far from applicable to the temper of the people or the exigencies of the times.

explained, that the object of the Bill was to raise the men by voluntary enlistment, and if the number were not fixed by the Queen in Council, they would be forced to put the ballot in operation in some circumstances.

would ask whether the Government intended putting the ballot in force in one county to make up the deficiency in another county?

said, that if in England and Wales the whole number of men proposed were procured, though in some districts the numbers might be smaller than in others, the ballot would not be enforced in any district. When the men were procured, the object of apportioning a quota to every district was, that they should give credit to every district furnishing its quota of men, and such districts, therefore, would be exempted from the ballot.

suggested the postponement of all the compulsory clauses, and this among the rest. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that this Act followed the 43 Geo. III.; but there was a difference in the ages specified in each Act. It could hardly be said, therefore, that this strictly followed the 43 Geo. III.

said, there was nothing compulsory in this clause, which, in fact, was merely to enable the Crown to apportion the number of men in each district.

thought that the Committee should have an opportunity afforded it of considering the various things mentioned in this clause.

begged to be allowed to explain the principle of a militia. It was, that a certain force be raised, in certain proportions, over different counties. In order to ascertain the number of men to serve, there must be quotas arranged for each county, and it was absolutely necessary they should ascertain the quota to serve in each county, whether the number was supplied by voluntary enlistment or by the ballot.

wished to put this case: Supposing that there were ten counties who were each to supply ten men, that would make altogether a hundred men. Now, if fifty-five men volunteered from Ireland, how would they apportion the remaining number of men to each county?

said, that in the 10th Clause it would be seen the volunteers would be confined to persons residing in each county.

said, he did not understand why they could not dispose of the volunteer system in the Bill without reference to quotas.

said, if it were not intended to resort to the ballot, of course there would be no necessity for quotas.

asked, whether it was intended that the Lord Lieutenant of a county might enrol more than the quota of his county?

said, that the provisions of the 8th Clause would be necessary only in the event of having recourse to the ballot; and that by the 10th Clause they would raise a certain amount of volunteers in each county, and probably only the proportionate number which each county ought to furnish; but he had prepared a proviso to that clause to the effect that when a county had furnished its proper number of volunteers, it should also be allowed to funish a supplemental number, with the view of raising the whole number of men required in the aggregate.

declared himself to be still at a loss to understand the meaning of the Government. The question was, whether the Government intended by the Bill to say that, in the first instance, a certain number of men should be the quota for each county by voluntary enlistment or by ballot, or was it the intention to raise 80,000 men by voluntary enlistment from whatever parts of the country they could be got?

said, if the right hon. Gentleman would take the Bill in his hand and examine it, he would see that there were three divisions, and that down to the end of the 9th Clause it provided that a certain number of men were to be raised as a militia force; it would follow, therefore, as a matter of course, that these men would be raised in the ordinary way that the militia had hitherto been raised under the 42 Geo. III., namely, by having recourse to the ballot. For that purpose it was necessary to fix the proper quota which each county was to furnish, giving the Queen in Council the power to alter those quotas as might be deemed necessary. From the 10th to the end of the 15th Clause it was provided, that in the operation of raising the force, the necessity for the ballot might be superseded by allowing men to volunteer. And from the 15th Clause the Bill enabled the Crown to have recourse to the ballot, after giving credit to the different counties, subdivisions of counties, and parishes, for the number of men they had furnished by voluntary enlistment. The passing of this clause would, therefore, be simply to say, that if recourse were had to the ballot under the 42 Geo. III., the Crown should have the power of fixing the quotas.

said, that the 10th Clause contained no provision for the Lord Lieutenant of a county to raise the necessary quota of men, and this appeared to corroborate the view that 80,000 men were to be raised from any part of the country.

