The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-03 00:00:00

IN F N THIS WEEK, One Penny,
Lord Stanley. lI.P.
I'm oft to Malta.
Lions of literature.
ittraanack and Diary.
Prim Sways.
Comic Encyclopedia, ita.

Now ready, handsomely bound
paln
id magenta cloth, 'Avec. U.
post
THE SECOND HALF-YEARLY TOLL, HZ of FUN, with numer-
ous Engravings by talmetedartesta, and articles by distinguished
welters.
The First Volume. sulta
Inweswlteet na with the Second Toluene, on sale,
n SO,

HARMONITIMS.-NEW MODEL
CRAY= BULL mg WOOD, 101. Regentstmt.

CIS FIRST CLASS and LONDON PRIZE
MEDAL?,
WATIIERSTON and BROGDEN,
GOLD6IIIIII6 and JEWILLLICIM
7(nanbtekey,l6, Menrietts-dreet, Covenbgarden, W.C., London,
N.B. Mk establishment la cloned at 6ln the evening, and on
Baumtap at 1 o'clo,t.

Vie erprel4o.

TO 0.017.116P0ND1:479.

A Ivertleements Intended kr :11:;"6ye;;O° Loudon Ktonlas
Paper, must be as the adios. 10, Bouverlootrest, by Two
d clock on the day o pabacatka.

ttOVILYT GARDEN.
TAM VINING. WYE TRIUMPH. Mr. G. Perren, Mr W.
H. Wein. Madams Lanza Nazar. aad Mao Louisa Pyur —And
DANLIQUIN BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.—Couductor,
UNA. Itelloa.—OoRMOSIKO at tea Mattes to T.

11Anl4.111X.

TKOP Otrit AMiRICAN &SUN. Year. Scabs=
aad Buckskin : Kra t ntnrilllam -RASSRLAS PRISMS OF
ABYSSINIA. Mr. Conn= and Mir L Reany.—Aad OUR
MARY ANN& Mr. Clark sad Mks /iartieur.

Tarorsur
KYILVEIIO, LAW v. LOTH —ONE
TITER DISKRT ES
A HOTEL& Hr. R. torby sod KW Any iodirwlek. - And
HIQUHT WITH THE TUFT : or, Harlequin and Haber Sillpton.
Main. =ono, R. Power, and Mallard; HW A. Coillasoo.

LYCEUM.
THIS ItennlMO, A RUDDILY MACK. Meson Wldelleontb,
Garden. sad Shore: Mai Henrsde and Mrs. lac And Tlit
DUKES MOTTO. Vern. Pechter, 0. Wining, Browthese, and
Itayntood ; Mimes C. Leclerc% K. Terry, Lc,' Kleweetkr.

BRITANNIA.

Mg Lira NMI, the l'anfoniiMe,.nifiiN HASSAN. lira lane;
Mean. ammo, Louie Newham, and Wile. Celeste ilteu
To Sayers and big two performing Mulea—AndVf
KEdIONeTONS —Commence at hall-pant 8.

NISH WATER AT LONDON REIDGE.
TZIII DAT —llanda& ff► OlR....Aftwown. 211. ITM.
Taawiuww—Manshig, IR Um.....Abimsoco. 20. Mas.

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3.

THE Duke of Wau.rworow, in his letter of 1847,
points out the year 1804 as one which, in some
respects, we may regard as a model in considering
the defence of England. In recommending that
an account should be taken of our warlike
stores, in comparison with the quantities we
kept in hand in that year, he says: " I have
" taken the year 1804 as the standard, as that
" was the year in which the invasion was threat-
" sued. It was previous to the employment of
" our armies in the Peninsula or North America ;
"in abort, as nearly as possible similar to the

" political circumstances in which we stand at this
" moment, excepting that we are now at peace
" with France ; we were then at war."
Some weight must undoubtedly be given to the
_ _ _

circumstance which his Grace aavertato as form-
ing the sole distinction between 1804 and 1847.
At the former epoch we had been for a whole year
at war with France. Its ruler was the greatest
master of the art of attack whom modern
Europe has beheld, and the Duke of Ws:ma:so-
ros has himself spoken of his presence with
the army as equivalent in value to
40,000 men. He had warned our ambaa-
sador, Lord Warrwoirn, even before war
was declared, that if it should break out he
would make a descent on our shores, and that his
army would be raised to 480,000 strong. Of
these he had, in 1804, actually collected 150,000
on the heights of Boulogne, and had prepared
4,000 transports to effect tho passage. He had
not yet lost the possibility of securing the com-
mand of the seas, for Trafalgar was not fought till
October, 1805. Therefore beyond a doubt, when
we compare 1804 with 1863 we must admit some
difference in the attitude proper for this nation at
the two periods. The difference may be fairly
enough regarded as equivalent to that between
troops actually under arms as in presence of the
foe, and troops ready to be called to arms should
a friend become suddenly hostile. We may
therefore say, that if we maintain the regular
army of the same strength at the two
periods, the militia and other forces for the
special and limited purpose of defence, who were
embodied in 1804, may be allowed to be disem-
bodied, and only liable to be called out if required
during this present year. Such a distinction is
consistent with reason, and with the proposition of
the Duke of WELLINGTON, that our stock of ma-
teriel, which cannot be improvised, should be no
leas now than then. Let us, then, see bow the
comparison stands on these principles.
In 1804, it appears from a return of the Awn-
rsirr-Getrsaax presented to Parliament in 1805,
that the total of Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry
in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Channel Islands
was 94,553. By the Ist of January, 1805, it
had risen only to 99,173. But of these numbers,
27,890 in the former year and 20,747 in the
latter are stated as being only " for limited
" service," being raised under Acts passed on the
emergency, authorising a levy of men to
serve in Great Britain only, and for a short
period. They were, therefore, in point of fact,
nothing more than embodied militia. The result
is, that in 1804 we had only for home defence
66,663, and in 1805 78,426, regular troops.
We had of militia (including the men " for limited
" service ") in 1804 113,409, and in 1805
110,556 men. Of volunteers there were stated
by Lord CarerLimascit to be 410,000, but of these
120,000 had no muskets, and were only partially
supplied with pikes. On an average, then, we
may say that throughout 1804 we had 70,000 re-
gulars, 112,000 embodied militia, and 290,000
volunteers, such ea they were, "with muskets."
In 1863 we have 89,000 regulars, 108,000 militia
and volunteers, though not " embodied" yet ready
to be so at an hour's notice, and 100,000 more
volunteers within a fortnight of the like stage.
Nor let us forget that we had in 1804 drained
every available man from the colonies—we
left in them no more than 34,000 men,
excluding troops in India, while at this moment,
according to Sir G. Lewis, we have in them, with
the like exclusion, 60,000 men. These being the
facts, can it be gravely maintained that our present
situation demands that we should keep at home an
army exceeding by 20,000 regular troops what we
found sufficient in 1804 1 The excess is almost
exactly correspondent with what in a recent article
we showed to exist in our force beyond that which
the Duke of Wexusoroze thought requisite. And
we are, therefore, doubly justified in the conclusion
that it is beyond what is needed for defence, and
is of use only for purposes of aggressive war.
Such is the reit& established by the incontesta-
ble authority of facts and figures. But we may
with some interest (though perhaps with lees accu-
racy, for there are few official statements of the
strength of our armies when in foreign lands) pursue
the consideration of our military position down

through Liter periods of the same great war, when
we had commenced to send out those mighty ex-
peditions which ultimately wrested the Peninsula