The intention of the Bill is, that you shall raise volunteers in certain quotas from the counties, and that the ballot may be resorted to, if a sufficient number cannot be had. It has occurred to me, as I have previously stated, that it might be allowable for counties which have furnished their quotas, to furnish a supplemental number; but that is a question for the Committee to decide.

begged to ask how the numbers were to be apportioned, supposing one county furnished 500 men, and another only 300?

said, the object of the Bill was, first of all, to raise a gross number of militiamen; but that gross number was to be distributed over the counties in certain proportions to each. Those proportions must be ascertained; and the 8th Clause provided, therefore, that the quotas should be fixed by Her Majesty in Council. But the quota being fixed, voluntary enlistment was what they proposed to look to, in the first instance, to supply the required force; consequently it was necessary that the quotas should he established as a preliminary measure to ascertain the number of militiamen who were to serve for each county. If they could get the exact number by voluntary enlistment, everything would have been done that was necessary; but if they did not get the exact number, then the ballot would come in aid to supply the deficiency, but only in that event. Thus it would be seen that it was absolutely necessary to begin by fixing the quota. It was the very foundation of all their operations, and without it they could not proceed one step, either in the way of voluntary enlistment or the ballot.

Did he understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean, that in case the Middlesex quota, for instance, was fixed at 5,000 men, that county would not be allowed to raise more than that number; so that, if it proposed to raise 8,000, 3,000 of them would be rejected?

With all due submission to my hon. and learned Friend, we should not reject one. We would not raise them.

said, he believed the mating out of the lists and the appeals formed one of the worst features of the militia system, giving rise to a litigation which would be needless, except under a compulsory system. The 8th Clause, as it stood, ought not to pass, because it involved questions of fitness, &c, which would be useless unless the ballot was resorted to; and therefore, until it were decided that there should be a ballot, the clause ought to be postponed. The Bill had an entirely new principle imported into it. By the 42 Geo. III., the number of men to serve in the militia was settled, and then the question was considered as to who were fit and liable persons; and in order to do this, a list of householders was necessary. In this Bill, however, the Government wanted to begin by enacting that, as soon as the Bill had passed, the number of men fit and liable to serve was to be ascertained. As this was an entirely new principle, he begged to move that the consideration of the clause be postponed for the present.

said, he understood the 80,000 were to be raised by voluntary enlistment. But, so far as that went, the "Witness and liability" of the men mattered not in this clause, and these words could be omitted.

said, the intention of the Government was that the quota should be the basis of the increase, endeavouring to supply it first by the voluntary enlistment, and then falling back on the ballot. By the clause the number only would be fixed, not the particular men.

thought all that was necessary was, to give power to raise a certain number of men in each county. The words "fit and liable" ought to be left out.

agreed to leave out the words "fit and liable" provided the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) would allow the clause to pass.

said, he would not consent to any compromise of the kind. The best way would be to postpone the clause.

could not see that the omission of the words "fit and liable" would make any real difference in the case, except to render the clause very much worse English than it was before. Acts of Parliament ought to be drawn according to the rules of grammar. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not agreed upon the exact nature of the clause, and he thought they ought to have an opportunity of reconsidering it.

said, he was quite ready to let the words "fit and liable" remain.

asked what necessity there was for ascertaining the number of men fit for the militia in each county, as a preliminary to the apportionment of the numbers, when it would be easy to make the apportionment with quite sufficient exactness by taking the proportion to the population? For example, if 80,000 men were to be levied, and the population of England was 16,000,000, what was there to do but to take one man in two hundred of the population in each county?

asked whether the Government had any objection to add a schedule to the Bill containing a list of exemptions and exceptions which might be claimed?

said, this clause provided that a certain quota of men should be fixed to be raised in each county; but by the 10th Clause it appeared that power was given to raise the whole number of men in any one county, and he wished to know whether the Government intended to persist in demanding that power?

replied, that it certainly was not intended to raise the whole number of men in any one county; and in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Mowatt) he said he could not accede to his suggestion to add to the Bill a schedule containing all the exemptions.

said, he still objected to the words "fit and liable," but really thought they had better postpone the clause until they had got further into the Bill.

said, he was willing to give up the words objected to, if the hon. Member would allow the clause to be then proceeded with.

said, a reference to the 19th and 20th sections of the Act of the 42 Geo. III. whould show the total non-necessity of the words alluded to; they did not occur in those sections, and were not necessary here.

said, he would not object to the omission of them.